Police Officer Found Guilty of Murdering George Floyd Argues Trial Wasn’t Fair

Earlier this week, one of Derek Chauvin’s attorneys made an appeal to the Minnesota court regarding his client’s sentencing, claiming the errors, both legal and procedural, prevented him from having a fair trial.

Chauvin, the police officer found guilty of murdering George Floyd during his arrest, was initially sentenced to 22.5 years on account of multiple charges, all linked to the infamous May 25th event that sparked the BLM riots.

BLM won’t like this one

Later on, however, Chauvin did plead guilty to a civil rights violation charge, effectively dropping his sentence down to 21 years, which he’s serving currently.

Many have argued that justice wasn’t served during his trial, as it’s been heavily covered by left-leaning media.

William Mohrman, Chauvin’s attorney, supported this idea and argued the trial was unfair precisely because the publicity of it was far more extensive than any other in the state’s history.

This easily could’ve been avoided by relocating the trial to a different location, but that likely would’ve enraged the BLM activists who practically demanded Chauvin be lynched.

The combo of a public trial, a $27M settlement with Floyd’s family, and the chaos caused by a police killing certainly made Chauvin’s trial stray off from how it should’ve gone; although those are only some of the factors that went into it.

Overdocumented trial

Mohrman added the court also purposely ignored evidence that could’ve worked in Chauvin’s favor, throwing several accusations of misconduct at the prosecutors; although it was evident from the start that it wouldn’t be a fair trial.

Former US solicitor general Neal Katyal and Assistant Attorney General Matthew Frank, on the other hand, argued Chauvin’s rights were not violated and he received a fair trial.

However, the two of them did admit the publicity caused a major upset in the state of Minnesota, which effectively made changing locations pointless; although, by their testimony, Judge Cahill ensured all jurors were impartial to the case.

On top of this, they were supposedly shielded from outside influence, even though it was found that one of the jurors was a BLM supporter later on.

The downside to all of this is even if Chauvin somehow does win the appeal, he’s still forced to sit out his federal presence, which is going to last longer than his state sentence would anyways.

However, he would qualify for parole much earlier in the state system, according to the Associated Press.

As of the time of writing, there is still no response from the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which has 90 days to issue a written reply to Chauvin’s attorney.

What we should really be worrying about is the fallout that may happen if the appeal is accepted. BLM will surely riot once again and if it’s in any way similar to what they’ve done in 2020, the US is in for a massive display of chaos.

This article appeared in Our Patriot and has been published here with permission.