Closing arguments today. Then it goes to the jury.

Chauvin's defense lawyer made his closing argument as it is his job, but he seemed to simply try to throw shit agianst the wall to see if it would stick. The prosicution will have it's rebuttle but from what I have seen, Chauvin should make plans not to drop the bar of soap.

I didn't watch much, but from what I saw, the defense was doing as good a job as could be expected. They walked through each stage and tried to normalize it as reasonable. Some juror might buy it.

Just now, at 5:18pm Chauvin decided to let the juge deside his fate instead of the jury. How the fuck is that possible? I've heard of this tactic before, but I don't understand how it works.

It is probably a good move. The defense will have an excellent read on the judge's biases. They may have decided that the jury is already lost to them.

(April 19, 2021 at 5:24 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote: It is probably a good move.  The defense will have an excellent read on the judge's biases.  They may have decided that the jury is already lost to them.

I am not arguing that it never happens, but I simply don't understand the process. Chauvin was all ready to let the laypeople and smpathizers take his side. But after the closing arguments suddenly Chauvin wants a judge, and not a jury to decide his fate.

(April 19, 2021 at 5:20 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Just now, at 5:18pm Chauvin decided to let the juge deside his fate instead of the jury. How the fuck is that possible? I've heard of this tactic before, but I don't understand how it works.

Are you sure? I checked several live news sources and none of them mentioned this (I’m also not sure if a judge would allow it at this late stage).

Boru

I can't find anything either.

Though not sure on this, I have heard of the sentencing being left only to the judge. Perhaps if the jury comes back with a guilty verdict the plan is to let the judge do the sentencing. A jury that has decided upon his guilt may be seen as a jury that is going to go for the harshest sentence. Of course, a judge uses a jury sentence to make his decision...he isn't bound by it.

It seems to me the only way he can take this out of the jury’s hands would be to change his plea?

If he wasted all of the state’s and defence’s time before changing his plea, why possible reason could there be to grant him lesser punishment as a result?

(April 19, 2021 at 5:58 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: I can't find anything either.

Though not sure on this, I have heard of the sentencing being left only to the judge.  Perhaps if the jury comes back with a guilty verdict the plan is to let the judge do the sentencing.  A jury that has decided upon his guilt may be seen as a jury that is going to go for the harshest sentence.  Of course, a judge uses a jury sentence to make his decision...he isn't bound by it.

I think 37 may have misunderstood what he heard.

Sentencing and stuff aside, I don’t think you’re allowed to to suddenly decide you want a bench trial after closing arguments, or indeed after you’ve already opted for a jury trial. If Chauvin’s lawyers were to make such a request, the only way a judge could accede to it would be to declare a mistrial and go through the whole thing again.

Boru