It was quite an image yesterday — Derek Chauvin placing his hands behind his back in anticipation of being handcuffed and escorted out of the courtroom by a Hennepin County sheriff’s deputy.
We never did get to see him in a perp walk, however. When I was at The Star, we loved those perp walks. It was, generally, the only chance we had to view and photograph defendants charged with serious crimes before the long wait for their cases to be resolved.
So today, in honor of a now mostly faded tradition, I’ve assembled a perp walk of sorts of five politicians who deserve to be bathed in ignominy for either stupid things they said recently or long-term, disgraceful conduct.
Here we go…
:: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. At a Capitol Hill event Tuesday with the Congressional Black Caucus, she said of George Floyd: “Thank you for sacrificing your life for justice.” Later, after the blowback for that most awkward utterance, she went on Twitter and said, “George Floyd should be alive today.”
:: Former Missouri Health Director Randall Williams. Gov. Mike Parson apparently asked for Williams’ resignation Tuesday after four years of incompetent leadership of the department. Among other things, Williams once ordered up a spreadsheet to track the menstrual periods of women who had visited Planned Parenthood. The purpose? Try to identify those who had undergone failed abortions.
:: State Sen. Amanda Chase, a Virginia Republican: After the Chauvin verdict, Chase (who describes herself as “Trump in heels”) met with supporters in King William County and said: “Today’s verdict makes me sick.”
:: U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. On Twitter, Greene asserted that the Black Lives Matter movement was “the strongest terrorist threat to our country.” Her reasoning? “D.C. is completely dead tonight (with the Chauvin verdict). People stayed in tonight and were scared to go out because of fear of riots.”
:: Former Missouri State Rep. Rick Roeber. This guy was even too much for his fellow conservative Republicans to tolerate. Credibly accused of of sexually and physically abusing his children, he was expelled from the House on a nearly unanimous vote, with one member abstaining. According to one report, Roeber accused his ex-wife and children of fabricating the claims because “all my children are Democrats.”
I predict that Chauvin’s conviction will be overturned on appeal on the following grounds. 1. It was held in Minneapolis where jurors knew the consequences of a not guilty verdict. @ The city gave the Floyd family 27 million dollars before the jury recessed for deliberations obviously indicating guilt. 3. Both Mayor Jacob Frey and moron Maxine Waters made comments suggesting Chauvin’s guilt and inciting violence. Waters (who demanded a police escort) comments were particularly bad and even the judge indicated would probably be grounds for an appeal. Many compared her comments to the tactics used by the KKK in years past. Given these flaws, it’s pretty clear that the verdict was more a function of mob inspired violence than the facts presented at trial. This is clearly not over.
I agree with some comments by John, but disagree with others. No matter where in Minnesota the trial could have moved, I believe the outcome would be the same as the prosecution’s case was extremely strong and almost air-tight. Some potential jurors were released during voir dire (jury selection process) when they said they would be influenced by the $27 million settlement. This should not have been made until after the trial, but I believe the remaining jurors said they could be fair hearing only the evidence and reaching a verdict.
The comments made by the politicians may be a basis to appeal, but I do not believe that the argument will succeed because by that time, either the jury was deliberating, or were ordered not to listen to news media or read any accounts of the trial.
Who knows whether the fear of the consequences influenced some individual jurors–not likely they told the other jurors of their fear. It was not a function of mob inspired violence, that I am able to detect. It is true, however, that the rest of the country put a lot of pressure on the prosecution to charge Chauvin. Is that mob violence influence on the trial? only the appellate courts will be able to make the judgment.
The prosecution questions in rebuttal of Dr. Martin Tobin about a carbon monoxide test could be grounds for a new trial, especially when the prosecutors were ordered not to ask about the text results and to advise Dr. Tobin not to mention it. However, if the defense did not preserve their objection, or it is deemed waived by the defense for apparently accepting the questions and testimony, then that point will not be sustained by the appellate courts.
There are always some errors that occur in a trial. The question is whether the points that Chauvin’s appellate attorneys will be able to establish the errors violated certain rules of evidence, prosecutor comments, and the judge’s rulings rise to sufficient level of reversible error, causing a new trial.
Chauvin will no doubt file a petition to claim he had ineffective assistance of counsel, but those cases infrequently are successful.
Great points, Bill. One thing that might give an appellate court some concern is that the jurors seemed to spend so little time actually reviewing the charges that they convicted him of both intentionally and unintentionally killing the same man. Feedback from attorney friends suggested that that was highly unusual. Does that strike you as a possible flaw or will the judge just ignore the lesser charges during sentencing?
I confess I didn’t watch enough of the trial to make an informed decision as to effectiveness of the prosecutions case, but I did see enough to determine that Chauvin had competent legal counsel.