Jump to content

Closing arguments and jury instructions...


Monte1076

Recommended Posts

 

One thing I've learned through my reading is that the felony murder charges appear to be tied to felony assault charges. In other words, if they can't/don't convict him of felony assault, then they can't convict him of at least one of the murder charges.

From this article: https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/04/chauvin-trial-verdict-prediction-of-sorts-on-legal-merits-alone-not-guilty-but-political-dynamics-drive-injustice/

Quote

In the context of the second-degree murder charge brought against Chauvin under Minnesota statute §609.19, that statute has two subsections.  The first deals with intentional homicides, and drive-by shootings—Chauvin is not charged under that section. The second section deals with unintentional homicides, either in the course of the commission of an underlying felony, or under circumstances involving a court-issued order of protection.

Chauvin was charged with “second degree murder” under that second section, §609.19(2)(1), based upon an unintentional killing in the course of the commission of an underlying felony—what is traditionally called “felony murder.”

The relevant jury instruction for this charge is CRIMJIG 11.28, which appears straightforward enough:

Under Minnesota law, a person causing the death of another person, without intent to cause the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense is guilty of the crime of murder in the second degree.

So if the state hasn't proven felony assault, they can't -- by statute -- prove felony murder.

And a little further down in the article, we get this:

Quote

The relevant portion of the third-degree murder statute, §609.195(a), provides that this offense can apply to a person who kills “without intent to effect the death” of the victim.  The relevant portion of the second-degree manslaughter statute, §609.205(1), simply doesn’t mention intent to kill as an element at all, so clearly intent to kill is not a required element here, either.

That doesn’t mean, however, that intent is irrelevant to either of these criminal statutes, because both statutes require a form of intent independent of an intent to kill.

Specifically, third-degree murder requires a reckless disregard of the danger created to the victim by the defendant’s eminently dangerous conduct. If the state has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s conduct was eminently dangerous (which bring us back to the issue of causation, above) and that the defendant recklessly (consciously) disregarded that risk, then the state has not proven the crime of third-degree murder.

Further, second-degree manslaughter requires that the defendant creates an unreasonable risk, and “consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm.”  If the state has not proven that the defendant intentionally engaged in conduct that had a reasonably foreseeable risk of causing death or great bodily harm, then the state has not proven the crime of second-degree manslaughter.

But we don't know how the jury is going to interpret this, or how they're going to interpret any evidence, or political pressure, or whatever. So we'll have to see. The video for the jury instructions and closing arguments is below:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, DAWG91 said:

I think the jury will be scared of having their houses burned down.

The "message" is already out there: "Give us the verdict we want, or else."

Which sounds a lot like "Nice little business you have here. It'd be a shame if something happened to it."

Maxine Waters has already said he's guilty. Why do we even need a trial? She wants him found guilty of something he's not even being charged with. Can you believe that?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Monte1076 said:

The "message" is already out there: "Give us the verdict we want, or else."

Which sounds a lot like "Nice little business you have here. It'd be a shame if something happened to it."

Maxine Waters has already said he's guilty. Why do we even need a trial? She wants him found guilty of something he's not even being charged with. Can you believe that?

Maxine waters is an idiot.  She’s proven that time after time.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Monte1076 said:

The "message" is already out there: "Give us the verdict we want, or else."

Which sounds a lot like "Nice little business you have here. It'd be a shame if something happened to it."

Maxine Waters has already said he's guilty. Why do we even need a trial? She wants him found guilty of something he's not even being charged with. Can you believe that?

I wouldn't be surprised of anything they did or said at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DAWG91 said:

I think the jury will be scared of having their houses burned down.

He could be found guilty of 1st degree murder and sentence to life in prison, those thugs are still going to riot, regardless. They don't give two cents about George Floyd's death, they just want a reason to loot.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Crawford said:

He could be found guilty of 1st degree murder and sentence to life in prison, those thugs are still going to riot, regardless. They don't give two cents about George Floyd's death, they just want a reason to loot.

“Ding, Ding!” We have a Winner! 🤨👌

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...