Image 01 Image 03

Derek Chauvin Trial Tainted By Threats Of Violence Calling Into Question Whether Any Minneapolis Jury Could Be Impartial

Derek Chauvin Trial Tainted By Threats Of Violence Calling Into Question Whether Any Minneapolis Jury Could Be Impartial

My interview on The Tony Katz Show: “That’s not to say there wasn’t evidence for conviction, but the entire process had a taint to it that I think you couldn’t get rid of…”

I appeared on April 21, 2021, on the Tony Katz Show to discuss the verdicts in the trial of Derek Chauvin in the in-custody death of George Floyd.

As the entire world knows by now, there were guilty verdicts on all three counts (2nd Degree Murder, 3rd Degree Murder, and 2nd Degree Manslaughter) after just 10 hours of deliberations over two days.

You can listen to the entire interview at Tony’s website, and below.

(If Player doesn’t load, click here)

Here is the transcript of the interview.

(As usual, the transcript is auto-generated and may contain transcription errors. Time stamps are approximate.)

Judge Peter A. Cahill (courtoom audio)(00:30):

District court, Fourth Judicial District, State of Minnesota, Plaintiff versus Derek Michael Shovan, defendant, verdict. Count 1 Court File No. 27 CR 2012646. We, the jury in the above entitled matter as to Count 1, unintentional, second degree murder while committing a felony, find the defendant guilty as verdict agreed to this 20th day of April, 2021 at 1:44 PM, signed juror foreperson, Juror No. 19. Same caption verdict, Count 2. We, the jury in the above entitled matter as to Count 2, third degree murder perpetrating an eminently dangerous act, find the defendant guilty. This verdict agreed to this 20th day of April, 2021 at 1:45 PM.

Tony Katz (01:17):

It was actually all three. Second degree murder, third degree murder, and second degree manslaughter. Is this a shock? Is this a surprise? This isn’t a question of whether or not you thought he was guilty. This is a question of whether or not you thought a case could be made, not just for one, but for all three, including a very tough requisite there, which is second degree murder. Tony Katz, 93 WIBC. Good morning. Let me bring in William Jacobson of, Cornell law professor. He’s going to be doing post-trial analysis over at this evening at 8:00 PM. You can be a part of it, We’ve spoken about this, sir. We’ve spoken about this case. Talk to me about what you think of this decision, guilty on all three counts. What was the jury looking at in your eyes?

William Jacobson (02:13):

Well, of course it’s hard to know. I think the quick verdict seems to indicate that there really wasn’t any doubt in their mind going into deliberations. I think the combination of circumstances. I think people have to distinguish two things here. One, substantively, there was evidence of a crime here. I believe there was also reasonable doubt as to what Chauvin did actually caused the deaths, but I can’t say there was no evidence to support a conviction. But in this political atmosphere, with every single juror knowing that their life would be over if they voted not to convict, that they would be doxxed, they would be harassed, they would be attacked, with a Congresswoman out there threatening additional confrontation, with everything going on, protesters on the streets. I think there was a real question here, whether a trial in Minneapolis, regardless of whether the evidence, could have resulted in a not guilty. But that said there was certainly evidence of a crime, I think and I was surprised substantively that they convicted on everything, but you know, just a couple of days before you had a Congresswoman on TV, Maxine Waters saying if they don’t convict of murder, we’re going to get “more confrontational.”

Jacobson (03:36):

So I’m not really sure what was going on in the jury’s mind, except that, you know, there was evidence to convict. I don’t think it was second degree murder under Minnesota law, or even third degree murder under Minnesota law, because what he did was not an inherently dangerous act. I think there was plenty of testimony, even from prosecution witnesses, that keeping someone in the prone position and applying weight to them is actually something taught to Minneapolis police. I think the argument was he went on too long.

Katz (04:12):

Now I want to make sure that everybody is on the same page. You’re not having a conversation of whether or not you agree with officer former officer Charvin. You’re taking a look at the argument that was made. Your team has been covering this every single day over at and based on the presentation and your understanding of the law, you don’t think second degree or third degree applies. And you’re engaging with us on some of the things that you heard. Why, in your view, is second degree manslaughter clearly a proper, guilty finding?

Jacobson (04:49):

Because that’s essentially a negligence standard. It’s a standard that I think you could make a good argument, and it wouldn’t have shocked me if the jury went along with this, that while it might’ve been proper to arrest him, and it might’ve been proper to take him to the ground, which even prosecution witnesses said is a technique taught; and while it may have even been proper to put him prone on the ground, which again prosecution use of force police witnesses said was proper, it went on too long. And I think that, fairly looking at it, if at some point in that nine minutes, halfway into it, when it was clear that this person was either completely nonresponsive or becoming non-responsive, they had rendered some sort of medical care or done something to ease the situation, I think it might’ve been a different result. But I think that that was negligent. Having put him properly in the prone position, it was negligent to keep him there even after he visibly stopped breathing.

Jacobson (05:56):

And kind of my reactions that I wrote about immediately after the close of the evidence, but before the closing arguments, was I think that’s a problem. I think that when somebody is handcuffed on the ground, no longer resisting, and has visibly stopped breathing, why do you keep weight on him for another two minutes? So I think that was always going to be a problem, but that’s not second degree murder, and it’s not third degree murder. It’s manslaughter. So that’s why I think that if that had been the result, while I do think there was reasonable doubt as to cause of death and things like that, I think that would have been understandable. But the fact that the jury came back so quickly with second degree murder, basically convicted of everything, tells me that they didn’t really have an open mind on these things.

Katz (06:54):

Let’s get into that idea right now, talking to William Jacobson, Cornell law Professor, is the site. You should check it out for yourself. We spoke about what Representative Maxine Waters said, that we were going to continue in the streets, and I want guilty, guilty, guilty, and only of murder. And we’re going to get “more confrontational.” You saw the crowds that built. You know that the jury was going home in the evening, only with the instructions of “Don’t watch the news.” So there’s a question of what they saw, and what was prejudicial. This is a conversation, not even just about this case, but about the legal system in general. Is it possible that someone like Judge Cahill, who was presiding over this case, or is it possible that on appeal, as we heard Judge Cahill say the defense now has a great reason to get this thing overturned on appeal, will the quick verdict, 10 hours of deliberation… play into this? And will we see any level of appeal because there’s back and forth on this, including people like the TV judge and TV host Jeanine Pirro saying, no, this is going to survive appeal. What do you say?

Jacobson (08:06):

Well, I think there’s a real question. I mean, Judge Cahill, I thought within the confines of the courtroom, seemed to be a reasonable judge who tried to do his best. But he made one error, which tainted the entirety of the case, which was [actually] two errors. One is not moving it out of Minneapolis. I mean, for goodness sake, the jurors had to arrive every day to a heavily fortified public building, with fencing, National Guard, heavy police presence. They knew what was going to happen. So not moving it out of Minneapolis, not changing the venue was mistake Number One, which probably made a fair trial, impossible. And mistake Number Two is not sequestering the jury and not really protecting their identity because during jury selection, while they didn’t show the faces of the jurors, they played the voices, which means all their coworkers, all their family members, all their neighbors were going to know who they were.

Jacobson (09:07):

So you went into a trial with threats of violence, a history of violence in Minneapolis, significant neighborhoods were completely burned down and gutted. People threatening violence if there wasn’t the result they wanted in the case. And the jurors had really no anonymity. I think that it was guaranteed that, if there was a not guilty verdict, by the time we’re speaking now, these names would be out there. Reporters would be at their front doors, and protestors would be leaving severed pigs’ head on their door like they did to the witness, the defense witness. They did that to the house he used to live in thinking he still lived there, in California. So I think that this entire case was tainted. That’s not to say there wasn’t evidence for conviction, but the entire process had a taint to it that I think you couldn’t get rid of…

Jacobson (10:04):

and what that means on appeal, I think one of the points I’ve heard a number of people make is that it’s not clear that the taint was sufficiently documented. I mean, do we know whether any of the jurors actually heard what Maxine Waters said? So, I think that’s going to depend how an appeals court is going to view it, that there has to be evidence that the jury actually was tainted, not that there was a political atmosphere which was hostile to a particular verdict. I think that’s something where perhaps the defense lawyer didn’t do a great job in preserving that record and that evidence for an appellate court. He certainly raised the objections, but he should have asked for each juror to be spoken to privately by the judge. There should have been some record that these jurors actually heard it.

Katz (10:58):

And we’ll see whether or not… We’ll see what happens on appeal. William Jacobson, Cornell Law Professor. Post-trial analysis tonight at 8:00 PM over at


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Completely agree. The jury should have been sequestered the entire trial, and certainly after Wright was killed. There is no doubt that jury systemic intimidation occurred. Even if not a fair trial, the politics say harmless error. FWIW.

The trial never should have been in Minneapolis in the first place. The jury decided based on emotion, and not reason. Women shouldn’t be allowed to sit on juries.

    alohahola in reply to BillyHW. | April 22, 2021 at 9:15 pm

    White women who are self-hating or easily intimidated should not be allowed to sit on juries.

    mark311 in reply to BillyHW. | April 23, 2021 at 2:42 am

    That’s your assertion and without a shred of evidence for either point. The only one getting emotional here is you.

    n.n in reply to BillyHW. | April 23, 2021 at 12:45 pm

    Yes, the direct evidence: drug overdose, comorbidities, Covid-19 case, a definite lack of phyical trauma, supported an acquittal. As for women sitting on juries… well, around half of the female sex subscribe to the Pro-Choice religion.

Stand strong, Mr. Chauvin. Your enemy will end up saving your life!

Alternate juror admits that she decided guilty before the trial was over

She also admits her decision was based on part on not liking the way Chauvin looked at her.

Don’t worry: Maxine Waters, Le Bron James and Joe Biden volunteered to pay all expenses for a new trial. Right.

Some good news: our boycott of CocaCola is working. They just demonted the dumbass who started the whole thing:

Judge Peter A. Cahill is a 14-year veteran of the bench in Hennepin County. He has previously worked as a public defender, private defense lawyer and prosecutor, rising to become chief deputy under Amy Klobuchar, now a U.S. senator, when she served as the county attorney.

Besides not sequestering the jury at any point prior to deliberations being a mistake, they allowed this trial to drag out too long further increasing the opportunity for outside parties to assert even more pressure on the jury. The state presented many witnesses that had no business testifying, many were offering opinion testimony instead of fact based testimony. The state used ( I believe) six different medical experts while the defense offered just one. What ended up being a three week trial could have been done in half the time making it much easier on the jury.
Shortening the trial also would have lessened the ongoing document dumps ( over 5000 pages) by the state to nelson once the trial had started. the state was finding new evidence on the last two days of the trial ( the blood gas report).
Cahill wanted this trial done and gone, off his docket, he was reluctant to strike jurors during selection, he was all bark at least twice twice, in Tobin’s rebuttal and allowing Blackwell’s final rebuttal statement that can easily be considered misconduct even after being warned about his conduct yet he continued his “shady” presentation that was outside the rules he had to follow. He also blocked the nelson from calling Hall to the stand and make him take the fifth in front of the jury.
Even after cahill admonishing elected officials for making statements he did nothing, the announcement of the $27 million dollar settlement cost him two jurors and maybe influenced others, Biden making a public statement during deliberations

oppressivemath | April 23, 2021 at 1:28 am

Mr. Branca – with these new disclosures of from the alternate juror, is there a potential for pre-sentencing mistrial or other remedy – besides appeal? Will the other jurors be interviewed? What if they confirm the intimidation impact?

I think there’s a very good chance the jurors’ family members told them about the jury intimidation and threats if they didn’t vote guilty of murder.. Why wouldn’t they? They want their family to be safe. Perspective jurors brought this up during voir dire.

The jury had an open mind, at least enough of them out of 12 did to hang the jury did, but it’s not about open minds. It’s about the mob and the city.

As signaled by the quick decision on arguable facts not being argued.

    There was a presumption of guilt, and reasonable doubt of his innocence. Planned Policeman (PP) is a quasi-Constitutional rite (i.e. Twilight Amendment or “penumbras and emanations”) and a socially progressive choice (PC). Woke and drowsy.

Since the appeal will involve only a judge, no jury, is it possible that the appellate judge could time the release of the ruling to bury it in the news cycle to reduce the opportunity for public violence?

It’s very troubling to realize that we’ve descended into mob rule like this.

Bucky Barkingham | April 23, 2021 at 7:37 am

An impartial jury is exactly what the producers of his show trial did not want. The purpose here was “social justice” not actual impartial legal justice.

Speaking of legal justice:

Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

    She already got justice.


      An unarmed woman, surrounded by security personnel, and his Choice to commit elective abortion, presumably to relieve a “burden” h/t Obama. A witch trial, a warlock judgment, a Planned Protester (PP) is a quasi-Constitutional rite.

Yeah, the pig Chauvin murdered a guy on camera and you bootlickers can’t see it because you’re a bunch of brainwashed conspiracy loons.

Oh, and Andrew Branca doesn’t know shit about self defense. I’ve killed two men in self defense and successfully navigated through the legal system without ever falling for his “$49.95 a month for the Platinum Protection Program” grift.

Didn’t even buy the coffee mug.(Also a grift)

    paralegal in reply to cgray451. | April 23, 2021 at 10:13 am

    Speaking of brainwashed pigs, have you looked in the mirror?

    An adverse reaction that started in the police car and perhaps earlier to a drug overdose, diverse comorbidities, and a Covid-19 case. A knee placed across the shoulder blades to restrain a man exhibiting a violent reaction to a medical event, and a post-mortem with no forensic evidence of physical trauma.

One of the jurors has already given an interview. The one who lived in Brooklyn Heights and had to drive through the protests.

“I did not want to go through rioting and destruction again and I was concerned about people coming to my house if they were not happy with the verdict.”

Alternate Juror makes a bunch of important admissions.

1. Avoiding having protesters show up at their home was a primary deciding factor.

2. They did not understand the jury instructions.

3, They gave improper credit to witnesses that were not qualified as experts such as Donald Williams.

LegallyBlonde | April 23, 2021 at 10:56 am

The dismissed alternate juror gives some insight into why a modern jury of your peers is a frightful thing. She wasn’t a good and fair juror. Worse, she wants to brag about that on TV.

The good news for Chauvin is she no doubt wasn’t the only terrible juror. Low intelligence and morals, and an expectation of being praised by everyone for that will likely lead someone who did vote on the verdict to reveal himself. Hopefully Chauvin’s defense is monitoring social media.

Chauvin will not succeed in his appeal. No judge is going to want to overturn this verdict. No judge will have courage. Maybe if Chuavin makes it to the SCOTUS they may overturn. But I’d guess Robert’s and ACB will make sure that doesn’t happen.

Mr. Jacobsen, I want to express my perspective on the issue of Chauvin’s guilt or maybe I should call it his innocence. We each process information uniquely to our own personal experiences. In my case, my deceased husband was a molecular biologist, pathologist, and toxicologist. He was a professor of medicine, primarily a researcher, and taught biochemistry. As an academician and scientist, his credentials were above those who testified at Chauvin’s trial.

I am accustomed to such medical dialogue over 40 years as those so-called medical experts delivered in trial. Thus my perspective and what I would be arguing with my husband if he had presented their analyses before me.

As to the pulmonologist, he did not have the qualifications to be testifying. He did not know the area of cardiology nor the pharmacology of the drugs involved and so discounted them, disqualifying himself. He was too absurd to elaborate on further. The woman who testified disqualified herself by attributing Floyd’s death to the knee on the neck. More importantly, both disqualified themselves along with the cardiologist, another that was absurd, by not addressing the FACT that Floyd’s breathing problems (his heart failing) started before he was placed in that hold. The cardiologist disqualified himself when he testified that 90% blockage of a coronary artery was not a big deal nor relevant to the case, nor were the drugs. All of them discounted the drugs on the basis of not death by overdose and thus not relevant. Excuse me. The drugs affect respiration and heart functioning. Just the FACT they were in Floyd’s body when he experienced breathing problems and subsequent heart failure made them relevant.

The medical examiner, forensic pathologist was very good but he had two short comings in his logic. He was correct enough in saying as he did on the death certificate that there were multiple contributing factors to Floyd’s death. Those were the atherosclerosis, hypertension, large level of Fentanyl, methamphetamines, and the physiological stress of being arrested and in that hold. By stress, he was talking about the body’s physiological reaction to stress wherein particular biochemicals are released. Those biochemicals affect heart functioning and respiration. That reaction is called the Fight/Flight Reaction. You can easily find it on the web. He attributed the hold to be the primary factor because it was the last thing to happen before death, the straw that broke the camel’s back so to speak. His first failure in logic is that is not necessarily true and in Floyd’s case, was not true. His second failure was that the cause or causes have to happen before the effect.!!

The Fight/Flight stress response started BEFORE the breathing problems. The breathing problems started before the hold. The breathing problems were a symptom of Floyd’s impending heart failure. Both of these contributing factors to Floyd’s death happened before Chauvin was even on the scene.

Sometimes that Fight/Flight response manifests itself in what people describe as panic attacks. You see it when Floyd resists getting in the car claiming he is claustrophobic. You see it when he fights off three, then four cops. Every factor that Dr. Baker attributes to Floyd’s death was in play before Chauvin was there.

The forensic pathologist who testified for the defense was excellent and essentially agreed with the ME pathologist but testified that an arrhythmia (which Dr. Baker admitted not considering due to lack of knowledge) was the final straw to Floyd’s death and he added two other possible contributing factors of carbon monoxide and the tumor Floyd had. Still, essentially these men agreed, the only two medical experts who knew what they were talking about and did agree for the most part.

Fact is that not a single contributing factor to Floyd’s death was caused by Chauvin.

Now as to the hold. Floyd was not really fighting the cops. He was resisting arrest and getting in that patrol car. He was flailing all around, quite strong, not helping his already failing heart. That hold restrained him from hurting himself or anyone else. The cops were not abusive. They immediately called an ambulance once he was under control. And they called again a few minutes later.

Now that leaves the issue of not turning Floyd on his side or removing the hold. We are talking a matter of minutes. Two? Three? Seriously? Would we ever charge a doctor for denying care for a few minutes? Seriously?
Chauvin was expecting an ambulance any second. It could have been there 5 minutes before. Why would Chauvin be any more responsible than those medics? Was Floyd’s death really anyone’s fault or rather not just his fate? I would say it was his fate.

Chauvin without question, was not proven guilty of anything but being a victim of the mob, prosecutors, and politicians. He was proven innocent.

Very sad story for Chauvin and very sad story for this country.