They basically patrol inner city neighborhoods like an occupying force IMO. It’s not a socially healthy way to treat citizens of our country. This is all a larger part of the problem with the War On Drugs.
2 Likes
In most progressive cities, the war on drugs is mostly directed to dealers nowadays. In my city, I think you can carry up to like 3-5 grams on you and be fine. That’s more than any user would ever carry.
I just said that Chauvin’s conviction cant be brought up at the other officers trial, but Chauvin can be called as a witness, though he still has his 5th amendment rights.
Who cares what the definition of 2nd degree murder is? She was charged with second-degree manslaughter.
1 Like
Way late here, but I’ve always understood that a pardon imputes guilt and waives your 5th amendment rights, so you can be compelled to testimony. Not a lawyer here but I’d assume that the “guilty/compelled” part would also apply to non-pardoned crimes. That said, there are all sorts of different legal structures in different jurisdictions.
I think what you’re trying to describe is immunity, not pardons, right? In cases of immunity, yes, there is no Fifth Amendment right anymore, because the possibility of self-incrimination no longer exists.
Dagget is right. Granting immunity dissolves 5th amendment rights. Guilty verdicts do not. Especially when the appeals process is not completed yet.
I know this isn’t a scholarly article but it’s the first that popped up. I’ve no stake in the argument, just casually curious. Reading other posts, this may only relate to pardons - potentially to guilty pleas? I can see why a standard guilty verdict may be different.
"Anyone pardoned by Trump would lose most of the 5th Amendment’s protection against compelled testimony that might otherwise have incriminated the pardoned family member or associate, making it much easier for DOJ and Congress to require such individuals to give testimony that could prove highly incriminating to Trump himself,”
1 Like
Those are both true. But pardons also dissolve 5th amendment rights.
2 Likes
Accidental misstatement on my part, as the the law I had linked in the previous post and we were discussing was the ‘MN 2nd Degree Manslaughter’ statute.
I fixed my post.
Yeah, I get it, I frequently type “murder” when I mean to type “manslaughter”, too. It happens to the best of us.
If you read the conversation, you can see that i said manslaughter in a prior post. Auto complete/Predictive text is a pain sometimes of you don’t catch it.
But, please engage in the conversation or continue to troll. You do you.
This sounds like really bad news for this prison guard. The other guards don’t seem to be coming to her defense on this one. I can’t really deduce from the article why she told people not to intervene.
I am now curious what part of the “jury instructions” the one juror was confused about.
1 Like
That’s interesting.
When I sat on a jury the police played a cassette recording of their interrogation of Witness A in court, but then the prosecutor did not enter the cassette into evidence.
(We had another cassette of an interrogation of Witness B conducted by a different PD and a cassette player to play it back.)
The judge gave no instructions that we were to disregard the interrogation of Witness A.
One of the jurors was convinced that we were not allowed to consider what we heard in court that was part of the playback.
We finally had to submit a question to the judge, all trot back into the courtroom with both attorneys and the defendant so the judge could tell us that we were allowed to use our recollections of the recording.
That switched that juror from “not guilty” to “guilty” though, so…
I’ve always been curious about what was in that interrogation that both the prosecution and the defense didn’t want us to hear. (The defense could have easily entered the cassette into evidence but, like the prosecution, chose not to.)
My guess is that it was mention of either an abortion or a miscarriage on the part of the witness being interrogated (the on-again / off-again girlfriend of the defendant). She was overly emotional about the recording, and someone else alluded to her being sick to her stomach a lot, which seemed consistent with pregnancy.
Certainly knowing that the defendant’s girlfriend had aborted the defendant’s baby could be prejudicial.
But I’ll never know. I could be WAY off base.
Hispanic George Floyd.
Not exactly. I saw the english version. The cops rendered aid as soon as they realized Mario was in trouble. No 9 minutes with a knee here. Wait for the autopsy.
It doesn’t seem to be the same as Floyd but they did have him pinned for 5 minutes. This seems to be another case of police being asked to do what they aren’t really trained for where social worker might have better results in that case.
asking people to erase their memory is the most troublesome part of the jury process imo.
If you have evidence that are provided and seen but deemed inadmissible, you need a new jury imo. There’s always going to be bias once an evidence is seen.