(April 19, 2021 at 6:01 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: 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?

Sure, he could plead guilty and the judge could impose the appropriate sentence. But that’s not what 37 was suggesting (at least I don’t think so - sometimes it’s hard to tell).

Boru

(April 19, 2021 at 6:04 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(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

If a defendant is entitled to a jury trial, the trial must be by jury unless (1) the defendant waives a jury trial in writing, (2) the government consents, and (3) the court approves.

So fat chance.

(April 19, 2021 at 6:10 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(April 19, 2021 at 6:04 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: 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

If a defendant is entitled to a jury trial, the trial must be by jury unless (1) the defendant waives a jury trial in writing, (2) the government consents, and (3) the court approves.

So fat chance.

And since he didn’t sign a waiver, he’s pretty well stuck - he’s already had the trial he was entitled to. Assuming he asked for a bench trial in the first place.

Hopefully 37 can clear this up. I’m sure it’s a misunderstanding.

Boru

(April 19, 2021 at 5:27 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(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.

How do you know there are smpathizers [sic] on the jury?

And let's say there are...he would have a better chance going with a jury that doesn't agree on his guilt or the level of his guilt.

A layperson is a non-ordained member of a church.  Just because someone doesn't have a law degree doesn't make them a layperson...which is where I think you are trying to go here.  

The magic words are "jury of your peers".

With any luck at all the verdict will come quickly -- either way.

Then, the cold weather will help keep the looting and shooting to a minimum.


Because either way the verdict goes - there's gonna be a riot.


It's how the safe money is betting.

---

(April 19, 2021 at 6:27 pm)arewethereyet Wrote:

(April 19, 2021 at 5:27 pm)Brian37 Wrote: 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.

How do you know there are smpathizers [sic] on the jury?

And let's say there are...he would have a better chance going with a jury that doesn't agree on his guilt or the level of his guilt.

A layperson is a non-ordained member of a church.  Just because someone doesn't have a law degree doesn't make them a layperson...which is where I think you are trying to go here.  

The magic words are "jury of your peers".

I always thought it would be amusing to see a Hell's Angel on trial - with 12 bikers in the jury.

Or a cop - with 12 cops.....


Then you'd see just how good that DA really IS....

(April 19, 2021 at 6:29 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: With any luck at all the verdict will come quickly -- either way.

Then, the cold weather will help keep the looting and shooting to a minimum.


Because either way the verdict goes - there's gonna be a riot.


It's how the safe money is betting.

---

(April 19, 2021 at 6:27 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: How do you know there are smpathizers [sic] on the jury?

And let's say there are...he would have a better chance going with a jury that doesn't agree on his guilt or the level of his guilt.

A layperson is a non-ordained member of a church.  Just because someone doesn't have a law degree doesn't make them a layperson...which is where I think you are trying to go here.  

The magic words are "jury of your peers".

I always thought it would be amusing to see a Hell's Angel on trial - with 12 bikers in the jury.

Or a cop - with 12 cops.....


Then you'd see just how good that DA really IS....

Yeah, that’s not what ‘jury of your peers’ means. In the case of bikers, it means a biker can’t be excluded from a jury simply for being a biker. 

And it would be illegal to have a jury composed of cops.

Boru

The Judge said Maxine Waters may cause the entire case to be overturned on appeal because of her dumb stunt. Oops.

By that logic every case Trump commented on should be overturned.

(April 19, 2021 at 8:12 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: The Judge said Maxine Waters may cause the entire case to be overturned on appeal because of her dumb stunt. Oops.

oops indeed, the idiotically premature glee from you palpable.

(April 19, 2021 at 8:12 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: The Judge said Maxine Waters may cause the entire case to be overturned on appeal because of her dumb stunt. Oops.

No, he said it may give the defense grounds for an appeal, he said nothing about the case being overturned (there’s going to be an appeal, regardless). 

I agree, though, that Rep. Waters should have kept her yap shut.

Boru