You charge all of them, then the judge will sentence on the highest one. If you only charge 1st degree murder, and you can not convince the jury of 1st but enough for 2nd degree, then he goes free. You have to charge 2nd degree and manslaughter also to cover the bases. There will probably be an appeal on sufficiency of evidence which this case actually has a very strong chance of getting reversed on which is rare. The beyond a reasonable doubt standard is a very high standard. There will also be appeals about process errors like denial of certain motions and allowing prosecutors to do certain things with witnesses and evidence.
There will probably be an appeal on sufficiency of evidence which this case actually has a very strong chance of getting reversed on which is rare.
Can you talk more about this part, I don't understand.
The closing arguments some civil rights lawyer for the prosecutions said 22 times the fucking defense was lying <<< this is beyond illigal and the defense 3 times tried to stop them and the judge warned them. It's so bad the defense said a mistrial should be called. The judge is obviously a fucking faggot and did nothing but it sets up an appeal.
Where is the go fund me for Chauvin? Dkes he have kids let's make his kids fucking rich and set for life.
I wonder if that was the plan all long. Find him guilty so Minneapolis doesn't burn but also set up a way to get the conviction overturned on appeal when no one is paying attention.
Why would I stick my neck out for him? So he can put his knee on it for not wearing a mask?
Who cares what happens to a Zogbot, anyways? These robots aren't human.
You can't appeal for "lies" in closing arguments.
You can only appeal on reversible error, like wrong calls on motions or wrong calls on objections.
When you appeal a case, you "assign error" to things that you think the judge did wrong at trial. One of the most common ones for criminal cases is (in)sufficiency of the evidence which basically says that the evidence in the record did not meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. The appellate court will then review the evidence and determine if a "reasonable juror" would be able to find the same verdict from the same evidence. It's essentially just the appellate judges determining if there was enough evidence, but at a slightly looser standard.
That's not right. A unanimous jury found no reasonable doubt. A judge isn't going to invent reasonable doubt for them. There was clear and convincing evidence presented to support the conviction. The jury believed the prosecution, not the defense. It's as simple as that.
They also need to go after that black bitch for inciting violence if the verdict was anything but guilty and subverting the course of justice.
How Maxine Waters is not on trial for treason or inciting a riot or something is beyond me.
That cunt needs to be tried and executed for treason.
2 weeks.
For what?
uh...
there was no evidence to bring him to trial in the first place, there will be no appeal on sufficiency of evidence because clearly no one gives a fuck about the evidence that DOES exist.
Yeah, i think clearly the rule of law in the US has gone, i mean even the highest court in the nation refuses to hear cases concerning election laws/ procedures and the effects of that on individual States so hoping anything on an individual level would be different ain't happening ...
So triple jeopardy is OK as long as it's rolled into one court case.
It is not triple jeopardy, you said yourself that the charges are all in one case. They are just backup charges for reasons I explained. The judge will only sentence based on the highest one.
What would stop the law from engaging in 40 jeopardy by rewriting a law with slight variation 40 times, for which if any one is applicable than probably the majority are applicable and hearing the same matter 40 times until they run out of nearly duplicate laws?
Hate speech while wearing a shirt. Hate speech while wearing pants. Hate speech from the hours of 1am to 11pm. Hate speech from the hours of 2am to 12am. Hate speech from the hours of 3am to 1am the following day. Hate speech from 1:23am to 11:56pm. Hate speech from 1:23am to 11:55pm.
It is triple-jeopardy. The state gets to hold essentially three trials in one. Just because the cases run concurrently doesn't make it one case. If the accused is acquitted of charge #1, the state still has charge #2, and #3.
I understand that courts have ruled that as long as the state rolls their cases up into one court proceeding the accused can face unlimited charges for one incident, but I think it's been established that the courts have way overstepped their Constitutional authority long ago in many regards.
Thanks for a response with actual information.
And honestly with all the political meddling during jury deliberations, I have a hard time seeing how a higher court doesn't remand.
The constitution says;
"[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..."
Which means CHARGED WITH. Not convicted of, but charged with. What you're preaching is jew law, which isn't law.
<---I AM NOT A LAWYER -- THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE ---> agree or disagree isnt an issue, this is the way it works as I understand it.
after he is found not guilty, or some other verdict that clears him, he cant be charged again with the same offense.
Chauvin is charged with 3 distinct offenses for the same crime. Being charged with multiple violations of law for the same crime is quite common in our criminal justice system, from things like the local traffic level on up to the federal murders.
You can be charged with breaking multiple laws, and in situations like this one, only the highest will apply as they are all for the responsibility of this individuals death. Had he been charged with something else along the way, say some other infraction at the event that was not part of the death, but was still part of the event itself, thye could find guilty on that and add to the sentence for the death charge.
as @lawfag stated. Sp they can be sure to get a conviction on at least some level for the responsibility of the death.
You can’t charge intentional and non-intentional.... how could it be both? It was a LAZY jury that wanted no part on it.
(post is archived)