HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Derek Chauvin Judge Cahil...

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 05:18 PM

Derek Chauvin Judge Cahill Says Maxine Waters 'Confrontational' Comments Could Cause Mistrial

Source: Newsweek

Derek Chauvin Judge Peter A. Cahill on Monday said that U.S. Democratic California Rep. Maxine Waters could have given the defense grounds to overturn the trial on appeal.

Defense attorney Eric Nelson asked for a mistrial after more than five hours of closing arguments on Monday. He pointed to the heightened media attention and remarks made by Waters on Saturday night during a protest outside the police department in the city of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota.

Cahill denied the motion, but sympathized with the defense's concerns, according to the StarTribune.

"I'll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result on this whole trial being overturned," Cahill said.

Read more: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/derek-chauvin-judge-cahill-says-maxine-waters-confrontational-comments-could-cause-mistrial-1584833%3famp=1

62 replies, 5586 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 62 replies Author Time Post
Reply Derek Chauvin Judge Cahill Says Maxine Waters 'Confrontational' Comments Could Cause Mistrial (Original post)
Jose Garcia Apr 2021 OP
madaboutharry Apr 2021 #1
hlthe2b Apr 2021 #5
MisterNiceKitty Apr 2021 #21
louis-t Apr 2021 #41
maxrandb Apr 2021 #23
Hassin Bin Sober Apr 2021 #58
Nikki28 Apr 2021 #2
hlthe2b Apr 2021 #6
question everything Apr 2021 #48
Blue Owl Apr 2021 #3
bdamomma Apr 2021 #24
LenaBaby61 Apr 2021 #42
geardaddy Apr 2021 #56
Chin music Apr 2021 #4
Bengus81 Apr 2021 #7
Jon King Apr 2021 #8
Ocelot II Apr 2021 #16
SharonClark Apr 2021 #32
Ocelot II Apr 2021 #37
question everything Apr 2021 #49
kacekwl Apr 2021 #9
PoliticAverse Apr 2021 #10
Deminpenn Apr 2021 #11
cannabis_flower Apr 2021 #12
Jose Garcia Apr 2021 #13
Chin music Apr 2021 #18
Chin music Apr 2021 #17
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Apr 2021 #14
Ocelot II Apr 2021 #38
applegrove Apr 2021 #15
LiberalFighter Apr 2021 #19
JohnnyRingo Apr 2021 #20
Chin music Apr 2021 #22
bdamomma Apr 2021 #26
Chin music Apr 2021 #29
JohnnyRingo Apr 2021 #28
Chin music Apr 2021 #30
LenaBaby61 Apr 2021 #45
JohnnyRingo Apr 2021 #54
Jon King Apr 2021 #25
Chin music Apr 2021 #31
Ocelot II Apr 2021 #39
SharonClark Apr 2021 #33
rpannier Apr 2021 #52
Evolve Dammit Apr 2021 #27
dflprincess Apr 2021 #34
Ocelot II Apr 2021 #40
ancianita Apr 2021 #35
Dawson Leery Apr 2021 #36
Schmice3 Apr 2021 #43
Lokilooney Apr 2021 #44
Jon King Apr 2021 #46
ananda Apr 2021 #47
Hugh_Lebowski Apr 2021 #50
Ocelot II Apr 2021 #51
rpannier Apr 2021 #53
mahina Apr 2021 #62
Politicub Apr 2021 #59
pecosbob Apr 2021 #55
Blasphemer Apr 2021 #57
marieo1 Apr 2021 #60
marieo1 Apr 2021 #61

Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 05:20 PM

1. Newsweek needs better headline writers.

He said it could be an issue for appeal, not a mistrial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madaboutharry (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 05:30 PM

5. Exactly. At no time did the judge say it could be issue for mistrial, rather denied a mistrial.

He said it, like every other thing the defense throughout in terms of concurrent press reporting, tv shows referring to the incident, etc. etc., could be documented for a later appeal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madaboutharry (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 06:38 PM

21. Yeah the judge is cool to the mistrial thing

The defense found anything and everything to be a reason for a mistrial

They've got nothing.

Waters comments didn't help though. But politicians gonna politicate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterNiceKitty (Reply #21)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 09:20 PM

41. It is normal for defense attorneys to ask for

mistrial or for charges to be dropped all the way through a trial. It amounts to flinging poo against the wall to see what sticks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madaboutharry (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 06:42 PM

23. Newsweek was sold to a bunch of righwing nut jobs recently

It's a frickin cesspool now.

But, if were talking about Maxine Waters, there are a 1000 fucking radio stations and an entire cable network that justify and excuse EVERY killing of a black man by police or just average citizens.

EVERY FUCKING case!


When Zimmerman needed cover and sympathy, Hate Radio was there for him.

It's way past time Hate Radio paid a FUCKING price for the destruction they've wrought on our country and its people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madaboutharry (Reply #1)

Tue Apr 20, 2021, 10:56 AM

58. The appeal would be to declare a mistrial. The appeal would be to overrule his denial of mistrial.

Same difference. Only it would be a mistrial a year later rather than now.


I don’t see how it can be a mistrial when the jury is sequestered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 05:22 PM

2. I was

I was just asking about what was Aunt Maxine say and when did she say it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nikki28 (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 05:31 PM

6. I will provide the link again for you to read yourself

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #6)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 11:04 PM

48. A legislator does not know that a defendant is presumed innocent until found guilty?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 05:27 PM

3. Bullshit

She is speaking out against racism because Derek Chauvin is a fucking MURDERER

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue Owl (Reply #3)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 06:44 PM

24. Correct

They are using Aunt Maxine as a distraction and trying to get a different verdict. Chauvin murdered George Floyd for a counterfeit $20 bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue Owl (Reply #3)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 09:25 PM

42. She is speaking out against racism because Derek Chauvin is a fucking MURDERER

THIS 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue Owl (Reply #3)

Tue Apr 20, 2021, 10:32 AM

56. Yes, this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 05:31 PM

7. Really Maxine?? Why??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 05:37 PM

8. He is a Republican appointed judge.....

So of course he would agree that Maxine's comments were wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jon King (Reply #8)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 06:09 PM

16. He's a highly-respected judge who once worked for Amy Klobuchar

and who, as a judge, has a reputation for fairness and careful adherence to procedure.

Judge Peter A. Cahill is a 14-year veteran of the bench in Hennepin County. He has previously worked as a public defender, private defense lawyer and prosecutor, rising to become chief deputy under Amy Klobuchar, now a U.S. senator, when she served as the county attorney.

He has so far won praise in Derek Chauvin’s trial. He kept jury selection on schedule despite obstacles like the city’s announcement of a $27 million settlement with George Floyd’s estate, which raised fears that the jury would be swayed, and an appellate court’s ruling on the charges against Mr. Chauvin. Over the prosecution’s objections, Judge Cahill ordered that the trial be televised, a first in Minnesota, because public access to the courtroom was limited by the Covid-19 pandemic.

In a lengthy 2015 decision, Judge Cahill dismissed charges against the organizers of a large Black Lives Matter rally at the Mall of America, saying the demonstration had been peaceful. In 2019, he gave a prominent ice skating coach 24 years — near the maximum sentence — for child sexual abuse, saying the coach’s apologies “ring hollow” and criticizing him for portraying the abuse as an extramarital affair. In 2016, he sentenced a man who killed three people when he was 16 years old to 90 years in prison.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/29/us/judge-cahill-chauvin-trial.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ocelot II (Reply #16)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 08:09 PM

32. Thank you for your reply to a knee-jerk

comment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SharonClark (Reply #32)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 08:32 PM

37. Too many knees jerking around here, and too much misunderstanding

of how trials actually work - probably from watching too many ridiculously fictionalized trials on TV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SharonClark (Reply #32)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 11:06 PM

49. +1. She should know that a defendant is considered innocent until found guilty

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 05:40 PM

9. Bullshit N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 05:42 PM

10. Video of the entire discussion (8 minutes, 13 seconds)...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 05:50 PM

11. Her comments were less inflammatory than Nelson

made them out to be, but even so, given she made these comments during an appearance in Brooklyn Center just over the weekend, her comment was more unproductive than not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 05:59 PM

12. Isn't it true

That jurors aren’t supposed to be watching the news about the trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cannabis_flower (Reply #12)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 06:07 PM

13. Perhaps, but the haven't been sequestered until deliberations began

They have been allowed to go home, and may have been told of Waters' comments by friends or family.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Reply #13)


Response to cannabis_flower (Reply #12)


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 06:08 PM

14. If a judge overturns a jury verdict based on what she said he's an idiot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Reply #14)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 08:46 PM

38. He didn't, and he denied the motion for a mistrial.

Apparently he thought Rep. Waters' comment was inappropriate, but not something that would warrant a mistrial. It appeared to me that he was basically just telling Nelson he could appeal his decision if he didn't like it.

If Nelson included that issue in the inevitable appeal, he'd have to convince the Court of Appeals that the judge was wrong for refusing to declare a mistrial on the basis of Waters' comment, which would also mean he was appealing the decision not to sequester the jury. This would further require persuading them that the outcome would have been different had the jury not been sequestered, unlikely because all the jurors knew at least something about Floyd's death (how could they not); under the circumstances sequestration is unlikely to have made a difference.

And they would also have to be convinced that the jurors, or some of them, actually heard Waters' remark and that it had influenced their verdict. One might even argue that if any of them had been influenced at all, it might as easily have been in Chauvin's favor as against him.

The purpose of an appeal is only to determine whether the trial judge made a mistake, and not to question the evidence itself or second-guess the jury, and there is a principle of appellate review called "harmless error," which means that even if the judge made a mistake in his handling of the trial, the mistake made no difference as to the outcome. With respect to both the Waters comment and the sequestration issue, I doubt that the judge's decision will affect the jury's verdict and that it will be upheld on appeal unless something goes totally sideways. Considering how carefully this case was tried, I don't think that will happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 06:08 PM

15. You know what is 'confrontational'? The legal system. That is all she

said:

"I hope we get a verdict that says guilty, guilty, guilty," she said in response to reporters' questions. "And if we don't, we cannot go away. We've got to stay on the street. We get more active, we've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 06:27 PM

19. Have to wonder whether Christina Zhao is qualified to be a reporter?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 06:31 PM

20. I read the transcript. She shouldn't have said that.

Such speech is not helpful to the cause.

Republicans, however, have no reason to speak out now after four years of stoking racist fires, but if she triggers violence and an appeal, that's on her and the courts, not the GOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnnyRingo (Reply #20)


Response to Chin music (Reply #22)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 06:48 PM

26. those are the rules

Chin Music, but 1 juror can throw the whole thing. Nerve racking case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bdamomma (Reply #26)


Response to Chin music (Reply #22)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 06:58 PM

28. But during an appeal...

...a lawyer could sell the argument that jurors feared retribution.

I know it also wouldn't be good if the Chief of Police came out last week and said "this is an attack on officers everywhere. When officer Chavins is found innocent, there will be a day of reckoning for those who bear false witness."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnnyRingo (Reply #28)


Response to JohnnyRingo (Reply #20)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 09:44 PM

45. "If she triggers violence and an appeal, that's on her and the courts, not the GOP."

Couldn't disagree more.

IF there are riots because a WHITE, racist cop gets away with or gets very little time because he wantonly murdered another black man in George Floyd, it's racist CHAUVIN'S and the US Judicial Systems fault and the systemic racism all throughout the US Judicial System.

PERIOD.

In case you didn't notice, another black man (Robert Loggins) murdered by police in Mississippi--November 2018. HE was swarmed on by cops and died from asphyxiation.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LenaBaby61 (Reply #45)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 11:55 PM

54. My point is...

Waters didn't have to present the defense with a potential gift.

I know how you feel about the case, and I'm sure we share common ground, but if Maxine Waters gave Chauvin a case for appeal, it doesn't help her or any of us. You can say it's not fair if you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 06:47 PM

25. The judge is totally wrong....

Nothing she said mentioned violence and nothing she said would be grounds for any successful appeal. She has said this many times....be confrontational....speak up when a cop abuses you, sue them, go to the press, protest. She has said that is being confrontational, not violence.

If anything its the judge that messed things up by even giving it any attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jon King (Reply #25)


Response to Chin music (Reply #31)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 08:49 PM

39. Judge Cahill isn't going anywhere. He's one of the most respected judges

in this district, and he was chosen for this case on account of his reputation for being fair and reasonable. He once worked as a prosecutor under Amy Klobuchar, btw.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jon King (Reply #25)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 08:11 PM

33. The judge didn't "give it attention".

It was brought up by the defense lawyer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jon King (Reply #25)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 11:47 PM

52. What he said was, "could be a basis for appeal"

He doesn't plan on declaring a mistrial, nor did he claim he would
He is just noting that the defense might use what she said in an appeal.
He said this after he turned down their motion for a mistrial

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 06:54 PM

27. Talk about "cancel culture." We are to the point where truth is attacked and lies are OK. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 08:13 PM

34. Wouldn't they have to prove that

a) the jury heard her comments and
b) the comments factored into a conviction?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dflprincess (Reply #34)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 08:49 PM

40. Yup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 08:19 PM

35. I heard the judge say he dismissed the motion for a mistrial.

So the whole thing is defense bs. The judge said to submit all documentation and the jury will proceed to deliberate its decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 08:29 PM

36. Nonsense.

Waters said nothing wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 09:27 PM

43. Blame it on the blacks who brought the NOT GUILTY upon themselves is what he means

But, of course. That's how it works, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 09:39 PM

44. Well she did say to "fight"

I'm just being overtly snarky of course...but as a local I'm not enamored. Once again at work we are talking about contingency plans, curfews, panic buying at grocery stores, yada yada. Oh well, at least these things have brought me perspective, it's better to be the person sitting back eating popcorn than the one trying to find it on the shelf, as one man once said "and so it goes".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 10:09 PM

46. Stop already, the judge was completely wrong!

Enough with the 'highly respected judge' nonsense. I don't want to hear he used to work for Klobucher. That is irrelevant because he was totally out of line in regards to Maxine's comments. Its also irrelevant that the defense lawyer brought it up.

The judge went out of his way to say "I'll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result on this whole trial being overturned,"

That is so out of line its pathetic. He should have simply ruled that he would not grant a mistrial and the defense would be within their rights of course to use what she said for an appeal if they saw fit.

In no way, shape or form should he have ever said that it might result in the trial being overturned. He was dead wrong. End of story.

And don't forget he messed up and told the prosecution they could not bring 3rd degree murder charges and the appeals court had to fix it. This guy made 2 big mistakes in the trial already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jon King (Reply #46)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 10:48 PM

47. Agree

I was thinking .. why is the judge editorializing
on Waters’ comments?

It made me think he was biased for police in general,
if not a Reep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jon King (Reply #46)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 11:12 PM

50. That sounded pretty out of line to me too, the moment I read it (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jon King (Reply #46)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 11:34 PM

51. What the judge said will not be part of the appealable trial record.

Although it will appear in the trial transcript, it won't be something that the court of appeals can or will review. They will only look at the denial of the motion for a mistrial, which, according to the standard of review for such motions, will be overturned only on a showing of an abuse of discretion.

The denial of a motion for a mistrial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. A mistrial should be granted only if there is a reasonable probability, in light of the entirety of the trial including the mitigating effects of a curative instruction, that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the incident resulting in the motion not occurred. The trial judge is in the best position to determine whether an error is sufficiently prejudicial to require a mistrial or whether another remedy is appropriate.

https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/Appellate/Court%20of%20Appeals/Standards-of-Review.pdf

In other words, regardless of whether the judge's comment was or wasn't appropriate under the circumstances, it will have no effect on the outcome of an appeal since the motion itself was not granted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ocelot II (Reply #51)

Mon Apr 19, 2021, 11:48 PM

53. Thank you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ocelot II (Reply #51)

Tue Apr 20, 2021, 12:24 PM

62. Thank you

That is helpful

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jon King (Reply #46)

Tue Apr 20, 2021, 11:00 AM

59. The judge did not have to go there, but he did. It's infuriating.

I liken it to a dissent in a Supreme Court case where the judge gives explicit instructions for winning the next case.

The judge in this case is dangerous because he projects an aura or fairness and congeniality. That was shattered when he gave guidance on how Chauvin can prevail on appeal. At this point, it’s too late to do anything about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Tue Apr 20, 2021, 01:48 AM

55. Ms. Waters has no more of a connection with the case than I do

She is a private citizen and has the right to express her opinion just as we all do. Her position as a U.S. Senator is entirely irrelevant. That the judge would try to tie her comments to the prosecution's case is pure legal bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Tue Apr 20, 2021, 10:44 AM

57. Really absurd. When the jury wasn't fully sequestered....

They could access all sorts of information and opinions. Focusing on Rep. Waters is pure sensationalism. The reality is that, in this case, there is no jury in the world that wouldn't be tainted by outside information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Tue Apr 20, 2021, 11:02 AM

60. A Heroine

Maxine Waters is a heroine...........Judge Cahill can just shut the f.... up!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Tue Apr 20, 2021, 11:03 AM

61. A Heroine

Maxine Waters is a heroine...........Judge Cahill can just shut the f.... up!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread