Derek Chauvin used force against suspects before George Floyd. The jury won't hear about 6 of those

[peppertree]

Source: USA Today

Seventeen complaints filed with Minneapolis police about Derek Chauvin. Six times in which prosecutors say Chauvin used force against arrestees. George Floyd's arrest for aggravated robbery in 2007.

The jury considering murder and manslaughter charges against Chauvin won't hear about any of those incidents. Their verdict may be influenced as much by what they don't know as what they do.

Chauvin, a white former Minneapolis police officer, is accused of killing Floyd, 46, a Black man, by pressing his knee into Floyd's neck as he lay handcuffed on the ground.

In the run-up to the trial, both sides sought to introduce evidence about Chauvin and Floyd's past actions.

Prosecutors wanted to introduce eight incidents involving Chauvin. Hennepin County District Judge Peter Cahill allowed two of them.

Read more: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/04/01/derek-chauvin-trial-past-violence-force-arrestee-george-floyd/7020506002/

---

Defense attorney Eric Nelson and disgraced Minneapolis Police officer Derek Chauvin: The fix is in?

[soothsayer]

1. He's killed 5 or 6

[peppertree]

2. Typical Nazi psychopath

Had Needy Amin succeeded in installing himself for a second term, Chauvin would've been pardoned - and then hired on as a Faux News talking head.

That second part might happen anyway of course.

[rsdsharp]

6. Chauvin is being tried on state charges.

The President, any President, only has the power to pardon for Federal offenses.

[peppertree]

7. True - but HAD Cheeto been re-installed, he would've made sure the Extreme Court changed that ASAP

"State charges? I am the State!"

[rsdsharp]

8. Uh, no. That's in Article II of the Constitution.

[peppertree]

9. Sure - but you can imagine how much all that matters to Boofman, Pubic Hair, and Scalito

The Constitution's written in pencil as far as they're concerned.

[rsdsharp]

10. I don't think that's accurate, and in any event,

three votes isn’t enough to grant cert.

[peppertree]

11. There's Whoresuch and the Handmaid too, don't forget

And I doubt they would have shown much restraint, faced with the prospect of 4 more years of His Orangeness.

[rsdsharp]

12. There were, I believe, three cases related to the election

presented to the Supreme Court. One of those was a case of original jurisdiction. All were focused on attempting to overturn the election and give Trump four more years. None of them were successful.

[peppertree]

13. Sure - but imagine, if you will, an outcome in which Trump HAD succeeded

You really think most of those Bush/Trump appointees (except Roberts) would offer any resistance to Needy Amin?

Not if they valued their lives.

[rsdsharp]

14. You have your fantasies, I have mine.

[PatSeg]

4. That is what I read

An awful lot of deaths for one police officer and yet he was still on the job. Plus I believe he had already cost the city a lot of money in settlement claims.

[HighFired49]

24. Link(s)?

I could only find references to three shootings he was involved in, only one of which said that Chauvin was the cop who actually shot a suspect. He was part of a group of cops who fired on suspects in the other two incidents.

[PatSeg]

25. Sorry, it was very recent

but I can't remember if I heard it on TV or read it in an article.

[Evolve Dammit]

3. WTF? That seems awfully relevant to the case if there is an established pattern. nt

[peppertree]

5. Precisely why the judge won't allow it

The fix is in. A Faux News "analy$t" gig awaits for Mr. Chauvin.

[Evolve Dammit]

15. My God. Please say that's not the case. The judge has been very curt with the EMT for example.

[peppertree]

16. I wouldn't say that's necessarily the case - but that it's possible

You'll recall, just to name one very well-known example, how the judge in the Trayvon Martin case deliberately misled the jury into a not guilty ruling for 'El Chapo' Zimmerman.

These judges know that the police know where they live - all the more so in a case like Chauvin's.

[Evolve Dammit]

19. The "intimidation" of judges is a very disturbing component of life in the "new normal." WW west.

[peppertree]

20. +1

As Cheeto would put it: 'Don't be too nice'.

And he didn't mean just the suspects.

[cstanleytech]

21. Had the judge allowed all of the incidents to be told to the jury then it could have risked any

verdict of guilty being thrown out so limiting it like the judge did makes sense.

[Evolve Dammit]

26. I will trust your insight

[Deminpenn]

28. It would result in a mistrial

nt

[Hugh Bloody Bastards]

17. The judge is a Chauvinist

And also, quite clearly, a pig!

[peppertree]

18. Huzzah!

You just can't make these things up.

[TomSlick]

23. Or, the judge may be familiar with the rules of evidence and does not want to be reversed on appeal.

See my post 22 below.

The judge may be a chauvinist but there is nothing in his rulings to prove that.

[TomSlick]

22. Evidence of prior uncharged misconduct is tough.

Judges must walk a careful line to avoid reversal on appeal. It accomplishes nothing to obtain a conviction if it is reversed on appeal.

The applicable state rule of evidence is probably similar to Federal Rule 404(b)(1): "Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character." There is an exception (there's always an exception) in 404(b)(2): "Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident."

It comes down to a balancing act. Allowing evidence of some such uncharged misconduct to be introduced but not others gives the appearance of the judge engaging in a serious consideration.

This sounds like a judge trying to protect the record.

[lark]

27. Judge is doing everything possible to help Chauvin.

He's practically part of the defense at times, directing defense to ask questions.