LAL #010 — The Chauvin Trial (Part IV): A Closing Argument

Closing arguments have taken place in the Derek Chauvin murder trial in Minneapolis.  This is the most significant criminal trial in America since John Adams' defense of the British soldiers following the famed Boston Massacre trial in 1770.  The Rule of Law is on trial here. Do we assess the evidence against Chauvin under the rule of law, or do we let our judgment be moved by the agitation of those who've already made up their minds, and threatened unrest unless there is a conviction? The whole world is watching, folks chanted last year. And, indeed, it is.  Storefronts are boarded up and the courthouse is fortified. Yet not one of those who took to the streets chanting "No Justice, No Peace," saw what jurors did in this case: the evidence. I'm rooting for the rule of law in this case, and against the influence of an angry mob. There is nothing quite so frightening and destabilizing as a self-righteous mob. I've been involved in hundreds of criminal cases and scores of police misconduct cases, including more murders and police use of force cases than I can recall. Based on what I've seen of the trial, I would vote to acquit. Here's what I would argue had Mr. Chauvin been my case. Of course, the actual argument would be longer, and would refer to exhibits and testimony much more than here. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/norm-pattis/support