The outcome of the Derek Chauvin case was not terribly surprising, given the rather massive fake news media campaign deliberately designed to crush any and all sense of even remote objectivity.
After all, who can forget Maxine Waters and her passionate proclamations this past Monday, literally before the jury even began serious deliberation? Waters basically threatened national chaos unless there was a “guilty, guilty, guilty” verdict, and shortly after her remarks, two Minnesota National Guard members were shot at.
Hilariously, Waters also demanded police escorts throughout the duration of her stay in Minnesota, likely in anticipation of the very violence she would arguably call for.
For his part, Al Sharpton also decided traveling to Minnesota via private jet was a really good way to point out issues with inequality and injustice in the United States.
On top of Waters and Sharpton, a host of other individuals, including Biden himself, was gunning for a guilty verdict. In fact, Biden even announced that he was “praying” for it.
Checks and balances, much?
No wonder the jury felt intimidated into giving the politically correct verdict, rather than the legally correct verdict.
Unfortunately for the likes of Maxine Waters, as well as other anti-checks and balances types, Alan Dershowitz has issued a rather strong warning about their deliberate interference with the trial and jury deliberations.
Ironically, leftists provided Chauvin with just what he might need to have an overturned conviction, as detailed by famed lawyer Alan Dershowitz.
“The verdict is very questionable because of the outside influences from people like Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters. Their threats and intimidation and hanging the ‘Sword of Damocles’ over the jury — basically saying that if you don’t convict on the murder charge, or all the charges, the cities will burn, the country will be destroyed — seeped into the jury room because the judge made a terrible mistake by not sequestering a jury.” [Source: The Blaze]
“Questionable” is one of the nicest ways to put it. The reality is that “intimidation” seems to be the more likely factor.
Dershowitz also pointed out the great irony in the approaches of Maxine Waters, Al Sharpton, and others, which are virtually identical to tactics employed by the KKK.
“These folks took what they did right out of the playbook of the Deep South in the 1920s when prominent public officials would whoop up the crowds in front of the courthouse, demanding conviction of black people and acquittal of white people …
The Supreme Court and other courts reversed convictions based on that because jurors should not be intimidated or influenced by what goes on outside the courtroom.” [Source: The Blaze]
If the Chauvin case makes it to the Supreme Court, one can only hope that the Supreme Court itself has not changed as dramatically as the House.
However, it may not even make it that far, given the commentary from Judge Peter Cahill.
“This goes back to what I’ve been saying from the beginning. I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law, and to the judicial branch and our function …
I think if they want to give their opinions they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution to respect a coequal branch of government.” [Source: The Blaze]
Thank you, Judge Cahill. That adds all the much more support to Dershowitz’s points all along: It is wholly and entirely inappropriate for public representatives to openly interfere in an ongoing trial.
Moreover, such interference not only poisons the jury, but it also egregiously violates the constitutional rights of the defendant.
Which is perhaps why Dershowitz states his thoughts the best. Concisely, and pointedly.
“I think it should be reversed on appeal.” [Source: The Blaze]
Time will tell what ends up happening …
Author: Jane Jones