Thoughts on the Derek Chauvin trial


Now that it’s over (at least, now that the first trial is over – I expect it to be declared a mistrial) I can comment on some aspects of Derek Chauvin’s trial for third-degree murder in connection with the death of George Floyd.

First, I’ve never seen so politicized a trial in this country since I came to America more than two decades ago.  Consider:

  • While jury selection was in progress, the city of Minneapolis settled a lawsuit by George Floyd’s family for over $20 million.  The prospective jurors could hardly help but be affected by this politically correct and very public admission of guilt, as the trial judge notedThat alone should have been grounds to terminate the trial proceedings on the spot, and move it to a more neutral venue with prospective jurors who would be less likely to be influenced by such news.
  • During the trial, there was a constant bombardment of biased analysis of proceedings in the mainstream media.  Many journalists and outlets appear to have pre-judged the outcome based on their own perspectives and prejudices.  Given that the jury was not sequestered, it’s inevitable that some of this propaganda must have reached at least some of them, and may have influenced their decision.
  • Politicians – notably Maxine Waters, but even including President Biden – disgraced themselves by openly advocating for a “politically correct” verdict.  The judge was moved to comment that their interference would be a strong card in the hand of the defense to move for a mistrial on appeal.  Even after the verdict, some continued to disgrace themselves by their partisanship (take a bow, Nancy Pelosi).
  • The jurors were partially doxxed by a local newspaper while they were deliberating – a crystal-clear instance of attempting to influence their deliberations.  In so many words, the message appeared to be, “If you don’t reach the politically correct verdict, we’ll make sure people know enough about you to track you down and punish you”.

Second, there’s the question of the evidence presented by the prosecution.  Its own witnesses confirmed many of the defense claims, so much so that the defense indicated it might call some of them back for further testimony.  Stymied on the facts of the case, the prosecution proceeded to place more and more emphasis on emotional appeals to the jurors, rather than relying on verifiable evidence that could be cross-examined.  This, IMHO, is one of the worst aspects of the American justice system.  Emotion has no place when you’re deciding on a defendant’s guilt or innocence.  The facts of the matter – what was done, not what might (or should) have been thought or felt or emoted – should decide the issue.  To whip up emotion, over and above the facts, is to obscure and obfuscate the reality of the case.

I’m not going to comment on Derek Chauvin’s guilt or innocence.  I don’t know all the facts of the case, and I’m not qualified or entitled to judge.  I can only say that, on the basis of the evidence as presented at the trial and reported in the mainstream news media, I would not have voted to convict him.  There was substantial evidence of at least negligence, if not callous unconcern, in his actions;  but there was also a reasonable doubt about that evidence.  Given that doubt, I could not have voted for a guilty verdict.

I hope the prison authorities in Minnesota will ensure Mr. Chauvin’s safety behind bars.  I daresay there are many inmates who will be motivated to try to kill or injure him, secure in the knowledge that they’ll be hailed as heroes by the politically correct establishment if they do.  Given the hyper-partisan views of Minnesota’s Attorney-General, they may even think they could get away with such a crime scot-free.  It’s an open question whether Mr. Chauvin can be protected in prison, or whether he should be moved to a different state where emotions over the Floyd affair are running less high.

I expect that this first trial will be overturned on appeal, and a mistrial declared.  That means we get to do it all over again.  I’m not looking forward to the prospect.



  1. The jurors learned from the Rodney King trial. No white cop accused of killing a black man will ever be found not guilty in a Democrat city ever again.

  2. Stolen election, lower courts corrupt and the supreme court feeble, juries afraid to reach a verdict from politically 'correct' pressure – the USA is finished: economically, politically and morally.
    And soon the dollar will lose its reserve status, manufacturing is mostly off-shore (in the control of the Chinese), drug problems are escalating, etc., etc.
    It's no wonder 'President' Xiden wants to take away guns – the people surely will not stand for many more attacks on their personal freedoms.
    Another civil war is coming – better prepare or emigrate.

  3. should have been no trial at all. he ate a bag of dope to conceal it from the popo when they came after him for passing counterfeit twenties. he was asked "whats wrong with you?" he replied "i ate too many drugs". overdose, 3x lethal fentanyl dose plus a miriad of others. end of story. but now we slide down the slope to south africa rules. run the cops off, hoods take their place, run the troops off, hoods enlist for the bennies. bands of hoods kill/rape/rob all night then go to work behind a badge tomorrow. if whitey fights back, the army comes and arrests/disappears the men leaving the women unarmed and defenseless the next night. once the bread basket of the free world, soon to be starving in the dark. welcome to the woke world.

  4. The trial was whether Chauvin murdered Floyd…nothing else. Yet because of mob rule what we saw was a forced result with a cowardly jury who decided they had no choice but to protect themselves. Me, I’m with you…would not bend to threats but would take precaution. Thing is, Floyd might have been dead anyway if he was allowed to walk away…his own words, eerily sounding scripted to the result, indicates he knew he was close to dying. But murdered? Not by a mile. The officers called for an ambulance. And what about the other three officers, will the result be the same for them? Likely. And what if Chauvin appeals…and wins?

  5. "This, IMHO, is one of the worst aspects of the American justice system. Emotion has no place when you're deciding on a defendant's guilt or innocence."

    Actually this was one of the selling points of the jury system. If you are only going to decide guilt or innocence on the facts, you don't need a jury at all, you can just have a judge or a computer analyze the case. The point of a jury system was to ensure that a fair trial was held including the ability of a jury to apply community norms and the ability of a jury to throw out a bad law and find the accused not guilty in spite of the evidence (jury nullification). Juries are protection against overbearing authority. Unfortunately, in this case the overbearing authority has decided to railroad the defendant (I have no firm opinion on his guilt although I lean towards "not murder but bad judgement requiring consequences").

    I recommend Twelve Angry Men as worth watching, although to be fair, there was no mob waiting outside to attack Henry Fonda if he voted "wrong".

  6. I agree that in a properly functioning judicial system this should either be a mistrial or be thrown out on appeal. We no longer have a properly functioning judicial system. As for emotional decisions, for some reason I get called for jury duty a lot and have been through the voir dire process many times and it always seems to me that both the prosecution and the defense are looking specifically for jurors who can be emotionally manipulated. The only time I ever get actually empaneled is when they are trying to scare someone into a civil settlement or plea deal and that works by the way. I have not had to sit through an actual case yet.

  7. I have been on multiple trials as a juror including a homicide trial. It was clear that the prosecution had to do two things in a homicide: 1) give an exact cause of death, and 2) tie the person they were trying to convict to causing it. In the Floyd Case I saw so many "experts" brought in that gave various reasons for causes of death there was no tie in for Chauvin.

    The worse thing was the Judge's handling of the case. The Judge knew before the trial started that it was a political mess. He should have immediately sequestered the Jury, then made anyone that got into or had info on the trial blocked from sharing with media until the Jury came back with a verdict, and any media in the trial be blocked from showing the trial until the Jury verdict.

  8. It may or may not be that officer Chavin was criminally culpable but this circus was so politicized that we cant possibly tell. In the interest of justice this has to be overturned. My friends and family on the left are so blind to the biases of this trial that they cant see it wasnt fair.

  9. At what point does the criminal have to take responsibility for the outcome of the arrest? If they refuse to comply and become belligerent or attempt to get away, what options do the police have other than responding in kind. They can't just let them go or we'll have anarchy. I don't know all the details in the Floyd arrest and the subsequent trial but from what I've read he did have the option to peacefully comply rather than swallowing a lethal dose of drugs and putting himself and the arresting officers in jeopardy.

  10. Officer Chauvin was a sacrifice to prevent mob violence and guilty or not conviction was inevitable.

    The thing to understand is that the system can't and won't protect jurors , police or anyone mob action even people on their own side.

    It also can't be fixed by "one more good judge." "vote harder" or any other such nostrums. Maybe if some way to get reliable leaders in charge of the GOP who aren't unlike Justice Barret (Vox Day here) taking the ticket and getting 2 million book deals or just Neo COns and CountrY Clubbers maybe the system can be fixed. Last ditch effort.

    Frankly I doubt it and at some points either you get woke fast (assuming White impoverishment slavery or genocide isn't on the offing) or learn to organize to common goals.

    The Right refuses the call to take power and use it wisely, the Left seeing that a vacuum will be filled than takes it. The only option to a functional America is an actual Right no money boys or Neo Cons allowed to take power BAMN

    Now I'm all in favor of trying to fix the leadership since the only other option is civil war and as Axyl Rose put it "What's so civil about war anyway?"

    But if, more likely when it fails, better have an alternative tot he Crazy Years and if youc an't come up with anything else? Go read Starship Troopers.

  11. I have been convinced for some time now that my country – the USA – has been completely taken over by morons.

  12. "Emotion has no place when you're deciding on a defendant's guilt or innocence."

    And yet, I see it happen over and over again right here on this very blog.

    Just let some schmuck get accused – accused, not convicted – of any form of a crime against a child, and it's "off with his head!" – no trial necessary.

  13. Floyd was sack of human waste that died by his own hand. I'm happy to see him dead. Chauvin, while an imperfect person, did not kill him. This simian, and he is a simian, has cost taxpayers even in his death.

  14. I do not share your optimistic belief that the conviction will be overturned on appeal. It is clear that the jurors decided the matter on one of two bases, or some combination of the two: first, they were predisposed to convict due to their racial/political backgrounds, and second, they were intimidated by the possibility of physical, professional or other harm inflicted on them or their families should they return the "wrong" verdict. Since appellate judges are far more easily identified (their bios are well known and widely published) they are subject to exactly the same influences as impacted the jurors. Chauvin had, and continues to have no chance of ever being exonerated. He will spend a dozen years in prison, at least.

  15. I wiser rulership would simply declare that he had committed suicide in custody, while quietly placing him in witness protection, and allowing any family to join him elsewhere some months later.

    The media will be off chasing the next squirrel in a minute or two.

    Problem solved.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *