The Verdict

I am troubled by the Derek Chauvin verdict, though I will not second guess the jurors.  My concern is that the circus atmosphere of the trial puts our entire justice system at risk.

Let’s review a few facts about the circumstances surrounding and leading up to this trial which took place nearly a year after George Floyd’s death.  During that year we have had a continuing barrage of not just laments over Mr. Floyd’s death, but of Black deaths in general, and especially police shootings of Blacks.  There have been riots not only in Minneapolis, but across the country supportive of Black Lives Matter and Police Reform, Defunding of Police, and allegations of systemic racism in both policing and the justice system. 

The jurors, unless they were in a coma for the past year, had to have been subjected to the repeated assertions by the media that George Floyd was murdered by Derek Chauvin and subjected to showings and re-showings of a short but ugliest portion of the video of the entire somewhat lengthy event and incidents surrounding Mr. Floyd’s death.

The jury for the trial, once selected, were not sequestered though they were cautioned not to listen to or read stories about the Chauvin trial.  Well, these jurors left their homes each day and traveled through streets with protestors and national guardsmen, went through heightened security at the courthouse each day, and traveled home again.  There is a 24-hour news cycle that blasts around us daily.  That news cycle had for the most part already tried and convicted Derick Chauvin of murder.  If those jurors were not aware of the threats of violence surrounding the case they were hearing, then again, they must have been in a coma.

They were not sequestered when new riots broke out over a different police shooting with more assertions of police racism.  They were not sequestered when pig’s blood was smeared on the former home of a Chauvin defense witness.  They were not sequestered when threats were made of riots and worse if the verdict was not guilty.  They were not sequestered when the city settled the Floyd family case for $27 million during the trial with the surrounding narrative that this must mean Chauvin is guilty.  And they were not sequestered when Rep. Waters uttered what was essentially a threat for the rioters to “become even more confrontational” if the jurors did not return a guilty verdict. 

The jurors were sequestered at the end of the trial for their deliberation, so they did not hear the President’s admonition that the evidence was overwhelming, and he prayed they would get the verdict right, nor did they hear the news of his call to the Floyd family to support them.  But by then they had heard enough. 

The jurors had significant but limited knowledge about the events before they became actual jurors.  They swore to render their verdict only on the law and the evidence presented at the trial.  Much new evidence came out at trial that the media had not shared – evidence that might raise reasonable doubts about the narrative.  But was it, after a year of daily hearing the media’s narrative, too late to look at new and contrary evidence objectively?  Was it too late to honestly determine there might be reasonable doubt about that narrative?  We don’t know, and perhaps even the jurors themselves don’t know.

Was the threat of violence to their city, their hometown, even their own homes and their families a factor in the jurors’ deliberations?  We don’t know and they may not really know that either.

And that is the problem.  This trial was turned into some sort of proceeding on the state of social justice in America.  But a trial is not about a concept or a cause.  A trial is about a very specific incident and the facts and law that are exclusively relevant to that incident.  When one tries to make a trial about something else then those involved in that trial’s proceedings do not get justice.  And the irony here is that if you don’t have justice then you can’t have social justice.

We know that the jurors were bombarded with publicity that included information, misinformation, and disinformation about George Floyd and his death for close to a year before the trial began and that the publicity continued to surround them throughout the trial.  We know that they deliberated for only 10 and a half hours which did not provide much time to review three weeks’ worth of evidence and to make sure they were looking only at that evidence and not the year’s publicity. 

We know that despite the complexity of the laws involved and legal interpretations of terms therein, that the jurors asked no questions of the Judge during their 10 and a half hours of deliberation.  We know that it took the jury only 10 and a half hours to elect a foreperson, to review the law and evidence, and render unanimous guilty verdict on 3 counts, all requiring different criteria be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

As I said at the start, I will not second guess the jurors, but it is hard to have the confidence in this verdict that I usually have in jury verdicts.  My experience as a lawyer and a legal observer has generally been that jurors try their best to follow the law and the facts and reach a fair verdict and I will trust that is what the Chauvin jurors did.  But was that possible given the circus that surrounded them for the year prior to and then during this trial?  We will likely never know the definitive answer to that question. 

And that is why this is so troubling.

Because, if you cannot fully trust our legal and especially our jury system, then you cannot trust the law.  And if it even appears that a jury can be swayed by media narrative or by threats of violence then that is what we can look forward to in future litigation.

When we look again at the specific defendant in this trial, there is more to trouble us.  Derek Chauvin is a police officer.  I know that he is entitled to a jury of his peers, and apparently the lawyers and the court were satisfied with the jury, but I don’t know if there was even one police officer on the jury.  I do know that defendants who happen to fall within certain identity groups often demand that their juries consist of members of that same identity group.

The fact that this was the trial that resulted due to actions of a police officer during a criminal stop and detention means that the verdict here will have ramifications that will affect police behavior in the future, especially if there is the possibility or perception that this was not a just verdict.  If police feel that whenever someone is injured during a difficult arrest that they can be tried, possibly unfairly, then they will hold back on some actions that are necessary for them to do their job and keep the people of their jurisdictions safe.  This does not serve any of us well.

The ramifications of this verdict will also resonate with the social justice warriors.  We already have assertions that this trial has proven that systemic racism exists.  Just a note:  this was the trial of one police officer for one action; it was not the trial of whether or not systemic racism exists.  Yet apparently those calling for remaking or removal of police generally, see this verdict as a hefty bonus to their cause. 

Many believe that their demonstrations, rioting, and threats of violence are what resulted in this verdict.  Even the President suggests that it was the people coming to the streets that gave us this verdict (of which he approves).  Essentially this is a belief that the mob, not justice, won.  President Biden now calls on the country to continue to “listen to the activists” who have protested about police brutality since George Floyd’s death.  

But this was a trial.  It was not a judgement about the message of activists. Activists have their role.  But that role does not include swaying a jury trial.  Indeed, attempts to do that are usually considered to be jury tampering and subject to severe penalties.  Yet when even our President, with his encouragement of following narrative not fact, shows us that he does not understand the separate roles of activist and  juror, then we can certainly expect more demand for mob rule and less respect or support for the rule of law.

There were only 12 jurors at the Derek Chauvin trial, and I was not one of them.  Nor was the media or the President.  I did watch parts of the trial and I am left with some reasonable doubt.  The jurors have told us there is no such doubt and we must respect that verdict.  But no matter how seriously those jurors took their oaths of objectivity and to follow only the law and evidence presented at trial, given the year long circus leading up to and surrounding this trial, I question whether it could ever have been fair.

I will always wonder if Derek Chauvin was truly guilty of the crimes charged or if he was simply the sacrificial lamb that had to be slaughtered to assuage the guilt for the systemic racism that allegedly exists.  But anyone who thinks that with this verdict the anger and violence, the hatred and claims of racism will end is dreaming.  My fear is that this verdict will add to increased belief in and reliance on mob rule while justice and the rule of law become the ultimate victims. 

When Justice Disrupts the Narrative

"Justice is not often easy, does not fit the mold of public opinion, and it does not conform to shifting standards.  It answers only to the facts and to the law."                                                                                    -Daniel Cameron, Kentucky Attorney General

Breonna Taylor’s death was a tragedy.  In a way she was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron presented a detailed account of the facts of this case, found after a lengthy and thorough investigation, in a news conference Wednesday.  That transcript can be found HERE 

Essentially, police officers were executing a search warrant at Ms. Taylor’s residence.  Note that the purpose, validity, and obtainment of the warrant are separate issues from the actions of the officers who were actually carrying out the warrant.  This investigation addressed the events that actually took place within Ms. Taylor’s apartment. 

Verified facts establish that the officers knocked and announced their presence and, when there was no response, they breached the door.  They were met in the hallway by Ms. Taylor and Kenneth Walker.  Mr. Walker had a gun and fired at an officer who was hit in the leg with the bullet.  Mr. Walker admitted that he shot first.  The wounded officer returned fire as did another officer.  Ms. Taylor was struck by 6 bullets, one of which was fatal.

This evidence in far more detail was presented to a Grand Jury whose purpose it is to investigate allegations of criminal conduct and determine if there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and to protect the public against unfounded criminal prosecutions where probable cause is lacking.  The Grand Jury was comprised of fellow citizens of both Ms. Taylor and the officers.  The Grand Jury returned only an indictment against one officer for three counts of wanton endangerment for endangering the lives of three individuals in another apartment.   

No homicide charges were brought against any of the officers.  Such charges were found not to be applicable on the facts of the case because the officers were justified in the return of deadly fire after having been fired upon by Mr. Walker.

Those are the facts.  Yet some people are not willing to accept the facts or not willing to accept what the facts mean in our system of justice.  Justice requires that emotions be put aside and facts be examined objectively (often signified by blind lady justice holding the scales).  Justice is not achieved via emotion or mob rule.

I have no doubt that Ms. Taylor’s family, friends, and others are outraged by her death.  But that does not mean that they have the right to blame those officers who were only doing their job.  It does not mean that they have the right to seek revenge from those who are not responsible for her death.  It does not give them the right to act out their very real pain by destroying others.  And it certainly does not give anyone the right to form a destructive and riotous mob. 

This is an incident unique to itself.  It is not part of some institutional and calculated plan.  It has its own very unique facts which we now have before us.  To use this incident to justify a disregard of actual justice, to use it to justify a disregard of our Nation’s basis in the rule of law is wrong.  Yet the Left seems to have no problem doing this.

As soon as Ms. Taylor was pronounced dead the demonstrations began.  No facts yet, only raw emotion.  Stir up protests, some peaceful some not, around the country, claiming this death is one of many that are not seen as individual tragedies but simply as proving some point about some systemic failure.  That is not justice, not for Ms. Taylor and not for our country.

This evening the progressive Democrat mayor of Albuquerque made a statement about the case.  After saying he was not a lawyer and thus couldn’t comment he then went on to comment.  He asserted that the Brionna Taylor decision is “out of step with what we’re trying to do in America.”

What????  What exactly are "we" trying to do in this country?  If it is to follow the rule of law, let objective facts determine justice, then this case was absolutely in step.  It is not the decision that the mob wanted, it is not the decision that the Left would like to see, but it is the honest decision when one looks dispassionately at the facts.  That is justice.

So what does he mean when he says it is out of step with what we want to do?  And, who is “we”?  I hazard a guess that “we” is the progressive Left that is not interested in rule of law, but rather rule of passion or emotion.  The Left wanted the facts of this case to create a narrative of systemic police brutality against Blacks.  But the facts did not cooperate.

Perhaps the “we” is trying to create a new system governed not by equal justice for all, but rather one in which some people are excused or manufactured into victims based on race while others are condemned based on occupation (in this instance police officer).  Perhaps the decision here is out of step because it does not further the divisive identity group hatreds continually being fomented by the Left.

Real justice does not bend to political desires.  It does not bend to threats and violence.  It does not bend to the will of the mob.  It bends to the law and to the facts.  When the real and honest people of the Grand Jury reviewed the facts of this case, they returned their decision.  It is a just decision, regardless of what the Left would like or the mob demand. 

So now we will watch Kentucky burn as too many people act out their anger and their hurt that they did not get what they wanted, that the decision did not find the police or anyone else guilty for Ms. Taylor’s tragic death.  Justice is not always satisfying; it is not a means of revenge nor an antidote for the deep pain of seemingly senseless loss.  Justice is impartial.  It is based on law, fact, and reason. 

This decision represents a victory for justice, a victory for the rule of law, and as such it is a victory for America.  And when those unhappy with the decision finish acting out, I hope they will be able to objectively realize that it is very much in step with America and her ideal of equal justice for all.

 

The Hate Continues (and a Plea to End It)

According to Axios, the Democrats are readying at least 85 subpoenas against Trump for when they take office in January.   Click here for Article  Is this really what those who voted for them want them to do?  Is this country so filled with hate and so driven by revenge that they would rather see their elected officials act out on their animosity for the man who beat their candidate in the presidential election than work on the needs of the people who elected them?  Apparently so, because it was no secret that was the Democrat’s intent; their agenda is focused on one thing only:  get Trump by any means necessary.

I have never seen such hatred for such an extended period of time.  While the Democrats would have us believe that somehow Trump is destroying our country, the reality is that it is they, the Democrats, who are doing so.   If one goes beyond the anti-Trump propaganda one will see that our economy is booming, that unemployment is at its lowest in years (and the lowest ever for some specific groups), they will see successes in international relations including return of enormous numbers of political prisoners, renegotiation of NAFTA in a way then benefits our country, and overall a more positive and hopeful situation than America has seen in years.

Yet all these successes for this country that at least some of us still hold dear are dismissed by the anti-Trump fervor of the Left.  And their actions post the mid-term elections show that they will do anything to stop anything Trump does, including many actions that are good for America and its people.

Are the Democrats really so distressed simply by the fact that they were beaten in 2016 by someone who was a bit rough around the edges and not an erudite phony as are many of them?  President Trump is a real person who sees the real needs of this country and its people.  He doesn’t play the identity politics games that the Left finds so endearing.  He doesn’t pretend to be perfect or to be everyone’s moral superior.  He simply (and sometimes awkwardly) tries to do what is best for this country.  But is that a reason to hate someone so?  To go beyond mere dislike of policy and try to actually and completely destroy a man?

There is something more, something terribly nefarious going on here.  The Left’s present agenda seems to simply be to destroy Trump, to thwart him at every turn by any means necessary.  Those means include attacking his every word, fomenting anger and violence against him, his staff and supporters, demeaning anyone who does not take their view, using false and misleading statements to attack and destroy his appointees, and, now, attacking the very core of our democracy – our vote. 

Yes, there seems to be a playbook for close elections:  when they seem to turn to the Republican, have the Democrat candidate refuse to concede, claim every vote counts, then suddenly produce some previously unseen absentee or other ballots that amazingly go overwhelmingly for the Democrat.  (See for example New Mexico, Florida, Arizona and perhaps others as well).  This scenario may be in part due to incompetence, but the pattern seems more than a coincidence and the use of all the big-gun lawyers of the Left to further the legitimacy of questionable ballots supports the argument that the Left, when it says “count every vote” wants more than just legitimate votes counted.   These attacks on our vote are far worse than any dirty campaign trick, yes, worse than Watergate or other spying attempts, worse than making up lies about your opponent.  This is our vote and it must be honest or we will no longer have a democracy. 

So what is it that the Democrats want?  What drives them into such a frenzy of anger and hatred that they are willing to destroy the very essence of our country?  Is it simply power or is it more?  I suggest that it is a wish for the power to destroy what this country has been for over 200 years, a wish for the power to entirely remake this country into something else.   Whether that something else is a socialist state, or a country without borders (which by very definition is no country at all), or simply some unknown, I suggest that the ultimate result will not be pleasant for the majority of the people.

What do these Democrats who are so filled with hatred envision?  These are the people who are totally incapable of tolerance for views that do not match their own.  These are the people who scorn bible owners, gun owners, pot-luck participants, people of color who are conservative (don’t fit the identity label the Left has given them), women who are anti-abortion, people who want the laws enforced equally, including immigration laws, people who believe in the concept of innocence until proven guilty, indeed, anyone who does not hold and support the views of the Left.  Such intolerance is not America.

These are the Democrats who foment mobs to harass and intimidate until they get their way.  That is not America.  These are the people who excuse violence if it furthers their cause but condemn the most innocent slight if it is by someone who is not one of them.  These are the people who use false accusation to condemn a man as a rapist because he holds views they do not like, but who elect men against whom there is evidence of sexual assault or abuse when that man holds views like their own. This is hypocrisy, this is not fair, this is not America.

These are the Democrats who create identity groups, then pit them against one another not for the good of any group but only as a means to further the hatred that they believe will ultimately lead the Left to power.  If anyone thinks that they truly care about any of these people they are using then you are living in a fantasy world.  It is all about hate and that hate is all about a means of achieving power, power not for the people but for the benefit only of those who would ultimately hold it.   This, a country based on hate, is not America.

The Left is clever.   They have co-opted the media to serve as their propaganda machine.  They have co-opted social media to push their agenda while suppressing any opposition.  Like the best snake-oil salesman they make what they are selling sound like the cure for all that ails individuals, groups, and the country itself.  But in reality that snake oil is toxic.  And if we continue to imbibe then the sickness we now have will become terminal.  America as we know it will die.

Perhaps many who voted for the Left believed that with their election the hate that we see in this country would come to an end.  Wrong!  It is about to get much worse.  The Left is becoming bolder and bolder with their hatred.  The Democrat power structure is out to destroy.  Period.  That seems to be all they know how to do.  Destroy the President.  Destroy his supporters.  Destroy his dreams for a better America.  Destroy America itself. 

The only way to stop this is to stop listening to their propaganda.  To look at what is truly going on and not what they tell you and would have you believe is going on.    Close your ears to their siren songs and open your eyes to reality.  Think beyond today and see the tomorrow to which they would take us.  The Left has no intention of stopping the hate; it serves them too well.  Only we the people can stop the hate and it is well past time that we do so.

Some Short Notes on the Election

Here are some quick notes for those elected and for those interested in the elections and their aftermath:

1.  Democrats, stop being angry and get something done.  You have had 2 years to vent your anger over the 2016 election.  Now you have control of the House.  This is your opportunity to show us that you can do something besides hate.  I am concerned that already you have ramped up the name calling and hatred against Trump and his administration.  I realize that you don’t like his bluntness and sometimes unsophisticated words, and that, more importantly, you are still angry that he won the presidential election.  But, please, get over it.  Stop acting like angry children and start acting like adult legislators.   Many in this country look at what the President has accomplished for our economy and jobs and in our foreign relations.  They look at his actions rather than his personality and they either support him or believe in working with him and the Republicans to accomplish good things for the country.  Would that the Democrats and the Left would act like that.

2.  Please stop counting numbers of identity groups elected.  If I hear one more time how many women or Blacks or Native Americans or gays or (name any other identity group) that were elected I think I will scream.  Really, who cares? (Sadly, too many).  What I wish we could say is not that the (name your identity group) was elected, but that the best qualified was elected.  Let me make this clear:  simply being a (name your favorite identity group) does not make one qualified for a political job.  Voting based on identity groups just makes it easier for people who don’t want to think and easier for those who don’t want you to think to convince you to vote for their candidate.

3.  Those of you that made promises in order to get elected.  Show the people that you can keep them.  (That, by the way, is what our president has done)

4.  Those of you that won, remember that now you represent all the people within your district or state, not just those who supported you.  Do what is right for all of them, even if sometimes that is not what you personally want.  Don’t be afraid to work across the aisle and don’t think you must always simply regurgitate your Party’s line.  Remember, it is not about you; you are now a public servant and you represent the people.

5.  Those of you elected were elected to the greatest democracy in the world.  Please remember and respect that.  America is a Democratic Republic.  It is not a democracy of mob rule.  It is not socialist.  It is a country with borders and with a Constitution and rule of law that governs and protects us all.   You will be required to take an oath to support that.  Please take your oath seriously.

Of Outbursts, Free Speech, Mob Rule, and Democracy

Today, watching the Senate hearing on the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, we are witnessing a coordinated effort by the Democrats to disrupt the proceedings in a manner more fitting of a political rally than the civilized manner of our halls of government.  What’s going on?  We hear daily from the Democrats about how they long for a dignified statesman as president.  They are offended by his outbursts.  And yet they seem to be playing for the cameras – provide some self-righteous entertainment for the evening news – rather than having a dignified and honest hearing about a nominee for Justice to the Supreme Court.

As an aside, let me be clear that I am not opposed to political demonstrations.  For example, I have yelled “We don’t want your f**king war” about both Vietnam and Iraq.  But that was while marching on the streets, not in the Senate Chambers where rules of civility ensure everyone has the opportunity to present their views and have those view heard in an orderly fashion. 

To shout down those rules of civility is in essence a shouting down of our government.  It reflects both a misunderstanding of and a disrespect for our government.  I expect better of our elected senators.

But, then, these are the Democrats who weaponize anything in their war on Trump.  We recently saw that funerals are not off limits for use in their political attacks.  I look at social media posts from Democrats and their supporters.  Those posts, while complaining about the “base” words of the president, proceed to attack him with name calling like infantile schoolyard bullies (a typical example from today: “he is an idiot wrapped in a moron and smothered in imbecile sauce”).  Rarely, if ever, do the posts actually address an issue or if they do, they never have anything more substantive than the bumper sticker phrase supportive of the Democrat position.  Instead, it seems that it is all just about ad hominem name-calling against a president they don’t like, who they will do almost anything to unseat.

I now hear the speeches by the Democrats in the Kavanaugh hearing talking about Trump as an “Illegal co-conspirator” and other similar name calling that has nothing to do with the nominee supposedly under consideration.  The failure to produce 100% of documents is being used as more cover for their vicious attacks.  This failure to produce some sensitive documents is not new and sees precedent in the Obama administration’s nomination of Justice Kagan.  Yet, the Democrats are screaming Trump coverup.  These Democrats are more concerned with attacking Trump than in actually considering the nomination of Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court Justice.  Indeed, many have already announced their vote and have no intention of asking legitimate questions or listening to answers from the nominee.  They have also admitted a weekend meeting/teleconference to strategize their disruptions of the hearing.

Under cover of outrage (over what exactly is unclear) the Democrats justify such outbursts.   They claim these are “not normal times” though what is not normal is their laser focus on using any and everthing to stir up hatred for Trump.   They claim it is in the name of transparency, but that argument falls short.  “The Democratic goal here isn’t transparency. It’s to create enough of a public fuss that a Republican Senator or two gets the political jitters and helps to stall a confirmation vote past the election. The hope is that, as the fight drags on, something will turn up that causes skittish Republicans to vote no.”  (See https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-kavanaugh-document-fight-1534202892)

The Democrats tell the nominee he will be under a cloud unless he joins with them in trashing Trump and delaying the hearings.   (Actually, I suspect they see him as under a cloud simply because he was appointed by a President they dislike.)  This is a standard tactic of the Democrats these days.  They threaten those with whom they disagree, telling them they are anti-American, against the people, mis-informed, or just plain stupid in an effort to make them give up their own beliefs and values.  They try to shame those who do not support the anti-Trump agenda into denying their own values and beliefs.  That is, they attempt to silence the opposition by name calling and by disrespecting, demeaning, and disregarding their legitimate beliefs, and, if that doesn’t work they simply shout them down. 

The Democrats claim that this riotous behavior, including their disruptions of the hearings today, is a demonstration of democracy in action.  Well, it is, I suppose, proof that we are not living in a dictatorship (as they would have us believe we are under President Trump).  But, it is their actions, their disrespect for process and for listening to the diverse voices of others, that is more akin to a dictatorship.  The failure to follow the democratic rules that allow all voices to be heard, the shouting down of those with whom one disagrees is more a demonstration of desire for mob rule than for democratic process.    It is not what we expect to see in a functioning democracy.  It is not the behavior of those who truly understand, value, and respect our democratic form of government.