The Justice Department has secured indictments of the four former Minneapolis police officers involved in George Floyd’s arrest and death. The three-count indictment unsealed Friday names Derek Chauvin, Thomas Lane, J. Kueng and Tou Thao.The indictment creates as new front for the officers and a type of insurance for state prosecutors if they fail to convict the three remaining officers (or Derek Chauvin is given a new trial).
I have previously written that convictions of officers like Lane could be challenging as opposed to Chauvin who was the principle actor. I stated from the outset that Chauvin could legitimately be convicted even though I viewed the stronger charge to be manslaughter, not murder.
This allows for the officers to face federal changes based on the same conduct. Indeed, that is why these collateral charges have been challenged in the past as raising double jeopardy claims.
The Court has adopted a highly permissive approach that has fueled the increased use of parallel federal prosecutions. The foundation for this rule was laid in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), where the Supreme Court held that “where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.” The Supreme Court has also emphasized that, as separate sovereign powers, the federal government retains the right prosecute for its own crimes. In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), stressed that:
“It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its laws.”
The charges come after Chauvin filed a request for a new trial, including allegations of the denial of an unbiased jury. One issue could be the alleged false statements by a juror about his prior involvement in protests.
The federal charges mean that, even if Chauvin gets a new trial or the other former officers are acquitted, they will remain subject to federal charges.
Here is a very good comment about some of the new charges filed in the Chauvin case and the background of his use of force.
The DOJ is a disgrace.
https://www.thenewneo.com/2021/04/29/why-dont-they-just-stone-chauvin-to-death-and-get-it-over-with/
Hunter Biden’s his name ..
He rode off with Robert E. Lee!
News you’ll never read in the liberal media:
“Black Father Beats 5 Year Old son To Death Over Cheesecake”
https://nypost.com/2021/05/07/wisconsin-man-fatally-punched-son-over-cheesecake-pleads-guilty/
On the plus side, the prosecution, despite its best efforts, failed to persuade the grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, apparently proving former New York State Chief Judge Sol Wachtler wrong. Consequently, the prosecution had to settle with getting the grand jury to indict a liverwurst sandwich with mayonnaise on white bread.
There was zero evidence at State trial for Chauvin of racial animus. I doubt there was any.
Just because the national media strikes out with a false narrative of racial animus in order to grab attention — that does not establish the necessary fact.
pbinca– Agreed. Even the far-left AG said there was no evidence of racial animus in this case. The racial animus is with the DOJ.
True, pbinca, but in today’s world, truth and facts are irrelevant. Case in point this interesting study. Fascinating–albeit disturbing–read. But what is most frightening is that disagreeing with the results or stating what you said–doubting racial animus existed–could be grounds for firing or being booted out of school…and soon, no doubt, jail for disagreeing with Big Brother.
https://www.justfacts.com/news_2020_survey_voter_knowledge
Anyone who thinks there is no danger from a political bias in main stream media, the power of censorship from big tech and the ability and design to indoctrinate young people in educational institutions needs to read this study.
Salient points from the study:
“This suggests that progressive powerhouses like media titans, big tech corporations, and educational institutions have enough reach and influence to mislead large numbers of people who are ideologically opposed to falsehoods they propagate.”
“Among questions in which the wrong answers accorded with partisan agendas, an average of 57% of answers were liberally misinformed, while 28% were conservatively misinformed. In other words, voters were twice as likely to believe certain progressive myths than conservative ones.”
“For all 10 of the questions in which the electorate was most deluded, the wrong answers they gave concurred with progressive narratives propagated by the media. Moreover, the false answers they gave were often far removed from reality, not just slightly mistaken. For example, 66% of voters thought that doubling the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour would raise the average income of families in poverty by 25% or more. The real figure is about 1%.”