The presence of children is an aggravting factor because it makes the crime more heinous, not that it makes one less likely to commit the crime. If I take a pipe to teh side of your head it is a nasty crime. If I know there are children present and still do it, it is even worse because of the trauma the crime is going to have on those kids. It is not about whether you would stop what you are doing because you see kids. The factor simply says kids are present to raise the level of punishment for the crime. Floyd was treated with particular cruelty because he is screaming he cannot breath while handcuffed and pinned to the ground. He is not a threat to anyone because of the handcuffs and can be detained with a hand on the back or many cops will sit the person up agaisnt the wall or on the curb. To do what he did was extremely cruel because there is no other reason to do what he did except to be excessive and harsh. Again this are factors in deciding the punishment, not his guilt which is already decided. Judge is not going to determine cruelty because it was already decided by the jury. He can simply take that determination to move the years off of the minimum. The judge has a lot of leeway here but Chauvin is a first time offender so there is stautotry minimums that kick in. Will the judge bump those up at all? No sentence given except life will please any of the protestors to be honest. So when Chauvin gets 10-15 years, they will still be upset.
Yeah, I expect 15 years, not 12.5 with an emphasis on abuse of authority. We'll find out in 8 months, but the fact that a child was randomly there will carry less weight in my opinion. That one aggravating factor in particular would be more bad luck than something Chauvin had control of in the situation. The particularly cruel part is interesting, because 3rd degree felony assault is already particularly cruel. However, your argument that he was pleading for help is compelling and I'm re-thinking that one. It kind of overlaps with the factor that he was particularly vulnerable.
You are aware that Chauvin's lawyer appealed to the judge to have the entire trial thrown out based on Water's comments. This would be a significant objection. This is when the judge stated he would not throw out the trial but the comments can be used for grounds in the appeal.
Won't it likely come down to jury questioning? They are going to want to know if the jury had any biases formed from the outside during the trial. I think it's unlikely it gets appealed, but I'm not ruling it out.
If the jury members or their families heard the comments from Waters and deemed them to be threatening then there is ground for appeals. Of course in regard to the families there will need to be evidence that the family discussed the comments they heard via media with the juror -- to have any grounds about the family informing the juror of threats. I still think this grounds for appeal is very weak, but the defense is likely to use this angle.
The judge threw it in the trash don't forget so no appeal is going to be successful simply because a Congresswoman said something. The judge instructs the jury to not let any outside opinion or news influence their deliberations and how could we have trials if we constantly dismiss cases because people talk about the case. You cannot through out a trial everytime an outside person says something. "Their failure to do so [politicians to be quiet], I think, is abhorrent, but I don't think it's prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice this jury," he said, adding that "a congresswoman's opinion really doesn't matter a whole lot." In all public notorious trials, defense attorneys repeatedly claim that media means there cannot be a fair trial. These arguments usually get thrown out because the claim that a person cannot get a fair trial due to media is the implication that they can never get a fair trial and therefore should not be tried. This is bullshit so the judges will often deny the motion to dismiss. Judges also do not like the implication that they cannot preside over a fair trial due to media.
Yes.. I hear you. The defense attorneys would need to prove that one or more jurors felt threatened due to public statements before the verdict and that these threats altered their vote. As I mentioned earlier I believe this is unlikely to be true in this case -- but the defense will still try to run it up the flagpole anyway. Certainly I don't think the defense will win any type of appeal based on the actual evidence and testimony.
I am tempted to think they might hold off until sentencing...maybe see if Judge gives a light sentence before filing but I am pretty sure an Appeals court will not find any reversible error.... Quicker this is all done the better