Former police officer Dererk Chauvin’s attorney argued before an appeals court on Wednesday that his client was unable to receive a fair trial, due to pre-trial publicity, venue, and other factors.
This from therightscoop.com.
On April 20, 2021, Chauvin was convicted of the murder of George Floyd and sentenced to 22 years in prison.
Fox News explained:
His attorney argued Wednesday the pretrial publicity was more extensive than that of any other trial in Minnesota history, and that the judge should have moved the trial elsewhere and sequestered the jury for the duration.
Here’s more from the Washington Times:
He also argued that [Hennepin County Judge Peter] Cahill improperly excluded evidence that could have been favorable to Chauvin and accused prosecutors of misconduct.
Prosecutors said in their brief that Chauvin had a fair trial and received a just sentence.
The prosecutors—including state Assistant Attorney General Matthew Frank and Neal Katyal, who was acting U.S. solicitor general during the Obama [Regime]—argued that Chauvin’s rights were not prejudiced.
They said pretrial publicity had blanketed the state making a change of venue for the trial pointless, and that Cahill took extensive steps to ensure the selection of impartial jurors. They also said he took sufficient steps to shield the jurors from outside influences so there was no need to sequester them before deliberations.
According to the Star Tribune:
Mohrman asked the panel to remedy the situation by granting Chauvin, 46, a new trial or reversing the state convictions.
According to KARE 11:
The Minnesota Court of Appeals is expected to issue a response in writing within 90 days.
Final thoughts: We knew this was coming, yes? Was this not a given? Derek Chauvin was railroaded. Fair trial? Impossible.
