How “Potential Fear of Retribution” Could Have Chauvin Case Thrown

The contentious trial of Derek Chauvin did not end with the guilty verdict. Chauvin and his lawyer are now moving to have the trial thrown out, claiming that the decision was made under external pressure and a “potential fear of retribution” among the jury. Given the great number of issues which have come together to render the verdict almost absurdly suspect, the courts may be unable to deny these requests for a new trial.

A very questionable jury

Chauvin was found guilty on all charges in one of the most closely watched trials in recent American history.  Now we are learning even more about why this verdict was almost inevitable.

Chauvin lawyer Eric Nelson began the trial by requesting a change in locations, a request which was inexplicably denied by the court.

Requests for a sequestered jury were also denied, meaning that jurors were able to hear everything which was being said about the trial in the media.

They were also able to hear statements from politicians like Maxine Waters, who publicly threatened riots and retaliation if her desired verdict was not reached by the jury.

The Derek Chauvin case would have been almost impossible for any juror to have not known about and formed an opinion on. We now know that at least one juror was extremely opinionated from the start.

Juror Brandon Mitchell has since admitted that he lied under oath to be selected for the jury, claiming to know very little about the case while actually being a BLM activist who hoped to force a guilty verdict.Chauvin

Chauvin lawyer fights back

Now Nelson is fighting to have the verdict thrown out, accusing state prosecutors of misconduct and pointing out that a cloud of jury intimidation and aggressive media coverage colored the entire trial.

Under a fair judicial system it would be almost impossible to deny what is being argued by Nelson and Chauvin; the trial appears to have been basically a judicial lynching.

Under the American judicial system, however, things are much less certain. The Minnesota Attorney General has vowed to vigorously oppose these arguments and accusations.

Given the record of the court in failing repeatedly to secure a fair and impartial jury for Chauvin, Nelson and his client will again have an uphill battle, even with overwhelming evidence on their side.

It is very clear that a number of important people who are meant to be impartial about the case are in fact very opinionated and determined to see Chauvin declared guilty by any means necessary.

For now, at least, the defense is determined to keep up the fight and throw out the results of what has always appeared to be a sham trial.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Article

This Bill Would Make it Possible For Younger Adults to Protect Themselves from Criminals

Next Article

Experts Confirm Killer Virus Leaked From Lab

Related Posts