Do you understand how Derek Chauvin was found guilty of all three charges of: unintentional second-degree murder; third-degree murder; and second-degree manslaughter?

It’s because since the jury decided that Chauvin met the bar for the worst of the crimes, he also easily met the definition of the lesser crimes too, and the state allows for a finding of guilty on all charges.

Over the eight minutes it was argued that Chauvin moved from simple negligence to actually actively killing Floyd once he had become unresponsive.

It was predicted by analysts who I had seen talking about it that they felt if he is founding guilty of a more serious charge, he would also be found guilty on the lesser charges.

He was charged with all three crimes and tried on all three.

@LuckyGuy This article e plains it well.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/20/us/chauvin-guilty-verdict-sentencing.html

I share the same confusion. To my simple mind, the jury instruction should have been: “First deliberate on second degree murder. If you find him guilty on that, you are done. Otherwise, go on to Murder in the third degree. If you find him guilty on that you are done. Otherwise, go on to the Manslaughter charge.”

In any case, according to

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.035

he can be sentenced for only the most serious charge, in this case Second Degree murder.

@canidmajor That article explains. I really like the NYTimes.
Apparently I was not the only one on the planet to wonder about this.

@JLeslie I can see how over the period of 9 minutes the crime can change.

@LuckyGuy I wonder if they are all listed just in case of an appeal? So that it is difficult in appealing. That you need to overturn all three for an acquittal.

I believe they found him guilty on all three to make sure he does time for his crime. Harder to wriggle out of three.

I still don’t get it. Seems like one action, one victim, one crime. Obviously they charged all three because they could but once you get to second degree murder, the parameters of the other two are automatically met and not separate offenses. As a juror, I would have had difficulty finding guilty to all three.

It doesn’t really matter since the time he will/could serve for all three will run concurrently. So whatever the maximum penalty is for that one biggest offense, he will serve (at least a part of ) that one single sentence.

” . . .since the time he will/could serve for all three will run concurrently” It is up to the judge at the time of sentencing in Minnesota. But he could catch 40 years – - – the rest doesn’t matter.

I heard it explained tonight pretty much as @reddeer mentioned, that if he gets off on an appeal for one count, he still will be in jail for the other two.

@RedDeerGuy1 If an appeal is made on the grounds of jury intimidation by Maxine Waters and Joe Biden, I don’t think it matters how many counts Chauvin was found guilty on. The trial will have to be done again.

Judge Cahill to Eric Nelson, Chauvin’s attorney: “Well, I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned,” Judge Peter Cahill replied.

@crazyguy Wouldn’t that be an ironic twist?
———————————-
Here is more on that interaction:
“I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law,” Cahill said. “I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so respectfully and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government.”

He went on to call Waters’s comments “abhorrent” but not prejudicial to the jury.

“They have been told not to watch the news,” Cahill said. “I trust that they are following those instructions.”

“A congresswoman’s opinion doesn’t matter a whole lot,” he added, denying Nelson’s motion for a mistrial.

The American system, for decades, has incentivized throwing as many charges as possible. It helps to pressure people into pleading out, biases juries and judges against defendants, and subsidizes the bounty hunter industry. Chauvin just got the usual business any defendant gets.

@LuckyGuy As far as I can see, it wasn’t just the elected reps. The general population also took sides and expressed their feelings so strongly that there was no way to assure a fair trial for Chauvin.

@Smashley You are absolutely correct. I am not sure whether the objective is biasing the jury, or confusing it.

@crazyguy – it’s to bias the jury against the defendant. It helps prosecutors with their conviction rates and efficiently moves bodies through the prison industrial complex.

@Smashley Having served on a jury, I can tell you it is so hard to tread the narrow path between innocent and guilty. If you add more counts, the jury’s task is increased substantially. Now you have to create and fill more gaps between the legal outcomes. And it is not easy!

If the jury had found Chauvin not guilty on Murder 2, or if they had even deadlocked on it, they would be still at it. As it was, once they found him guilty on Murder 2, the other counts were automatic.

@crazyguy: I have never heard of a Congressman or President appealing for a trial to be overturned. I don’t think it’s possible (as per what @LuckyGuy referred to).

@jca2 I do not think that Waters and Biden were doing that. They were just pressuring the jury to return a guilty verdict. I have never heard of that in any trial before this one.

Biden did not give his opinion until after the jury was sequestered. He is permitted to do that.

As to the attitude of the public, it is based on viewing the video, the same video that the jury was shown. It is a shame that a black person has no chance of justice without filmed evidence.

@crazyguy – interesting points, though I doubt in Chauvin’s case, he wouldn’t have been convicted of at least one of the charges.

@crazyguy: As the Jury was instructed to not watch the news, they shouldn’t have been hearing anything from the news, during the duration of the trial.

@jca2 Would you like to buy this bridge I am selling?

@LostInParadise Is that why no President in history has done that?

@Smashley I agree. He was guilty of at least manslaughter.

Do you have a source for your statement?

@crazyguy Would you cheat if you were on a jury? Or, take the instructions of the judge seriously?

@crazyguy I do not think the jury was swayed one bit by the publicity. No doubt, they watched the video many times and likely watched it frame by frame. They know more about the case than anyone else on the planet.
It is presumptuous of us to second-guess their unanimous decision.

I asked the question because I wanted to understand it. Now I do.
Politicians (and trolls) on both sides of the aisle need to STFU.

I saw an alternate juror in an interview and she said she also would have voted guilty. She basically said the evidence and testimony left no doubt in her mind.

@JLeslie Would it be cheating? I honestly do not know. I am thinking of a situation where some family member leaves the TV on at a decent volume and I just catch snippets.

@LuckyGuy My wife tells me all the time to temper my statements in order to make fewer enemies. Sometimes, I must admit that I do. Because she means more to me in this world than anybody else.

You don’t think Jurors have loved ones they care about?

@JLeslie By appearing on TV, the alternate juror outed herself. She better say what she did, or she might find herself dead!

@crazyguy Your point is . . . . !

Derek Chauvin was found guilty and will be sentenced in less than eight weeks

@crazyguy Yes, it’s cheating.

The trial was over when the alternate did the interview.

@JLeslie I am not sure who you are calling a cheater – the alternate juror or the interview? My point was that if the alternate jury had said the opposite of what she said, her life would have been made miserable by the BLM supporters.

But the evidence at the trial showed he was guilty and that decision was made by the jury and not made to show support of BLM.

The alternate juror wasn’t obligated to give an interview at all. The fact that she gave the interview showed she really wanted to say what she said.

@jca2 You are absolutely correct that she wasn’t obligated to give an interview. However, the second part of your post: The fact that she gave the interview showed she really wanted to say what she said. is a huge assumption.

Perhaps she thought that her neighbors would suspect her of being a racist and she wanted to buy her and her family’s safety.

@crazyguy: For that matter, your assumption may be incorrect. Actually, any assumption about her or her goals is very likely to be incorrect.

I also agree with @LuckyGuy that it’s very presumptuous of any of us to second guess the jury.

So by your logic @crazyguy:

the only reason Chauvin was found guilty by the jury was

. . . they were afraid their neighbors that might be members of BLM !

I’d be afraid of just the opposite , if you will, members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys found out you voted to find Chauvin guilty !

@jca2 I just gave a scenario in order to show you that your assumption may be faulty. I was not making that assumption.

“Perhaps she thought that her neighbors would suspect her of being a racist and she wanted to buy her and her family’s safety.” @crazyguy

@crazyguy: I’m sure you’ve heard the saying “When you assume, you make an as out of U and Me.” So let’s stop with the assumptions or discussing possible scenarios.

@jca2 I 100% agree with the saying. That is why I presented my hypothesis as such, while you presented your assumption as fact!

@crazyguy: When I said that if the alternate juror didn’t want to give an opinion, she wouldn’t have and apparently she really wanted to say what she said, that’s a fact because her interview was optional. She was under no obligation to sit before any cameras and give her opinion.

@jca2 You said your piece. Thanks for letting me disagree without calling me names.

@crazyguy, I’m saying I think all jurors heed the instructions of the judge. If they aren’t supposed to watch TV or listen to radio where news might break in and say something about the case, I don’t think they do. I think people take jury duty seriously.

@JLeslie I was on a murder trial jury a few years ago. I did follow the judge’s orders not to read or watch articles on the trial. I think everyone on my jury followed the rules. Probably most people do, as you stated.

@JLeslie @chyna What I said was not deliberately ignoring the Judge’s instructions:

I am thinking of a situation where some family member leaves the TV on at a decent volume and I just catch snippets.

The only reason that he was guilty of ALL charges was because that state has a weird statute called ‘unintentional murder’ which makes no sense, because murder (in reasonable and normal states) requires intent to kill somebody. He basically got charged with a slightly harsher ‘manslaughter’ charge, with a different name. It was fruitless.