LAL #007 — Chauvin Trial (Part III): The Heinous Crimes Exception to the Bill of Rights

Derek Chauvin is sure to be convicted, right? I mean, isn't that what the press coverage says?

Don't rely on the press. 

I've had plenty of cases that were widely reported as they were conducted. I used to read the coverage. It felt like I was getting access to the thirteenth juror. Win the case in the press and you're all set, right?

Wrong. 

More often than not, I didn't recognize the trial in the reporting. Reporters capture what catches their attention. No more.

Trial by sound byte doesn't win cases. Persuading the twelve jurors in the jury box does. There is no way to tell from press coverage what jurors are seeing.

Chauvin's team should hammer the the following theme: What should police have done when they responded to the call regarding a counterfeit $20 and were confronted with an irrational man? At what point should they have just walked away, concluding George Floyd was simply too much trouble? Do we want to declare that "catch and release" law enforcement is the new normal?  We can.

And what about the drug dealer who pleaded the Fifth Amendment rather than testify? The judge wouldn't let the dealer do it in the jury's presence. But doesn't the Defense have a right to compel witnesses to testify? If the State wouldn't grant immunity to the witness, why can't the Defense compel immunity?

The State is playing hide-the-ball with the truth. Welcome to the heinous crime exception to the bill of rights.