By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Derek Chauvin, convicted in the murder of George Floyd, is seeking a new trial after serving five years of his sentence. His attorney argues the initial trial was unfair, citing prosecutorial misconduct and false expert witness testimony, hoping to overturn his murder conviction and the related federal civil rights charges. Previously, Chauvin appealed the verdict due to excessive publicity and procedural errors, including a juror’s undisclosed participation in a civil rights event. Despite these efforts, an appeals court upheld the initial trial’s handling of the case, and separately, Chauvin also received a federal sentence for violating Floyd’s civil rights.
Read the original article here
Derek Chauvin seeks a new trial in the George Floyd murder case, and honestly, the whole thing feels like a bad rerun. You know, that sinking feeling when you see the same plot twists, the same predictable characters, and the same unsatisfying ending, all over again? That’s kind of where we’re at, even before we get into the specifics.
Chauvin’s legal team previously tried to get the verdict overturned, citing things like the publicity surrounding the case, and some procedural errors that they claimed made a fair trial impossible. A key point of contention was a juror who had participated in a civil rights gathering – specifically, something that commemorated Martin Luther King Jr. – but didn’t disclose this participation until after the trial. The defense argued this should have disqualified the juror.
Now, a lot of people seem pretty confident in their assessment that this is just another grab for attention, a bid to get back into the news cycle, and possibly a play for a pardon. He’s already been sentenced, not just by the state but also by the federal government for civil rights violations. The guy got a hefty sentence – 22 and a half years at the state level, and another 21 years on federal charges, although those run concurrently. This opens the door, in theory, for a future pardon if he’s able to get an acquittal.
The common sentiment is pretty simple: “rot in jail, you asshole.” The basic idea here seems to be that regardless of what happens in court, the outcome for Chauvin will not change, he is where he belongs. It’s hard to ignore the feeling that this whole thing is motivated by a desire for a get-out-of-jail-free card.
He’s exhausted his state-level appeals; the courts have spoken, and the sentences stand. But it raises questions about whether this time, he’s appealing the federal civil rights case, to which he already pleaded guilty. Because if that is the case, and his argument is along the lines of the current DOJ appreciating his actions, well, that’s just a horrifying thought. It’s almost too ridiculous to even consider that type of argument.
The political climate certainly doesn’t help. The idea of a potential pardon from a former president looms large in the background. The concern is that Chauvin could be pardoned, allowing him to walk free. Regardless of one’s personal opinions on the matter, the fact that such a possibility even exists is, for some, a sad commentary on the state of justice.
The argument that excessive use of force is somehow justifiable in this situation is, of course, utterly wrong. The fact is, a man died at the hands of a police officer, a man who was already handcuffed and subdued. The law should not be a game; the facts are the facts.
The whole thing smacks of entitlement and, frankly, a complete lack of self-awareness. He wants another trial, despite the mountains of evidence and the public outcry. He seems to believe he’s somehow entitled to another chance, as if the first one wasn’t a fair shake.
The speculation about a pardon is widespread, and it’s easy to see why. There’s a certain segment of the population that seems to view Chauvin as a victim, a martyr, even. And there is the distinct possibility that the former president will offer a pardon if given the opportunity. This potential outcome, and even the mere fact that it’s being openly discussed, speaks volumes about the current state of our political climate.
The legal arguments that he might be presenting in a new trial are likely to be flimsy. The suggestion of political persecution, or that the jury wasn’t made up of his peers, is laughable. Nobody likes Derek, that’s the bottom line. It would seem like it is unlikely that he will be getting a new trial, but in today’s times, it’s hard to say. The entire ordeal is a reminder that justice, and the perception of justice, can be a fragile and easily manipulated thing.