, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In the Floyd case, the hits just keep on coming.  As I explained in Update 12: The Point, the post trial comments of several jurors could, in a normal rather than backward trial, in a state where the rule of law rather than the mob and threats of violence ruled, easily cause a mistrial, as I noted:

It’s this kind of obvious deception—perjury–that could easily result in a mistrial.  Trying to “spark some change” is not at all what jurors are charged to do. Take the links and see for yourself.  I doubt Christensen was a stealth juror, but it’s likely Mitchell was, though he maintains the jury wasn’t at all concerned about threats to their lives and to the city.   Even if that’s true, serving to ‘spark some change’ is no less despicable and destructive to our system of justice.  A copy of the prospective juror questionnaire may be found here.  At the very least, Christensen’s entirely reasonable fears were surely on the minds of the rest of the jury.  We have since learned that on the day of the jury’s deliberations, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, one of the most leftist former newspapers in existence, published complete profiles of the jurors, revealing virtually everything about them except publishing their photos, addresses and phone numbers.

But that’s not a real concern for the Minneapolis social justice system, and the racist Minnesota AG’s Office led by Keith Ellison (above) has provided an appropriate distraction.  Convicting Derek Chauvin on all counts wasn’t nearly enough, oh no.  They’ve filed to enhance Chauvin’s sentence.  The 12.5 years that would normally result from these charges isn’t nearly enough.  Just as it’s not possible to ever be sufficiently woke, it’s impossible to appease the mob.  Prof Jacobson at Legal Insurrection explains Judge Cahill is virtually all in for sentence enhancement, which could easily result in a 30 year sentence.  The Professor ends with this:

I’m guessing 30 years also, though I won’t be shocked if the Judge finds a way to enhance it even more. With credit for good behavior, Chauvin’s facing at least 20 years served in state prison.

It’s highly unlikely such an obviously hostile judge, who stands to be overturned for his poor handling of the trial, will declare a mistrial regardless of the cause, and the Minnesota Supreme Court, among the most leftist in the land, is not going to be sympathetic.  At the moment, Chauvin’s sentencing is set for June 25.  As I’ve previously noted, a prison sentence for a police officer is normally a death sentence, either through being murdered, or from wasting away in solitary confinement.  The SMM Floyd case archive is here.  

Even this is not sufficient distraction from any attempt by Chauvin’s attorneys to obtain a mistrial for very good cause.  There is much more, as Jack Cashill at The American Thinker reports, the Hennepin County—Minneapolis—Medical Examiner, Dr. Andrew Baker, the only person to actually conduct an autopsy on Floyd, was medically, but not politically, correct:

Baker conducted an autopsy on Floyd on May 26, 2020, the day after Floyd’s death. As yet unaware of the politics of the case, Baker reported his findings honestly, namely that ‘[t]he autopsy revealed no physical evidence suggesting that Mr. Floyd died of asphyxiation. Mr. Floyd did not exhibit signs of petechiae, damage to his airways or thyroid, brain bleeding, bone injuries, or internal bruising.’

Floyd didn’t die of asphyxiation, and had no real injuries of any kind.  That would be deadly to the prosecution, so they immediately went to work:

Enter Dr. Roger Mitchell, stage left. A former Medical Examiner of Washington D.C. and current chair of the pathology department at Howard University College of Medicine, Mitchell spoke with Dr. Baker before Baker finalized his findings on June 1. Unsatisfied with the conversation, ‘Mitchell decided he was going to release an op-ed critical of Dr. Baker’s findings in the Washington Post.’

According to [defendant] Thao’s motion, Mitchell called Baker to give him a heads up on the Post article and warned him, ‘You don’t want to be the medical examiner who tells everyone they didn’t see what they saw,’ adding that ‘neck compression has to be in the diagnosis.’

credit: usatoday

The physical findings did not change, but suddenly, Baker’s analysis of them did.  As regular readers will recall, during the trial the prosecution had to hastily and several times, revise its theory of the case when it was revealed Chauvin did not have his knee on Floyd’s neck—it was on his upper back and shoulder, exactly as Chauvin had been trained to do–in a way that would not hinder his blood circulation or breathing.

Following the two conversations, Baker issued a press release containing the final autopsy that now listed ‘neck compression’ among the findings.  On November 5, 2020, state prosecutors met with Mitchell but have not shared the audio of that meeting, if one exists, with Thao’s defense team, Robert and Natalie Paule.

Take the link and read the whole article.  If accurate, and it appears it is, the state coerced the primary medical witness to give false testimony though changing his official autopsy report, and through testifying to the false changes—subornation of perjury/tampering with a witness.  Will Judge Cahill rule on the motion, or wait until the officers have been convicted by the feds  when it really won’t matter (keep reading)?  But wait, as they say in late night TV commercials, there’s more, as Newsmax.com reports:

A federal grand jury has indicted the four former Minneapolis police officers involved in George Floyd’s arrest and death, accusing them of willfully violating the Black man’s constitutional rights as he was restrained face-down on the pavement.

A three-count indictment unsealed Friday names Derek Chauvin, Thomas Lane, J. Kueng, and Tou Thao.

Specifically, Chauvin is charged with violating Floyd’s right to be free from unreasonable seizure and unreasonable force by a police officer. Thao and Kueng are also charged with violating Floyd’s right to be free from unreasonable seizure, alleging they did not intervene to stop Chauvin as he knelt on Floyd’s neck. All four officers are charged for failing to provide Floyd with medical care.

These charges, on their face, are ludicrous.  There is no doubt whatsoever the officers had more than sufficient probable cause to arrest Floyd, and once PC is present, officers may use the force reasonably necessary to make an arrest.  As I’ve previously written, they used far less force than they were reasonably authorized to use.  So from where does the “unreasonable seizure” charge come?  The government’s argument is Floyd died, so the force used must be unreasonable, but that too is specious.  We know Floyd died from a massive drug overdose made all but certain, and aggravated, by his horrible medical conditions–hypertension, blocked coronary arteries, etc.

Most amazing, and disgusting, is the charge the officers failed to provide Floyd with medical care.  They called, twice, for an ambulance, the second time within minutes to make it an emergency response.  That the ambulance took longer than usual is no fault of theirs.  As I’ve also written, police officers normally receive no more than basic first aid training, and they are, by policy and regulation, prohibited from going beyond their basic medical training.  That’s what ambulances are for.  Remember too the crowd was so hostile, the ambulance personnel took one look, loaded Floyd and drove three blocks away at speed before daring to take the time to treat him.  Newsmax continues:

To bring federal charges in deaths involving police, prosecutors must believe that an officer acted under the ‘color of law,’ or government authority, and willfully deprived someone of their constitutional rights, including the right to be free from unreasonable seizures or the use of unreasonable force. That’s a high legal standard; an accident, bad judgment or simple negligence on the officer’s part isn’t enough to support federal charges.

Roy Austin, who prosecuted such cases as a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, said prosecutors have to prove that the officers knew what they were doing was wrong in that moment but did it anyway.

In a normal state, in a normal political climate, in a city where the rule of law rather than a racist rule of the mob prevailed, the DOJ would have never even looked into this case, and the officers would never have been charged.  Why did the DOJ look into this one?  Because nothing is normal, and we have a presidential puppet administration that is all about race and little else.  The racist DOJ has decided to get these officers, and they have unlimited taxpayer cash to do it.  They won’t let ethics or the truth get in the way.

But there is even more on the DOJ front, as Prof. Jacobson reports, The DOJ has also indicted Chauvin for another, completely unrelated, 2017 incident:

Here’s the key allegation in the 2017 incident:

On or about September 4, 20t7, in the State and District of Minnesota, the defendant, DEREK MICHAEL CHAUVIN, while acting under color of law, willfully deprived Juvenile I of the right, secured and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, to be free from an unreasonable seizure, which includes the right to be free from the use of unreasonable force by a police officer. Specifically, Defendant Chauvin, without legal justification, held Juvenile I by the throat and struck Juvenile 1 multiple times in the head with a flashlight. This offense included the use of a dangerous weapon-a flashlight-and resulted in bodily injury to Juvenile 1.

I know nothing about this 2017 situation.  In a very different—normal and non-race charged–political climate, it apparently did not concern the Minneapolis PD, or anyone else in the local justice system.  Prof. Jacobson notes:

I don’t know if failing to stop another police officer, or failing to render medical aid, are federal offenses. I assume that will be challenged.

I didn’t know that either.  The officers are being charged not for what they did, but for what they didn’t do.  I’m not aware of any federal crime that establishes a duty to do any particular thing in this kind of situation.  One hopes the Professor is right; this must be challenged.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy is equally unimpressed:

As a law-enforcement matter, the federal prosecution is not defensible. It is a needlessly redundant expenditure of federal resources to achieve a result that will already have been achieved by the state prosecutions. It puts defendants in jeopardy a second time for the same wrongful actions. Convictions would not advance accountability, but there is a significant risk of acquittals that would undermine accountability. And, under the guise of prosecuting an abuse of civil rights, the Justice Department and its Civil Rights Division are quite intentionally violating the civil rights of the defendants to fair criminal proceedings in the state court.

What McCarthy refers to is the state proceedings have been postponed until March of 2022 in order to give the DOJ more than enough time to prosecute and convict the officers before they face a Minnesota jury.  Why would the state court do that?  To prejudice any possible jury pool, just as was the case in the Chauvin trial.  If the three officers are convicted of the federal charges, it will be all the easier to convict them in state court.  State prosecutors are worried, as well they should be, about convicting the three officers who really had no active role in finally restraining Floyd, so they’re doing everything they can to stack the deck.

Of course, as a political matter, the prosecution makes all the sense in the world. The Biden administration needs to appease its angry base on the hard left. The administration is not in a position to deliver landmark progressive legislation. Instead, it is using the Justice Department to project solidarity with Black Lives Matter and other woke activists, fueling a toxic narrative that the nation’s police are the shock troops of America’s systemic racism.

This won’t end well.

No, it won’t.  Police officers in Minnesota and across the nation will have no doubt that for at least the next four years, their cities, states and the federal DOJ will be gunning for them.  The current police joke is “let’s stay fetal out there.”  This can only result in greatly increased retirement and resignation rates in our police forces, and in greatly decreased willingness of qualified, intelligent people applying for entry-level police positions.  Remember, all of this is ultimately about establishing a mandated, nationwide federal police force.

And if all of that misconduct were not enough, Prof. Jacobson once again reports:

Dr. David Fowler, former Chief Medical Examiner of Maryland, was an effective expert trial witness for Derek Chauvin, not that it mattered in the end.

Now there is an all-out professional mob targeting Fowler as punishment. On April 25, 2021, we reported how Chauvin Defense Forensic Expert Targeted By Maryland A.G. and Colleagues:

Derek Chauvin’s use-of-force expert, Barry Brodd, was targeted after his testimony. His former home, which the perps apparently assumed was still his, was  Vandalized and Smeared With Pig’s Blood.

A different type of targeting now is directed at Chauvin’s forensic expert, Dr. David Fowler. You may recall that Fowler was a very effective witness, testifying that George Floyd had a sudden cardiac arrythmia due to atherosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease, during his restraint by the police….

Dr. Fowler now is being targeted professionally, in moves which I predict are intended to render him unable to be an expert witness ever again, and even a vindictive attempt to pull his medical license.

Now it’s happening, the threats are coming to fruition. The Washington Post reports that the Maryland Attorney General is planning to appoint a panel to audit Fowler’s cases:

‘Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh’s office plans to appoint a panel of independent experts to audit and release a public report on all cases of deaths in police custody overseen by David Fowler, the state’s former chief medical examiner who testified in Derek Chauvin’s defense.

In a statement Friday, Frosh (D) said his office would be “consulting experts, examining similar audits in other jurisdictions, and doing a preliminary review of [the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner] data and protocols.”

The statement called on those who have been ‘affected by the focus of the audit or members of the public with interest or expertise’ to submit comments or materials to the Office of the Attorney General….’

In other words, we’re going to get this guy for daring to testify against the holy social justice martyr George Floyd, so hey everybody, pile on!  Just make things up; innuendo and rumor will do.  You don’t have to worry about evidence or accuracy; we’ll buy anything that will support the narrative and you’ll be a social justice, anti-racism hero!  No medical professional will, ever again, dare to testify on behalf of a police officer.  Prof. Jacobson concludes:

It’s not hard to understand what is happening. Maryland officials and the professional forensic participants in the targeting of Fowler, are seeking both retribution against Fowler, and making it difficult if not impossible for the three other officers awaiting trial to hire expert witnesses. Chauvin had two experts who testified — one (Barry Brodd) had his house targeted and the other (Dr. David Fowler) his professional license attacked.

The Maryland ‘audit’ panel will reach the conclusion the mob wants.

credit: blogs.scientificamerican.com

Final Thoughts:  Prosecutors confident in their evidence do not engage in misconduct.  They do not engage in publicity campaigns, nor do they intimidate witnesses.  They obtain convictions on the evidence; they do not try to utterly destroy defendants.  They seek justice, never social justice.  This case, regardless of how it all turns out, is already doing enormous damage to the foundations of our Republic.  The process, you see, is the punishment.