Skip to content

Chauvin Case: Can There Be Justice in America?

Derek Chauvin, El American

Leer en Español

[Leer en Español]

Derek Chauvin did not receive a fair trial. Considered in the complexity of its circumstantial totality, this entire process emulated a kangaroo court in a non-democratic regime. This moral and procedural calamity occurred because mob terror, Neo-Marxist dogmatic underpinnings (Critical Race Theory), and the leftist conspiracy theory hoax of “right-wing extremism” prevailed and is sadly now the instituted legal norm in America. The valued principle of the rule of law, as the Chauvin verdict has demonstrated, is now subject to the whims of a warmongering left.

Derek Chauvin who served eight years in the United States Army Reserve, including two intervals in the military police, nineteen years in the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD), and graduated with a bachelor’s degree in law enforcement from Metropolitan State University, must now face looming sentences for second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter. The whole process was stacked up, from the beginning, against the former police officer. Ethical callousness from the political class of the highest level was showcased all along. The corporate mass media did its partisan part by proactively trying and convicting him before he was even fired from the MPD. 

The Chauvin case, The Rule of Law and a fair trial

Irregularities and unfairness plagued the trial from its onset. In the Chauvin case, the defendant had only one attorney representing him during the entire ordeal, Eric Nelson. The prosecution had an active team of twelve lawyers and a complete State Attorney’s Office at their disposal. The twelve-member jury was not representative of the demographics of the city of Minneapolis. It was 50% non-white. According to estimated figures of the U. S. Census Bureau for 2019, whites make up 63.6% of the population and blacks 19.2%. In such a racially charged trial, the jury’s composition would logically work against the defendant.    

Nelson, Chauvin’s sole legal representation, requested from the beginning that the jury be sequestered. Jury sequestration is an attempt to uphold fairness in high-profile legal cases, especially where hefty criminal charges are hovering. In these situations, jurors are not allowed access to media or external contact to preserve unbiasedness and alienate prejudices. The cases of Bill Cosby (2017), George Zimmerman (2013), and O. J. Simpson (1995) are all examples of trials where jury sequestration was practiced. In the Chauvin case, a minutely partial sequestration was allocated, but only after the trial’s end during the deliberating phase. The risk of contaminating the jury’s objectivity was obviously high without that protective measure.

Eminent defense attorney, Harvard Law School professor emeritus, and lifelong Democrat, Alan Dershowitz, told Newsmax TV on Tuesday, April 20, “I have no confidence that this verdict was produced by due process and the rule of law rather than the influence of the crowd.” Referring to statements of both President Biden hoping the jury would reach a “right verdict” and Peter Cahill, the judge presiding over the case, lamenting rants by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) inciting mob violence, Dershowitz commented that an appeal was likely and that the Supreme Court may be the only place capable of fairly trying Derek Chauvin.

Derek Chauvin, El American
“This moral and procedural calamity occurred because mob terror, Neo-Marxist dogmatic underpinnings (Critical Race Theory), and the far-left’s conspiracy theory hoax of “right-wing extremism” prevailed and is sadly now the instituted legal norm in America”. (EFE)

The nation’s highest court exclusively, he reiterated, “holds the best possibility for the defense of getting this conviction reversed, on the grounds that the judge himself suggested the statements made by people outside the courtroom essentially intimidating jurors and telling them that if they don’t come to the ‘right verdict,’ there will be violence and consequences and their own lives may be affected.” The revered and respected lawyer added, “That is not the rule of law. That is the passion of the crowd.”

The jurors in the Chauvin case were browbeaten into a guilty verdict. Every measure of persuasion was employed. Biden’s egregious butchery of legal prudence and presidential conduct, evidenced by his anti-Chauvin pre-verdict comments of “praying” for the “right verdict” and suggesting that the evidence was “overwhelming” is potentially an impeachable offense, given the fact that he is tampering with a jury in a most contentious criminal case. If Donald Trump would have said it, the Democrats would be racking up charges.

Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Antifa henchmen carried out methodically, for almost eleven months, enough urban terror to remind everyone who is running the show. Clearly, any non-sequestered jury, living in the crime vicinity within the easy grasp of the communist mobs, the rendering of any just verdict was made implausible by the inertia and complicity of the authorities and other agitators. Professional troublemakers like Al Sharpton, and Democratic Representative Maxine Waters, egged on violent revolution unless they received an ideologically validated decision by the juror. Waters openly ranted about defying “curfews” and the need to “get more confrontational”, as a viral video tweet by Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) reveals.    

Perhaps the biggest failure of the legal process against Derek Chauvin, was that this trial was never about him. Neither was it about vindicating the death of George Floyd. Both were pawns in a much greater endeavor that saw an opportunity when a black man, who was unarmed and potentially not conservative or Republican, died in the custody of a white policeman. It is the American republic that was on trial. The prosecutor, ladened with Marxist Critical Race Theory weaponry, laid out the false argument of “systemic racism” and of a Blue Anon-cogitated conspiracy theory about “right-wing extremist” forces, which the nation’s police forces represent. 

Perhaps two people, both from different backgrounds, yet sharing the same objectives, told it the clearest. One was former President Barack Obama and the other, a BLM activist. Obama, the architect of this Fabian/Neo-Marxist ‘march through the institutions’, tweeted out after Chauvin’s verdict, “But true justice requires much more.” The notion of the quest for “true justice” has become a rallying cry by the broad spectrum of American leftism in its quest for further systemic demolition.

The BLM provocateur, in more uncivil language, added emphasis to Obama’s death pill for America. The BLM radical from Minneapolis is captured in this video tweet by Drew Hernandez (@DrewHLive) saying, “attack [the] system from every f*cking angle”. Was Derek Chauvin guilty of causing the death of Floyd? We will never know. This whole Chauvin case was not about them anyway.  

Julio M Shiling, political scientist, writer, director of Patria de Martí and The Cuban American Voice, lecturer and media commentator. A native of Cuba, he currently lives in the United States. Twitter: @JulioMShiling // Julio es politólogo, escritor, director de Patria de Martí y The Cuban American Voice. Conferenciante y comentarista en los medios. Natural de Cuba, vive actualmente en EE UU.

Leave a Reply