Connect with us

Published

on

Derek Chauvin was tried in a Minneapolis courthouse surrounded by barbed wire, concrete block, two armored personnel carriers, and a squad of national guard troops, with hundreds of additional troops stationed throughout Minneapolis, all of which were there for one reason to quell a riot if the jury acquitted him.

Would you want to be tried before a jury bracing for a riot if it acquitted you? No one would and the Bill of Rights Sixth Amendment guarantee to a fair trial should prevent such a spectacle. However, that did not happen in Derek Chauvins case. Chauvin is now seeking to have the Supreme Court find his trial violated the Sixth Amendment and order that Chauvin be re-tried in a community which would not break out into riots if the jury acquitted Chauvin.

On May 25, 2020, George Floyd died while Chauvin and three other Minneapolis police officers attempted to arrest him. Presumably everyone reading this article knows who Derek Chauvin is and what happened on May 25, 2020. As one juror testified, you have to live in cave not to know what happened. However, there are details of what happened that were not widely reported in the media. For instance, the Minneapolis Police Department trained its officers to use the restraint technique Derek Chauvin and the other officers used in restraining Floyd. Below is a photograph of the technique from the Minneapolis police training manual:

Minneapolis Police Training Manual

When Derek Chauvins attorney tried to introduce this photograph into evidence, the state objected arguing there was no evidence Chauvin was trained on this technique and the court sustained the objection. However, whether Chauvin was trained on this technique was irrelevant the issue was whether the technique is an acceptable use of police technique to restrain a suspect and it is.

Virtually the day after Floyds death, the slogan Get off our necks went viral creating the narrative that Chauvin placed his knee on Floyds neck with such force that Chauvins knee choked off Floyds trachea causing Floyd to die of suffocation. That narrative is false and the state admitted it at trial. The states medical expert and Chauvins medical expert agreed: Floyd died of a cardiac arrhythmia his heart was beating so irregularly that he could not get sufficient blood pumping in his body. The states medical expert testified the cardiac arrhythmia was caused by positional asphyxia the weight of Chauvins knee on Floyds back, not neck restricted Floyds chest from expanding sufficiently for Floyd to breathe in enough oxygen. However, whether police officers placing their weight on a suspects back while handcuffed can cause someone to die from positional asphyxia has been refuted by numerous academic studies. A 2017 study ironically co-authored by a University of Minnesota professor concluded that scientific studies have thoroughly debunked this theory.

Individuals die of positional asphyxia when they have 1,000 pounds on their back not Derek Chauvins 145 pounds.

So what else can cause a cardiac arrhythmia? High blood pressure, 75% 90% blockage in coronary arteries, enlarged heart, recent use of fentanyl and methamphetamine, and stress all of which the states medical experts admitted Floyd exhibited when he died.

In order to convict Derek Chauvin, the jury had to believe two expert opinions the state offered: (i) Chauvin used force unreasonable for a police officer in restraining Floyd and (ii) that this unreasonable force was a substantial cause in Floyds death. As set forth above, these expert opinions were heavily contested at trial. Despite this, the jury returned a guilty verdict after deliberating for only a day. This is why the Sixth Amendments guarantee of a trial before an impartial jury is so important.

The Supreme Court has held in numerous cases that excessive pre-trial publicity can violate a defendants right to a fair trial. The courts concern is that the potential jurors exposure to pre-trial publicity and its effects in the community will cause the jurors to conclude the defendant is guilty before the trial even begins. Usually, the trial court will be able to ferret out such bias by questioning the potential jurors prior to trial. However, the Supreme Court has held that in some cases the pre-trial publicity and its effects in the community will be so overwhelming that the court must presume that the jurors will be irrevocably prejudiced against the defendant. If the court finds such a presumption exists, the court must move the case to be tried in a location which has not suffered from the effects of the alleged crime or been exposed to such massive pre-trial publicity. This is what happened with Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh his trial was moved from Oklahoma City to Denver, Colorado.

It is unquestionable that Floyds death, the riots in Minneapolis, and the state charging Chauvin arguably generated the most pre-trial publicity in American history. Everyone saw the viral video of Chauvin and the other officers using the restraint technique pictured above. Everyone knew of the riots in the Minneapolis metropolitan area which lasted for six days and caused over $500,000,000 in damage the second-worst riots in American history.

Media in the Minneapolis metropolitan area covered Floyds death and Chauvin literally every day from May 25, 2020, through the April 19, 2021, guilty verdict. More importantly, the coverage continued the false get off our neck theme and demonized Derek Chauvin. Thus, all of the potential jurors examined for the Chauvin trial 131 potential jurors said that they had been exposed to this pre-trial publicity. Many potential jurors were removed because the pre-trial publicity caused such jurors to be prejudiced against Chauvin. Ultimately, despite exposure to this pre-trial publicity, the trial court seated 13 jurors to try Chauvin.

The pre-trial publicity made it impossible for Chauvin to get a fair trial in Minneapolis. The Sixth Amendment required the trial be moved out of Minneapolis. However, that is not the principal problem. The principal problem is that the jurors knew that their own and their familys personal safety was at risk if they acquitted Chauvin. Unlike the pre-trial publicity which the jurors read about the incident, the Chauvin jurors experienced the riots because they lived in the rioted communities. The rioters message was clear convict Chauvin or else.

As a result, the potential jurors and seated jurors expressed concerns for their personal security if they acquitted Chauvin. The state knew this threat was not theoretical. The state deployed soldiers not police soldiers to protect the courthouse during the entire trial and deployed soldiers throughout the city prior to the verdict. Moreover, the threats continued after the rioting ended. Prior to trial, protestors assaulted attorneys representing the other officers after a pre-trial hearing.

During the trial, another police incident sparked another set of riots in a Minneapolis suburb, Brooklyn Center, leading to another deployment of soldiers to quell the riots. One of Chauvins jurors certainly experienced this second set of riots when she returned home in the evening from the Chauvin trial because she lived in Brooklyn Center. California Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) spoke to the Brooklyn Center rioters telling them to get more confrontational if the jury acquitted Chauvin. One wonders how active rioters would interpret a lawmaker telling them to get more confrontational when they are already rioting.

Despite the fact that the court attempted to maintain the jurors anonymity during trial, one jurors identity was exposed and he requested the court excuse him due to concerns for his safety. The court refused despite telling the juror your concerns [with safety] are perfectly understandable. All of us on this case whose names are out in the public understand the concerns .

The Sixth Amendment prohibits trying a criminal defendant before a jury who has such a personal stake in te outcome of trial if you acquit, your community will be burned and your personal safety may be at risk. While the overwhelming pre-trial publicity justified moving Chauvins trial out of Minneapolis under the Sixth Amendment, the riots and threats of implicit and explicit violence to the jurors and the community they lived in demanded it.

William F. Mohrman is an attorney practicing in Minneapolis. Mr. Mohrman is representing Derek Chauvin on his appeal.

The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Continue Reading

Business

Trump announces yet more tariffs and praises ‘significant step’ from Apple

Published

on

By

Trump announces yet more tariffs and praises 'significant step' from Apple

Donald Trump has announced 100% tariffs on computer chips and semiconductors made outside the US.

The move threatens to increase the cost of electronics made outside the US, which covers everything from TVs and video game consoles to kitchen appliances and cars.

The announcement came as Apple chief executive Tim Cook said his company would invest an extra $100bn (£74.9bn) in US manufacturing.

Soon, all smartwatch and iPhone glass around the world will be made in Kentucky, according to Mr Cook, speaking from the Oval Office.

“This is a significant step toward the ultimate goal of ensuring that iPhones sold in the United States of America are also made in America,” said Mr Trump.

“Today’s announcement is one of the largest commitments in what has become among the greatest investment booms in our nation’s history.”

Mr Cook also presented the president with a one-of-a-kind trophy made by Apple in the US.

Trump seen through the trophy given to him by Tim Cook. Pic: AP
Image:
Trump seen through the trophy given to him by Tim Cook. Pic: AP

Trump’s tariffs hit India hard

Mr Trump has previously criticised Mr Cook and Apple after the company attempted to avoid his tariffs by shifting iPhone production from China to India.

The president said he had a “little problem” with Apple and said he’d told Mr Cook: “I don’t want you building in India.”

India itself felt Mr Trump’s wrath on Wednesday, as he issued an executive order hitting the country with an additional 25% tariff for its continued purchasing of Russian oil.

Indian imports into the US will face a 50% tariff from 27 August as a result of the move, as the president seeks to increase the pressure on Russia to end the war in Ukraine.

Mr Trump told reporters at the White House he “could” also hit China with more tariffs.

Read more:
Trump could meet Putin as early as next week

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Good chance’ Trump will meet Putin soon

Apple’s ‘olive branch’

Apple, meanwhile, plans to hire 20,000 people in the US to support its extra manufacturing in the country, which will total $600bn (around £449bn) worth of investment over four years.

The “vast majority” of those jobs will be focused on a new end-to-end US silicon production line, research and development, software development, and artificial intelligence, according to the company.

Apple’s investment in the US caused the company’s stock price to hike by nearly 6% in Wednesday’s midday trading.

The rise may reflect relief by investors that Mr Cook “is extending an olive branch” to Mr Trump, said Nancy Tengler, chief executive of money manager Laffer Tengler Investments, which owns Apple stock.

Continue Reading

UK

Diane’s husband was killed by a reckless driver – the wait for justice was almost as painful

Published

on

By

Diane's husband was killed by a reckless driver - the wait for justice was almost as painful

Diane Gall’s husband, Martyn, had been out on a morning bike ride with his friends on their usual route one winter morning in November 2020 – when he was killed by a reckless driver. 

Diane and her daughters had to wait almost three years for her husband’s case to be heard in court.

The case was postponed three times, often without warning.

“You just honestly lose faith in the system,” she says.

“You feel there’s a system there that should be there to help and protect victims, to be victims’ voices, but the constant delays really take their toll on individuals and us as a family.”

Diane Gall's husband, Martyn
Image:
Diane Gall’s husband, Martyn

The first trial date in April 2022 was cancelled on the day and pushed four months later.

The day before the new date, the family were told it wasn’t going ahead due to the barristers’ strike.

It was moved to November 2022, then postponed again, before eventually being heard in June the following year.

“You’re building yourself up for all these dates, preparing yourself for what you’re going to hear, reliving everything that has happened, and it’s retraumatising,” says Diane.

Diane Gall and Sky correspondent Ashna Hurynag
Image:
Diane Gall and Sky correspondent Ashna Hurynag

‘Radical’ reform needed

Diane’s wait for justice gives us an insight into what thousands of victims and their families are battling every day in a court system cracking under the weight of a record-high backlog.

There are 76,957 cases waiting to be heard in Crown Courts across England and Wales, as of the end of March 2025.

To relieve pressure on the system, an independent review by Sir Brian Leveson last month made a number of recommendations – including creating a new division of the Crown Court known as an intermediate court, made up of a judge and two magistrates, and allowing defendants to choose to be tried by judge alone.

He said only “radical” reform would have an impact.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Will court reforms tackle backlog?

But according to exclusive data collected for Sky News by the Law Society, there is strong scepticism among the industry about some proposed plans.

Before the review was published, we asked 545 criminal lawyers about the idea of a new tier to the Crown Court – 60% of them told us a type of Intermediate Court was unlikely to reduce the backlog.

chart visualization

“It’s moving a problem from one place to another, like moving the deck chairs on the Titanic. It’s not going to do anything,” says Stuart Nolan, chair of the Law Society’s criminal law committee.

“I think the problem with it is lack of resources or lack of will to give the proper resources.

“You can say we need more staff, but they’re not just any staff, they are people with experience and training, and that doesn’t come quickly or cheap.”

Instead, the lawyers told us creating an additional court would harm the quality of justice.

chart visualization

Chloe Jay, senior partner at Shentons Solicitors, agrees the quality of justice will be impacted by a new court division that could sit without a jury for some offences.

She says: “The beauty of the Crown Court is that you have two separate bodies, one deciding the facts and one deciding law.

Casey Jenkins, president of London Criminal Court Solicitors' Association
Image:
Casey Jenkins, president of London Criminal Court Solicitors’ Association

“So the jury doesn’t hear the legal arguments about what evidence should be excluded, whether something should be considered as part of the trial, and that’s what really gives you that really good, sound quality of justice, because you haven’t got one person making all the decisions together.

“Potentially in an intermediate court, that is what will happen. The same three people will hear those legal arguments and make the finding of guilt or innocence.”

The most striking finding from the survey is that 73% of criminal lawyers surveyed are worried about offences no longer sitting in front of a jury.

chart visualization

Casey Jenkins, president of London Criminal Court Solicitors’ Association, says this could create unconscious bias.

“There’s a real risk that people from minority backgrounds are negatively impacted by having a trial by a judge and not a jury of their peers who may have the same or similar social background to them,” she says.

“A jury trial is protection against professional judicial decisions by the state. It’s a fundamental right that can be invoked.”

Instead of moving some offences to a new Crown Court tier, our survey suggests criminal lawyers would be more in favour of moving cases to the magistrates instead.

Under the Leveson proposals, trials for offences such as dangerous driving, possessing an offensive weapon and theft could be moved out of the Crown Courts.

chart visualization

‘Catastrophic consequences’

Richard Atkinson, president of the Law Society, says fixing the system will only work with fair funding.

“It’s as important as the NHS, it’s as important as the education system,” he says. “If it crumbles, there will be catastrophic consequences.”

Ms Jenkins agrees that for too long the system has been allowed to fail.

“Everyone deserves justice, this is just not the answer,” she says.

“It’s just the wrong solution to a problem that was caused by chronic, long-term under-investment in the criminal justice system, which is a vital public service.

“The only way to ensure that there’s timely and fair justice for everybody is to invest in all parts of the system from the bottom up: local services, probation, restorative justice, more funding for lawyers so we can give early advice, more funding for the police so that cases are better prepared.”

Government vows ‘bold and ambitious reform’

In response to Sky News’ findings, the minister for courts and legal services, Sarah Sackman KC MP, told Sky News: “We inherited a record and rising court backlog, leaving many victims facing unacceptable delays to see justice done.

“We’ve already boosted funding in our courts system, but the only way out of this crisis is bold and ambitious reform. That is why we are carefully considering Sir Brian’s bold recommendations for long-term change.

“I won’t hesitate to do whatever needs to be done for the benefit of victims.”

The driver that killed Diane’s husband was eventually convicted. She wants those making decisions about the court system to remember those impacted the most in every case.

Every victim and every family.

“You do just feel like a cog in a big wheel that’s out of your control,” she says. “Because you know justice delayed is justice denied.”

Continue Reading

UK

British man charged with trying to drown his daughter-in-law in swimming pool on Florida holiday

Published

on

By

British man charged with trying to drown his daughter-in-law in swimming pool on Florida holiday

A British man who allegedly tried to drown his daughter-in-law in a holiday swimming pool in Florida has been charged by police.

Mark Raymond Gibbon, 62, of Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire, allegedly held the 33-year-old underwater repeatedly after they argued about his grandchildren.

He allegedly only stopped when a pair of sisters staying next door called the Polk County sheriff’s department.

The victim’s nine-year-old daughter also allegedly jumped into the pool to stop Gibbon from drowning her mother.

The family were staying at a rental home in the Solterra Resort of Davenport, Florida, when the incident occurred on Sunday, according to Sheriff Grady Judd.

Officers responded to reports of a disturbance in a pool at around 5.20pm local time.

Read more on Sky News:
UK airport reopens after plane incident
Reeves told big tax rises needed
Hiroshima survivor’s warning, 80 years on

“It’s great that Polk County draws visitors from all across the world, but we expect vacationers to behave while they visit with us, just as we expect our lifelong residents to do the same,” said the sheriff.

“Because Mr Gibbon couldn’t control his anger, he may find himself spending a lot more time in Florida than he had anticipated.”

Gibbon was arrested and taken to Polk County Jail, where he was charged with attempted second-degree murder and battery.

Continue Reading

Trending