There was no fairness in the trail of Chauvin. The mob pushed the Guilty verdict disregarding the process. I can agree that he was not innocent but as long as there is pressure in convicting someone the system is flawed and, you must have a mistrial.
There was no fairness in the trail of Chauvin. The mob pushed the Guilty verdict disregarding the process. I can agree that he was not innocent but as long as there is pressure in convicting someone the system is flawed and, you must have a mistrial.
Did the mob render the verdict or did a jury of 12?
How do you determine that "there was no fairness in the trial"? If that were the case, it could be grounds for appeal or even for rejecting the whole verdict for mistrial. I'm pretty sure they did as much as they could to make sure the trial followed the law to the letter because the last thing they'd want is the guy walking free because of a technicality.
There was no fairness in the trail of Chauvin. The mob pushed the Guilty verdict disregarding the process. I can agree that he was not innocent but as long as there is pressure in convicting someone the system is flawed and, you must have a mistrial.
Did the mob render the verdict or did a jury of 12?
How do you determine that "there was no fairness in the trial"? If that were the case, it could be grounds for appeal or even for rejecting the whole verdict for mistrial. I'm pretty sure they did as much as they could to make sure the trial followed the law to the letter because the last thing they'd want is the guy walking free because of a technicality.
What about the biased juror?
What about it.
If the trial ought to be invalidated, then let the process follow its course.
Until that happens the man has been convicted of murder and thus referring to him as such is accurate.
Convicted, yes you are correct. He was convicted in a kangaroo court.