Guilty on all counts.

[Rams]

Chavin found guilty on all counts.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=chavin+verdict&form=ANNTH1&refig=82d507021bbc43dc905c93da654c2c99&sp=1&qs=FT&pq=chav&sk=PRES1&sc=8-4&cvid=82d507021bbc43dc905c93da654c2c99

I wasn't expecting a guilty verdict on all counts.   I didn't see the evidence though.
I hope we learn more on appeal.

Rams

[Alien]

I hope he finds comfort in the arms of his new cellmate.  Hopefully said cellmate is lonely, large and exceedingly friendly.

Ride Safe,

Alien

[Skinhead]

I wish they would pursue the capitol officer that shot the unarmed protestor with the same fervor as they did Chauvin in the death off saint george.

[Bret SD]

The Judge on the Chauvin case had advised his defense attorney that any conviction in the case is likely to be overturned on appeal thanks to Maxine Waters.

[The emperor has no clothes]

The Judge on the Chauvin case had advised his defense attorney that any conviction in the case is likely to be overturned on appeal thanks to Maxine Waters.

Untrue

[Serk]

The Judge on the Chauvin case had advised his defense attorney that any conviction in the case is likely to be overturned on appeal thanks to Maxine Waters.

Untrue

"I'll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result on this whole trial being overturned"

Source - https://www.reuters.com/business/legal/judge-blasts-us-rep-maxine-waters-abhorrent-comments-about-chauvin-trial-2021-04-19/

(And this thread will get moved in 3...2...1...)

[Oss]

IMHO It wont stand appeal esp on the top charges

A real double standard in that case and so many others

[Willow]

This confuses me a bit about our legal system.

Unintentional second degree murder
Third degree murder
Second degree manslaughter

How can one be found guilty at three different levels of the same crime?  Wouldn't that be like you or me being charged with exceeding the speed limit by five miles over, ten miles over and fifteen miles over for the same incident.

[The emperor has no clothes]

The Judge on the Chauvin case had advised his defense attorney that any conviction in the case is likely to be overturned on appeal thanks to Maxine Waters.

Untrue

"I'll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result on this whole trial being overturned"

Source - https://www.reuters.com/business/legal/judge-blasts-us-rep-maxine-waters-abhorrent-comments-about-chauvin-trial-2021-04-19/

(And this thread will get moved in 3...2...1...)

may, likely. Two completely separate meanings.

[The emperor has no clothes]

This confuses me a bit about our legal system.

Unintentional second degree murder
Third degree murder
Second degree manslaughter

How can one be found guilty at three different levels of the same crime?  Wouldn't that be like you or me being charged with exceeding the speed limit by five miles over, ten miles over and fifteen miles over for the same incident.

https://www.rionlaw.com/blog/2020/may/what-does-counts-of-a-crime-mean-/

[Willow]

This confuses me a bit about our legal system.

Unintentional second degree murder
Third degree murder
Second degree manslaughter

How can one be found guilty at three different levels of the same crime?  Wouldn't that be like you or me being charged with exceeding the speed limit by five miles over, ten miles over and fifteen miles over for the same incident.

https://www.rionlaw.com/blog/2020/may/what-does-counts-of-a-crime-mean-/ 

These were not multiple counts (more than one incident) but charges at three levels for the one killing.  I don't question the legality of it, only the good sense (sanity).

[Rams]

This confuses me a bit about our legal system.

Unintentional second degree murder
Third degree murder
Second degree manslaughter

How can one be found guilty at three different levels of the same crime?  Wouldn't that be like you or me being charged with exceeding the speed limit by five miles over, ten miles over and fifteen miles over for the same incident.

Seems like a:  IF I can't get you on this, I'll get you on that.   

Made me think of Hate Crimes.   If I attack someone, I could be guilty of one thing but, if I do it because I don't like something about you, it worse.   Doesn't make sense to me.   If it's illegal to commit the crime, what the hell does it matter why (with the possible exception of sentencing).
Motive should be considered during sentencing.

Rams

[f6gal]

This confuses me a bit about our legal system.

Unintentional second degree murder
Third degree murder
Second degree manslaughter

How can one be found guilty at three different levels of the same crime?  Wouldn't that be like you or me being charged with exceeding the speed limit by five miles over, ten miles over and fifteen miles over for the same incident.

Seems like a:  IF I can't get you on this, I'll get you on that.  

Made me think of Hate Crimes.   If I attack someone, I could be guilty of one thing but, if I do it because I don't like something about you, it worse.   Doesn't make sense to me.   If it's illegal to commit the crime, what the hell does it matter why (with the possible exception of sentencing).
Motive should be considered during sentencing.

Rams

If he's guilty of count 1 (unintentional 2nd degree murder), how can there be a motive?

[The emperor has no clothes]

This confuses me a bit about our legal system.

Unintentional second degree murder
Third degree murder
Second degree manslaughter

How can one be found guilty at three different levels of the same crime?  Wouldn't that be like you or me being charged with exceeding the speed limit by five miles over, ten miles over and fifteen miles over for the same incident.

https://www.rionlaw.com/blog/2020/may/what-does-counts-of-a-crime-mean-/ 

These were not multiple counts (more than one incident) but charges at three levels for the one killing.  I don't question the legality of it, only the good sense (sanity).

The sanity of it seems to be that he was convicted of all three counts. Likely the most serious one will carry the largest sentence. The rest of the sentences will likely be concurrent.

[f6gal]

The rest of the sentences will likely be concurrent.

Why would you think that?

[The emperor has no clothes]

The rest of the sentences will likely be concurrent.

Why would you think that?

Because that’s normally what happens.

[old2soon]

     Isn't Mn. under control of the democrats? Mayhaps our own in house barristers can/will chime in in the 3 different and yet similar counts. And as an ask-if the death penalty came with 2 of those counts would they revive him and execute him a 2nd time? Curious mind(s) and like that. RIDE SAFE.

[MarkT]

I predicted this would be the result and without regard for the facts of the case.  The jury and the whole system ran scared of the rioters. Congresswoman Lauren Boebert reports the jury's names and addresses were "leaked" (oops) to the public.  The jury was not sequestered during the trial so they saw all the riots and threats from BLM.  Maxine Waters threats - if they don't return guilty their groups will riot.  She should at minimum be recalled.  Her threats are fodder for appeals and potential mistrial.  Unbelievable, the judge's jury instructions included "don't be influenced by the riots, news etc."  Right - that's not the message they received. THREE separate charges for the same "crime" so they would nail him for SOMETHING.  SURPRISE - let's throw the book at him, make sure BLM is ECSTATIC! And boy, they sure deliberated!  Took them less than a day, must have been GREAT EVIDENCE! And now, look for empowerment and further bad behavior from BLM and the woke crowd. They are dancing in the streets now.  Remind you of anything, say a pro football player?  I predict the cops will quit.  Crime will flourish.  You BETTER arm up and prepare to defend yourself.  

Now what about the killing of white folks - that doesn't fit the MSM and left narrative?  What about Ashli Babbitt?  The officer won't be charged - that's official per Biden's DOJ.  I never leave the house unarmed already (since 2003 with my first CCW) and that continues.  Did I concealed carry before 2003?  Naaw that would have been illegal.  Yeah, that's it.  Let's see, statute of limitations for non-capital crime is 7 yrs...  BTW I don't walk around or even drive in Five Points and similar places - already.  And we have 9% black here, much whiter than the riot venues but we get the "mostly peaceful protesters" here, too.  For whom all business downtown especially on 16th street are pre-verdict all boarded up again, wouldn't want any happy mostly peaceful protesters accidentally falling through (defective) broken glass and having merchandise accidentally stick to their fingers.  I stay in my quiet horse country.

[Jess from VA]

I cannot speak to MN law specifically, but usually, with A (top), B and C charges for a single offense, that lets the jury decide the level of crime.  It could have been B and/or C, but the top A conviction is what he will be sentenced on.  Multiple sentences for the same crime violates 8th double jeopardy (twice or trice punished (or tried) for the same offense).

It could be that he get a sentence on each count, but they should then have to run concurrent.  Again, the top charge with the most sentence leeway (length) would control.  In his case, the top charge carries 40 years.

Findings of guilt on three levels also allows for an appeal to succeed in overturning a higher count, but allowing a lower count to stand.  Which would then require a re-sentence.  

MN use of 2d degree unintended murder is not usual.  Common law and most states, is:  1st degree premeditated (planned) murder, then 2d degree un-premeditated (unplanned), but intentional murder.   Unintentional murder is usually either voluntary (3d degree) or involuntary manslaughter (4th degree).

MN 2d degree unintentional murder is called equivalent to felony murder.  Killing someone unintentionally during the commission of a felony.

[f6gal]

The rest of the sentences will likely be concurrent.

Why would you think that?

Because that’s normally what happens.

Sentences often run consecutively, especially if they're trying to send a message.

[The emperor has no clothes]

The rest of the sentences will likely be concurrent.

Why would you think that?

Because that’s normally what happens.

Sentences often run consecutively, especially if they're trying to send a message.

MAYBE, if the jury was to decide sentencing. But Chauvin elected to let the judge decide sentencing. The judge in this case seems pretty level headed and professional to me.

[f6gal]

The rest of the sentences will likely be concurrent.

Why would you think that?

Because that’s normally what happens.

Sentences often run consecutively, especially if they're trying to send a message.

MAYBE, if the jury was to decide sentencing. But Chauvin elected to let the judge decide sentencing. The judge in this case seems pretty level headed and professional to me.

Smart move on his part.  If the jury was deciding, it would likely be "off with his head." (Tongue in cheek.)

[Rams]

This confuses me a bit about our legal system.

Unintentional second degree murder
Third degree murder
Second degree manslaughter

How can one be found guilty at three different levels of the same crime?  Wouldn't that be like you or me being charged with exceeding the speed limit by five miles over, ten miles over and fifteen miles over for the same incident.

Seems like a:  IF I can't get you on this, I'll get you on that.  

Made me think of Hate Crimes.   If I attack someone, I could be guilty of one thing but, if I do it because I don't like something about you, it worse.   Doesn't make sense to me.   If it's illegal to commit the crime, what the hell does it matter why (with the possible exception of sentencing).
Motive should be considered during sentencing.

Rams

If he's guilty of count 1 (unintentional 2nd degree murder), how can there be a motive?

Wasn't just referring to just this conviction.  Applicable to all or most sentencing in a general sense.
But, he was convicted of two other counts and can be sentenced on each of them so..............

Rams 

[Willow]

This confuses me a bit about our legal system.

Unintentional second degree murder
Third degree murder
Second degree manslaughter

How can one be found guilty at three different levels of the same crime?  Wouldn't that be like you or me being charged with exceeding the speed limit by five miles over, ten miles over and fifteen miles over for the same incident.

https://www.rionlaw.com/blog/2020/may/what-does-counts-of-a-crime-mean-/  

These were not multiple counts (more than one incident) but charges at three levels for the one killing.  I don't question the legality of it, only the good sense (sanity).

The sanity of it seems to be that he was convicted of all three counts. Likely the most serious one will carry the largest sentence. The rest of the sentences will likely be concurrent.

It still doesn't make sense.  I can see the point in charging so that the jury may find guilty at the most severe or one less depending upon the evidence.  It just seems rather stupid that one can be found guilty on multiple levels for the same crime (single incident).

Once more would anyone think it would make sense if he were caught doing 65 in a 50 mile per hour zone and charged for doing 5, 10 and 15 miles over the limit?

P.S.  What Jess says starts to make a little sense in that they're protecting against a semi-successful appeal.

[The emperor has no clothes]

This confuses me a bit about our legal system.

Unintentional second degree murder
Third degree murder
Second degree manslaughter

How can one be found guilty at three different levels of the same crime?  Wouldn't that be like you or me being charged with exceeding the speed limit by five miles over, ten miles over and fifteen miles over for the same incident.

https://www.rionlaw.com/blog/2020/may/what-does-counts-of-a-crime-mean-/ 

These were not multiple counts (more than one incident) but charges at three levels for the one killing.  I don't question the legality of it, only the good sense (sanity).

The sanity of it seems to be that he was convicted of all three counts. Likely the most serious one will carry the largest sentence. The rest of the sentences will likely be concurrent.

It still doesn't make sense.  I can see the point in charging so that the jury may find guilty at the most severe or one less depending upon the evidence.  It just seems rather stupid that one can be found guilty on multiple levels for the same crime (single incident).

Once more would anyone think it would make sense if he were caught doing 65 in a 50 mile per hour zone and charged for doing 5, 10 and 15 miles over the limit?

To ride out this speeding analogy. If a cop were to clock you with radar at 60 and took off after you, and then paced you at 70. Maybe the prosecutor would charge you with both, in the chance that his pacing wouldn’t hold up to a jury’s scrutiny.

[Willow]

To ride out this speeding analogy. If a cop were to clock you with radar at 60 and took off after you, and then paced you at 70. Maybe the prosecutor would charge you with both, in the chance that his pacing wouldn’t hold up to a jury’s scrutiny.

Multiple incidents but highly unlikely.

[Rams]

To ride out this speeding analogy. If a cop were to clock you with radar at 60 and took off after you, and then paced you at 70. Maybe the prosecutor would charge you with both, in the chance that his pacing wouldn’t hold up to a jury’s scrutiny.

Multiple incidents but highly unlikely.

Apparently, you are not aware of my history. 

We'll leave it at that.

Rams

[Jess from VA]

Carl, it gets pretty technical, but first, there are degrees of murder or unlawful killing.  Generally the lesser crimes only require a lesser degree of culpability (mens reas, guilty mind).

They are called lesser included offenses, if the lower offenses have all the same criminal elements of the greater offense, except the degree of culpability is progressively lower on lesser included offenses (intent to kill with premeditation, intent to kill with no premeditation, no intent to kill but reckless, wilful, intentional conduct likely to cause great bodily injury or death).  In assaults, there is simple assault (an unlawful touching), aggravated assault (use of a weapon or means likely to produce great bodily injury or death, then attempted murder.  

Now for due process and fairness, a defendant must be put on notice of any charge he might be convicted of, so they charge what they are going after on the top charge, and then add all the lesser included offenses of that top charge, that he might be convicted of if the finder of fact (jury in jury trial) decides the defendant had a lower degree of culpability/criminal intent than the top charge.  

He may get convicted on all charges, but he will only be sentenced on the top charge (for one bad act).  That does not mean the lesser convictions are dismissed or vacated.  Those findings are protected if some error is found in the top charge.  If sentences are given on each charge, they will all be concurrent with each other (the lesser included offense sentences are subsumed within the top charge sentence).  And this can also come into play on things like parole and recidivist laws (three strikes).

Most people know about double jeopardy as a prohibition from being tried twice for the same crime.  But it also applies to being convicted and sentenced (in one trial) for multiple crimes, for one bad act.  And this gets more complicated yet.

I had a court martial of an Airman who stole his roommate's checks, forged them, and cashed them, like 15 times.  It was determined that stealing the checks was a single transaction (each time) (for sentencing), but the forging and cashing was a single transaction (each time) (for sentence).  The funny thing was that this Airman meticulously entered each of his stolen check forgeries into his roommate's check register, so he wouldn't bounce any checks.  The multiplicity of offenses made the max possible sentence pretty astronomical, but he only stole about $600 total, and had it all paid back before trial, so he got off easy with 15 months (and the Big Chicken Dinner - BCD, all barracks thieves deserve).

The speeding analogy is not a good one because the culpability for speeding (intent to speed) is the same for all progressively faster speeds.... until you get into careless or reckless, or fleeing and eluding, or drag racing (all of which contain additional criminal elements beyond simple speeding).  And a cop who issued 10, 15 and 20 over tickets on a 20 over case would sully the evidence on his 20 over case (so you really don't know how fast the defendant was going, do you officer?).  And if you litigated the ticket, and the judge came back and found you guilty of only 10 over, you're not going to win an appeal because you weren't on notice of 10 over, only 20 over.  And you'd never appeal the 10 over anyway, that's a win.  

The hair splitting on murder and assaults is much finer than on speeding, and the maximum penalties much greater.  

[John Schmidt]

I heard an att'y. explain it thusly; "they try a person on the higher offense, the rest sorta come under it with the higher offense covering them like an umbrella. If found guilty on the higher offense, they're automatically guilty on the others." Not the exact words but the same meaning, but I'm still kinda like Willow...doesn't make sense to me.

[Willow]

...
The speeding analogy is not a good one because the culpability for speeding (intent to speed) is the same for all progressively faster speeds.... ...

Intent to speed.  So that's why every traffic officer walks up to you and asks, "Do you know how fast you were going?"   

... I'm still kinda like Willow...

That's a little scary, John.  The good news is that you seemed to have survived it for a good lifetime.   

[John Schmidt]

...
The speeding analogy is not a good one because the culpability for speeding (intent to speed) is the same for all progressively faster speeds.... ...

Intent to speed.  So that's why every traffic officer walks up to you and asks, "Do you know how fast you were going?"   

... I'm still kinda like Willow...

That's a little scary, John.  The good news is that you seemed to have survived it for a good lifetime.   

Note that I didn't say "in all respects"....

[Ken aka Oil Burner]

I have learned an awful lot here on the VRCC forums.

Jess in VA has, without any doubt, given me far more information about a subject I hope to never need than I ever expected here. If I ever get in a jam, I know who I'm putting on retainer.

[Jess from VA]

If I ever get in a jam, I know who I'm putting on retainer.

Oh no you don't.  I'm not licensed to practice law in MA (or anywhere anymore).  MA would then charge and convict me of unauthorized practice of law, if they caught me (sometimes they don't).  It cost me way too much money every year to keep my license (MI), even though I didn't practice in MI (or anywhere) since I retired from Federal service.  I hated to give my license up (after so much effort to get it), but paying good money for status only was kinda wasteful.  They did give me Emeritus status (earned with decades of good conduct), but it doesn't let me practice law.  Kind of an old fogey status, which I've apparently earned in a number of categories.    

I can talk about legal issues and give advice, but I can't take money from anyone or represent anyone.   I continue to help (almost) anyone who asks.... but almost no one ever offers to pay me anything anyway.    

Intent to speed.  So that's why every traffic officer walks up to you and asks, "Do you know how fast you were going?"    

Well, intent to speed was not exactly right.  

There are general intent and specific intent crimes.  And today, most moving violations have been converted from crimes to civil infractions in most, if not all, states (easier to convict by a preponderance of the evidence, and not beyond any reasonable doubt)(and no right to jury trials).  So criminal law analogies for most moving violations are only loosely applicable anymore.  But speeding would be a general intent crime; guilt by either intending to speed, or negligently not paying attention to speed is good enough to convict.  It's easy to unintentionally speed up to some point, but if caught going say 40 over, it's hard to argue you just weren't paying attention.  And judges have special BS meters, and the awards go up for liars (in court).  

Murder is a specific intent crime.  Voluntary intoxication (drugs or alcohol) to some degree, can negate a specific intent crime.  Rape on the other hand is a general intent crime.  Being drunk is no defense.  

[Reb]

Honestly, having watched a lot of the trial. The prosecution did a great job presenting the facts, and not turning the court or crime into a Johnnie Cochran racially charged sh!t show, I don't recall hearing much on race in general from the defense or prosecution.

Derek Chauvin was found guilty by a jury of his peers. It's hard to provide an adequate defense when filmed performing the said action that caused George Floyd's demise. 

[Valkorado]

Honestly, having watched a lot of the trial. The prosecution did a great job presenting the facts, and not turning the court or crime into a Johnnie Cochran racially charged sh!t show, I don't recall hearing much on race in general from the defense or prosecution.

Derek Chauvin was found guilty by a jury of his peers. It's hard to provide an adequate defense when filmed performing the said action that caused George Floyd's demise. 

Agree.

[Serk]

After he was found guilty Derek Chauvin calmly stood up and put his hands behind his back to be cuffed. He then peacefully walked out of the court room led by the bailiff.

...if only George Floyd had accepted the consequences of his actions in such a manner none of us would know who Derek Chauvin was.

[Valkorado]

After he was found guilty Derek Chauvin calmly stood up and put his hands behind his back to be cuffed. He then peacefully walked out of the court room led by the bailiff.

...if only George Floyd had accepted the consequences of his actions in such a manner none of us would know who Derek Chauvin was.

A good point, but...  It didn't happen that way.  Resistance to arrest is not unusual in policing.  It in itself doesn't warrant murder.  Floyd screwed the pooch.  Chauvin really screwed the pooch.  Floyd is dead.  Chauvin is going away.  End of story.

[cookiedough]

could anyone imagine the RIOTING all over if he was found NOT guilty on all 3 counts?   NO rioting now is there,   right!  Anything less than GUILTY would create riots all over again so I expected it to be all GUILTY to set a precedence and keep the streets safe from more riots.       I sure hope the police officers all over do NOT quit and find other jobs though still need them even if only a few nationwide do the wrong thing. 

[Ken aka Oil Burner]

If I ever get in a jam, I know who I'm putting on retainer.

Oh no you don't.   

Well, free advice is less expensive than an attorney on retainer anywho, so there's that. 

[Willow]

...
Intent to speed.  So that's why every traffic officer walks up to you and asks, "Do you know how fast you were going?"    

Well, intent to speed was not exactly right.  

There are general intent and specific intent crimes.  ...

LOL!  It was a joke but I guess hard to tell.  I have a rather dry sense of humor.   

But thank you for the thorough explanation.