![Really Makes You Think [787x842 - 1023KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/4LtChu.png){kind=link}
You can't appeal a conviction unless you can show that there was a procedural error or malfeasance. Unless one smart juror says that he/she voted to convict because they were afraid of riots, there's not much chance.
The appeal will be based on any or all of the many factors in the trial that should have caused it to be declared a mistrial.
- Prosecutorial misconduct, particularly in the rebuttal to the closing statements.
- Tainting of the jury by media and politician comments before the jury was sequestered
- The refusal of the judge to poll the jury as to whether they were effected by the comments made (as is required under that state's legal proceedures)
- The dumping of thousands of discovery documents, compiled deliberately in a manner that made them unsearchable and unable to be used until they were printed out and re-sorted. They were dumping something like 500 separate documents on the defence per day.. during the trial.
- Others, that I just can't remember off the top of my head right now.
There are quite a few legal reasons why the verdict could be appealed. I think the judge did this deliberately as he knew the Chauvin was not guilty, but also knew that if he was the judge that found him not guilty, he would be a dead man. The jury understood this too. This is trial by angry mob and a death blow to the already mortally wounded justice system in the US.
The politicization of the whole thing could easily be used to say the jury was tainted. There were outright threats that people would riot if he wasn't convicted.
Let's be honest, they're going to riot anyway, but I think he'll be able to appeal.
Not moving the location alone should have been enough to call a mistrial
The closing arguments for the prosecution the fuckkng idiot they brought in 22 times said the defense was lying!!! This is illigal! The defense tried to stop him 3 times the judge warned him but did nothing. The defense asked for a mistrial it was so fucking wrong.
This alone is enough to appeal this bullshit
She basically did. I know I could argue that.
Hell she even says she HOPES she did the right thing, meaning she did what she was told / felt she had to do, not what she believed she should do.
She was chosen for the jury because she's a weak minded idiot.
They can prove jury tampering. There were open threats made and doxxing by the media occurred before the decision was rendered.
The courts don't have to agree with that assessment. They don't even have to disagree. They can just refuse the hear the appeal.
(post is archived)