Derek Chauvin’s attorney Eric Nelson has officially filed a motion for a new trial.
Pretty much every defense attorney I speak to agrees that the judge should have granted a change of venue and should have sequestered the jury. Neither decision is likely to get him a new trial, but I'd love to sit down with the judge and ask him under what circumstances he'd ever grant those two remedies if not in this case.
Then add those factors, along with the words of the alternate juror (who had to dodge riots on her way home, and was candid that she was worried about protests) and the juror who wore BLM gear referencing Chauvin's knee to the neck.
It just feels dirty. The verdict itself is certainly supportable; even if some lawyers disagree about Counts 2 and 3, it's something that juries can apply their own logic to. Manslaughter was obvious to me. But, justice means you follow the Constitutional guarantees of Due Process. Whatever that high standard means, it isn't this.
That said, I get all of the counter-arguments. The one that is the most true is that Due Process is shortcut constantly in this country, particularly for poor defendants. The sad part for me is, the judges themselves engage in, and encourage, those shortcuts. But, wouldn't it be nice if a judge in a high-profile case said, "Nope, we're doing it right this time".