General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAfter all I've seen about the murder of George Floyd, I only have three words for Judge Cahill:
Lock Him Up!
UPDATE:
https://www.mediaite.com/news/watch-judge-scolds-maxine-waters-for-abhorrent-comments-says-she-may-have-given-chauvin-an-argument-for-appeal/
drray23
(7,587 posts)JoeOtterbein
(7,697 posts)...Lock Him (Cahill) Up.
dem4decades
(11,241 posts)JoeOtterbein
(7,697 posts)Not Maxine.
WhiskeyGrinder
(22,145 posts)JoeOtterbein
(7,697 posts)He is doing everything he can to release the murderer.
WhiskeyGrinder
(22,145 posts)JoeOtterbein
(7,697 posts)Look out for the the mistrial.
WhiskeyGrinder
(22,145 posts)JoeOtterbein
(7,697 posts)Ocelot II
(115,270 posts)Even if he wins on appeal, he wouldn't go free. He'd just get a new trial and he'd most likely be convicted again. But new trials aren't often granted.
TwilightZone
(25,342 posts)You really have no idea what you're talking about.
Ocelot II
(115,270 posts)The defense moved for a mistrial and the judge denied the motion. If he'd wanted a mistrial he'd have granted it.
JoeOtterbein
(7,697 posts)He's setting it up for the next judge. That is how it now works.
Ocelot II
(115,270 posts)There is a Court of Appeals, but the standard of review for the denial of a motion for a mistrial means it's very unlikely that they will overturn Cahill's decision to deny the motion.
RegularJam
(914 posts)The system gives opportunity for appeal, thankfully. The rest is conjecture on your part.
And yes, if a juror is interviewed and says that MW influenced them, its a big deal. Of course she didnt, but the option is there for good reason.
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)Is actually a very good judge and very impartial.
Ocelot II
(115,270 posts)The jury decides whether he is to be locked up. The judge only decides for how long, based on the sentencing guidelines and whether there should be an upward departure from the guidelines based on aggravating factors, up to the statutory maximum.
JoeOtterbein
(7,697 posts)Lock Him Up! As Long As You Can!
Ocelot II
(115,270 posts)After someone is convicted of a felony, the court is required to order a presentence investigation and written report, which is to be prepared by a probation officer or the Commissioner of Corrections and identifies the defendants individual characteristics, circumstances, needs, potentialities, criminal record and social history; the circumstances of the offense; and the harm the offense caused others and the community. This report must include a sentencing worksheet in order to apply the sentencing guidelines. If the judge decides to depart from the guidelines he has to explain why, and the sentence can be appealed. It's not a simple matter of arbitrarily imposing a sentence just because it's what the judge wants.
JoeOtterbein
(7,697 posts)Killer Cops Go Free ASAP.
Consider it my protest sign tonight.
brooklynite
(93,844 posts)JoeOtterbein
(7,697 posts)He needs to be removed.
Ocelot II
(115,270 posts)If he thought a mistrial was appropriate he'd have granted the motion. But he didn't.
JoeOtterbein
(7,697 posts)He is setting it up for another pro-cop judge.
Ocelot II
(115,270 posts)But I guess you're bound and determined not to understand how this works. I'll try again, anyhow. The judge apparently thought Waters' comment was inappropriate but not inappropriate enough to warrant a mistrial, so he denied the motion, and all he said was basically that the defense could appeal. The appellate court isn't bound by the judge's remark, nor is any other judge. The law regarding appellate review of a motion to deny a mistrial is this:
In other words, the court of appeals is unlikely to overturn the verdict or grant a new trial on the basis of Waters' comments, the failure to grant a mistrial, or the fact that the court didn't sequester the jury. I hope this isn't too complicated for you.
BlueLucy
(1,609 posts)If he wanted a mistrial he would have granted one. None of that tells us how the judge feels about this case.
JoeOtterbein
(7,697 posts)And what is with the Maxine lecture?
USALiberal
(10,877 posts)TwilightZone
(25,342 posts)Do you think the jury is just there for show?
TwilightZone
(25,342 posts)lol, no.
Solomon
(12,305 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)in future, at least until decision.
lamp_shade
(14,796 posts)Sunsky
(1,737 posts)The judge felt free to get his opinion on the impact of Maxine's statement on the appeal process, while at the same time chastise a citizen for exercising her 1st amendment right by verbalizing her thoughts outside of the hearing of the jury.
I have watched msnbc, CNN, court tv, and HLN daily regarding this trial and I have heard numerous opinions. Why is one citizen's opinion weighted over the rest?