 |  |  |
| 0:00 | -49:43 |
Today, David and Sarah give us their reactions to the Derek Chauvin trial verdict, talk about potential issues on appeal, and break down Minnesota state law on the competency of a juror as a witness. Also on today’s episode, our hosts chat about an interesting court filing involving Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and a talk about whether the law can or should protect employees from political discrimination.
Show Notes:
-Last week’s Advisory Opinions episode on the ins and outs of the Chauvin trial
| 22 | 23 |
Good job, yet again and as we've come to expect, Ms. Isgur and Mr. French. My deep well of appreciation and affection for you both, and these podcasts, isn't even much depleted by your frolicsome detour into the briefly-famous Kato Kaelin.
The Maxine Waters comments were icing on a cake. Likewise the calling out of the national guard in anticipation of violent riots in response to any other potential verdict than conviction on the most serious charge. It was a cake that had been baked 11 months ago, when the lawless elements engaging in violence and property damage after Floyd's killing demonstrated to the rest of the world, but most vividly to the residents and public officials of Hennepin County, MN, that they must expect vastly more violence and property damage if Chauvin were acquitted or, indeed, convicted of anything less than the most serious charges made against him.
The interests of the public in holding Minnesota law enforcement officers accountable to the criminal laws they're charged with enforcing is shared by everyone who lives in that state. About four-fifths of Minnesotans, however, live in counties other than Hennepin, and ANY of those counties, but especially any of the rural ones, would have been a demonstrably fairer venue than Hennepin County could ever be, given the history of this particular case.
And therefore, in my judgment, Chauvin's strongest arguments aren't based on what Waters did, nor on President Biden's comments, nor on any other pretrial or mid-trial publicity. It's based on the denial of Chauvin's initial motion for a change of venue, and then, especially, his renewed motion for a change of venue, and for a continuance, when the City — literally in the midst of jury selection — announced its utter and enthusiastic capitulation in the civil suit brought by Floyd's family against the City, and the City's effective joinder thereby with those who demanded a firm and unswerving prejudgment that Chauvin was guilty.
If I'd been the trial judge, I'd have issued a bench warrant for every member of the City Council and for its counsel in the civil suit, directing that they be apprehended and brought to my courtroom to show cause why they shouldn't be held in contempt for attempted jury tampering. I'd have publicly dressed them down; I am sure I would at least have fined them individually, perhaps suspending that punishment for some stipulated period to help ensure they didn't immediately repeat their jury tampering. Because that's what the timing of that event was, friends and neighbors. It was the City Council's best attempt to put in the fix in favor of the prosecution and against its former police officer.
Regarding Ms. Isgur's observation about the trial judge's obvious displeasure with Rep. Waters' dramatic efforts to poison the trial with promises of violence: I agree entirely that it would be an exceptionally rare trial judge who'd grant a mistrial on those grounds, and that no seasoned trial lawyers were surprised that this judge denied Chauvin's lawyers' mistrial motion.
That ruling, though, doubtless also reflects the trial judge's knowledge that even if he denies a mid-trial mistrial motion, the entire subject might be mooted by the jury's verdict, and if it isn't (i.e., if the jury convicts), he can revisit afresh the merits of the mistrial motion when it's re-urged as part of a motion for new trial.
It's THAT upcoming motion that interests me, and it will precede the sentencing hearing that Ms. Isgur pointed to as the next big event.
Perhaps these subpoints will be addressed when Ms. Isgur and Mr. French revisit the question of the Chauvin trial, and what to look for next, during the Friday night streaming show.
This is a comment I have saved from another blog advising people who are worried about being punitively outed as conservatives in workplace trainings, etc. Some good and practical advise here I think:
I've spent my entire career with large companies that talk the usual talk about diversity, but it doesn't seem to loom over workaday matters all that much. My advice: If speaking up may cost you your job, then don't do it if that's going to pose a material concern for you. You are much more likely to end up being seen as an example of what happens to people who question the power structure than a free- thought martyr (and you're almost certainly not going to win). Through this, the power structure actually becomes stronger.
Also, while it may be galling to have to go along with the corporate diktats, at least you're merely offering passive compliance instead of someone filling your role who may act to advance CRT and other nonsense. Further, if events develop in a way that presents an opportunity for more liberal approaches to get a fair hearing, you'll be there to support those. (I'm aware that this isn't exactly a Profile in Courage.)
For diversity training and other discussions:
1. Participate as little as you can get away with. If there are exercises to do, don't be oppositional, but phone it in. Don't chime in during Q & A sessions. People, especially perky corporate trainer- types, hate apathy and indifference more than disagreement. This will be more likely to cause them to rethink their approach than something that actually gets a lively discussion going.
2. As others have said, record or take notes on everything suspect to the extent local law allows.
3. If you're asked to make a diversity statement, I'd suggest something like "We're in a time where our both our customer base and employee talent pool are becoming increasingly diverse. It makes good business sense to have a corporate culture that doesn't drive good potential customers or employees away." This happens to be true, and doesn't involve any self-abasement or commitments to the nuttier aspects of diversity-think.
4. If you must ask questions, I'd suggest the following.
a. What particular suggestions regarding employee behavior do you have? Is it the company's position that I should treat people of a different [race, religion, sex, etc) differently than others? If so, how? [This is a perfectly reasonable question, though tone is important. Doe-eyed innocence is better than confrontational. It's also a legal minefield for any company to answer.]
b. What are the metrics by which we'll know we're being successful as a company in these efforts?
c. Which of our competitors, other industries, or even other countries are we trying to catch up to with respect to DEI, and what did they do that made them successful?
These last two cue the other members of the audience (at least the smarter ones) to think about DEI efforts as they would any other aspect of business: product offerings, use of technology, store footprint. When the diversity trainer gives a gobbledygook answer, that'll help clue them in that it's all BS.
If you are ever compelled, by the company or your own conscience, to go into further details on your thoughts on the matter - always preface it by saying that you are making recommendations to improve workplace conditions. (And make sure your comments actually do this rather than just slagging the company). This may actually provide some legal protections, and it lets HR know that you're aware of your rights under the law, which scares them to death. But, consult with an employment law attorney in your state to be certain.