The Derek Chauvin Trial

However it turns out, the facts are the facts, Chauvin is guilty and will be found guilty even if he gets another trial.

at least that it is how it should go.

Rachel Moran, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, told Newsweek that Mitchell's presence at the march alone does not qualify as juror misconduct.

"The real question is whether Mr. Mitchell lied in his written questionnaire or during his oral testimony," she said. "Jurors don't have an obligation to volunteer information about themselves, but they do have an obligation to answer questions truthfully."

According to the Tribune, Mitchell said he answered "no" to two questions in the juror questionnaire, which was sent out before jury selection, that asked about participation in demonstrations.

Jack Rice, a criminal defense attorney and a former prosecutor, said the revelations are "disturbing" and raise questions about Mitchell's impartiality.

Mitchell "did attend and in fact, wore a shirt that said 'get your knee off of our necks' or something like that," Rice told Newsweek.

"In order to convict, you need a unanimous jury. He contributed to that. I would argue it makes the conviction less definitive, less credible and less certain."

But Moran described the issue as more of "a close call."

"I don't think that's a clear lie, so it probably doesn't qualify as misconduct," she said.

She noted that while the anniversary march was organized in part to mark Floyd's death, it was "intended to commemorate Dr. King's legacy and the Civil Rights movement more broadly."

Moran said: "It definitely involved condemnations of police brutality, so some people would say he should have answered that question yes (particularly given the shirt he was wearing in the photo, which suggests he was concerned at least in part about police brutality).

"But I don't think he was necessarily lying by answering no, since some people would conceive of the march as much broader than a protest about police brutality."

Moran also noted that Judge Cahill is unlikely to consider it evidence of juror misconduct because Mitchell was "extremely candid" while being questioned during the jury selection process.

"He said he had an extremely favorable opinion of Black Lives Matter as a statement; he expressed concern for how Black people are treated unequally; and he said he would be excited to serve on the jury because this was such an important and historic trial," she said. "He was very clear about his opinions and the lawyers picked him."

And despite his misgivings about Mitchell, Rice also thinks it is unlikely Chauvin's conviction will be overturned.

"The judge and likely Court of Appeals will confirm and call it harmless error," he said. "They want this trial over."

Your article says at the end that the Minneapolis officials connected to the Chauvin case all want the case over. I hope that’s true - good thing if it is.

I don't know that their defenses are going to be different. Each of them is going to say Chauvin was an official trainer for the department and considered an expert in the application of force. They questioned his use of force and he assured them he was following procedure. I think that is going to be a tough defense and honestly, I think they will walk. There is a principle in the military that you must refuse to follow an illegal order. In reality whether an order is legal or not is often vague and the penalty for not following a legal order is high. I think the these police are going to say they were in a similar position - they were following orders, they
questioned the orders and Chauvin reassured them and they had every reason to believe Chauvin was following policy i.e. the knee to the neck thing was legal and safe.

A Federal Grand Jury has just indicted Chauvin and his three accomplices.

This might yield more success than my "Disarm the Police" campaign:

‘We have to do something’: Friends hope new app will empower Philadelphians to help prevent gun violence

This might yield more success than my "Disarm the Police" campaign:

‘We have to do something’: Friends hope new app will empower Philadelphians to help prevent gun violence

And more police activity is the surest way to decrease the amount of crime and violence.

I would say we should be investing more in these programs in addition to a strong police force.

They’re billing it as a new way for residents to anonymously share information about brewing neighborhood beefs they think could boil over into gun violence, which often start on social media, and to connect with trained mediators charged with resolving conflicts before they turn deadly — without involving the police.

But the idea that police aren't a necesary part of society is ridiculous and dangerous.

There is clear research that more police activity reduces crime.

I am ridiculing this political idea that is (in my opinion) ridiculous.

Let's take a typical situation, a man who has a gun is kicking around his ex-girlfriend.

In violent situations, replacing armed police with "mediators" is comical.

Would you want this woman who is being victimized to sit down and talk it through with her attacker so that he will peacefully put down his gun?

And more police activity is the surest way to decrease the amount of crime and violence.