MyronGainesX - NEW Info FREES Chauvin?! Breakdown Of Appeal w/@LegalMindset(UNBIASED)

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 2, 2022 - MyronGainesX

02:20:04

NEW Info FREES Chauvin?! Breakdown Of Appeal w/@LegalMindset(UNBIASED)

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	All right, and we are live.
	What's up, guys?
	Welcome to Fed It.
	I'm joined by this white guy, aka.
	I'm just kidding.
	Shout out to Andrew Esquire, man, aka Legal Mindset in the House, guys.
	We got a great show plan for y'all.
	We're going to break down the chauvin appeal, man.
	It's this is going to be a good one, guys.
	Let's get into it.
	Move on, McGinnis.
	Okay, guys.
	I used to be a special agent on Lincoln Street Investigations.
	This is the arrest paper.
	Okay, so here is the booking.
	Cases that I did mostly were human smuggling and drug trafficking.
	Those are like two crimes that I'm a very good agent, very strong agent.
	I did a lot of big cases.
	I've done Title III intercepts, which is basically listening to phones.
	I've written hundreds of affidavits to arrest people.
	I've gone, I've been a grand jury and testified a million times.
	I've done big cases.
	I've done.
	All right.
	What's up, guys?
	Welcome to Fed.
	I'm here, my boy Andrew Esquire, aka Legal Mindset, man.
	You guys already know who the hell I am.
	So Andrew, can you introduce yourself to the people, man?
	You're the special guest.
	I'm so happy to have you here.
	Sure.
	Thank you, guys.
	I'm a long time friend of Myron.
	Glad to be back here in Miami.
	I'm a Florida attorney, but I am abroad.
	I'm in South Korea most of the time, most of the year, but I'm stopping by my old hood of the 305 to check this out.
	I have a lot of experience dealing with cases, especially appeals.
	I worked on, I was on moot court when I was in law school, and I've reviewed lots of different appeals.
	So this is an appellate case today.
	We're going to be looking at, which is going to be really exciting for me.
	On my channel, I do legal education.
	I do just generally legal topics.
	It is the legal mindset.
	I'm a member of what people refer to as Law Tube, the lawyers on YouTube, but I am the only red pill attorney, the only one who's living that life.
	So yeah, guys, so we're going to break this down.
	I'm going to give you my take on this.
	Every take I've had on Chauvin is going to be extremely controversial because this is a heated topic.
	But you guys just have to understand, let's remove the emotions from this and we're going to do a legal analysis.
	I'm going to give you my point of view as a lawyer.
	Myron has his point of view as a law enforcement officer.
	So together, we're going to analyze this and say, hey, what looks right?
	What looks good?
	What in this appeal looks like?
	Hey, this could be something that makes him walk or nah, this isn't that strong of an argument.
	But I feel like.
	Shout out to Chris in the back.
	We got Chris because obviously today is a very important show, man.
	So Chris is in the back helping out.
	Thank you, bro, for coming in on a Sunday.
	And yeah, guys, Andrew's going to be going back.
	So I was like, man, we need to get a collab.
	And, you know, we've been meaning to do this for you guys for a bit.
	I knew the one-two punch between, you know, my background, his background would be really exciting for you guys.
	And I knew that this is going to be controversial.
	Like he said before.
	Myron, Myron, you don't like controversial.
	You always run away from controversial topics.
	Run away from it, man.
	Yeah, you're known for never tackling controversy.
	Yeah, as we're trending all over the world right now for being outholes.
	Shout out to the Australian interview.
	Oh, but Crikey.
	Yeah, but Crikey.
	But no, all jokes aside, guys, today, as you guys know, this case is extremely, it's very sensitive.
	You know what I mean?
	Obviously, it divided the United States.
	You know, it was a racial thing.
	It was a police thing.
	There was riots all over the place.
	It happened right in the middle of the pandemic.
	It destroyed the city of Minneapolis, which it still hasn't recovered.
	And not just Minneapolis, because the BLM riots that came from that led to so much else.
	You got to understand.
	And even during the trial, we're going to talk about this.
	You had the Dante Wright, Kim Potter situation happened during the trial of Derek Chauvin.
	And then you had, of course, the riots in Kenosha, which led to the Rittenhouse situation.
	Oh, this is all derivative of George Floyd.
	This one incident, this one incident sparked so much.
	So, you know what, now that you mention it like that?
	Yeah.
	Renthouse would not have happened if it was not for George Floyd.
	Exactly.
	All of this stuff came from this one incident.
	So that's why it's interesting that we go back to this.
	We revisit this on appeal because we knew this was going to be appealed.
	And we say, hey, what is a good grounds to get out and what's the bad grounds?
	And here's another thing, too.
	We're going to look at mistakes that the prosecution made because whenever you bring a case as a prosecutor, and Myron's been on the side of law enforcement, he's been on the side of the law.
	There's a good way to bring a case.
	There's a good way to run things.
	And then there's a bad way to do things.
	And I'm going to spoil it a little bit here.
	The state did not do a great job.
	They did not do the best job.
	A lot of mistakes.
	Not very professional.
	A lot of mistakes, guys.
	Because me and Andrew both looked through this appeal and there was a lot of fuck ups, guys.
	And we're going to go through it with y'all.
	We're going to go over and we have a couple points that we're going to cover.
	So first, let me hit these super chats real quick if there are any.
	And then we're going to get into, we're going to give you guys the basic background on the case on what happened as far as like, because this is, we're going to need to refresh your guys' memories.
	This case happened, what, almost two years ago now at this point.
	Right?
	2020.
	Yeah.
	Like time flies, dude.
	Time does fly.
	It's already 2022.
	It's already, it's going to be a year here in a couple of days.
	Yeah.
	So yeah, crazy.
	So we got a new member, Mr. Stewart.
	Thank you so much.
	And guys, do me a quick favor.
	If you guys aren't subscribed to Legal Mindset, subscribe to that YouTube channel, man.
	Andrew's a good friend of mine, man.
	He knew me before all this other stuff.
	Yeah.
	Everything before he was famous, before all this went down, before the controversy.
	He was literally when I was working with Uncle Sam.
	How to do five bucks.
	Thanks for everything, Maya.
	Thank you so much.
	And then we got Roberto Moreno.
	I love all these insider secrets.
	Yes, you guys are going to get a perspective from two people, right, that actually know this type of stuff.
	You know what I'm saying?
	They're going to get an unbiased perspective.
	We're going to take our emotions out of it, how we personally feel.
	We're going to give you guys just the facts, okay?
	Yeah.
	And I see you guys are in the feeling.
	We see the chat, man.
	I see some of you guys are in your feelings.
	You got to understand.
	This is a legal analysis.
	This is just looking at it from the standpoint of law enforcement and from the standpoint of a lawyer, right?
	This is being trying to be objective here.
	We're not doing this for a political thing, left, right?
	Although we're going to call out, we're definitely going to call out points that the prosecution, the state, when they made it political.
	Yeah.
	You know, they went out of their way.
	No, no, no.
	They went out of their way to make it political.
	And that's not a good thing.
	Yeah.
	So, all right, guys.
	So like I said, I want you guys to watch this with an unbiased mind.
	Put your feelings at the door.
	We're going to break this down objectively.
	Okay.
	This isn't about feelings.
	This is about facts.
	Okay.
	So let's pull up.
	Yeah.
	Let's pull up the first video, Chris, please, where we're going to give you guys a quick little three-minute breakdown of what happened in this case.
	So you guys kind of get a perspective and refreshes your memory on the facts of the case.
	It should be the first, it should be like a three-minute YouTube video, Chris.
	No problem.
	I'll pull it up on Firefox.
	You're pulling it up.
	I should have it on Firefox already.
	No, it's on Chrome.
	It's on Chrome.
	Okay.
	All right.
	We're going to make sure that we don't give you all that static.
	God damn it.
	So it's good to get a recap of the event because it has been a while.
	Now, we're not going to watch the whole nine minute, you know, nine minute incident, but this is just a general breakdown in the incident.
	Yeah.
	Because a general opening.
	It's just after 8 p.m. on May 2020.
	It's not pulling up.
	No, we're make sure.
	All right.
	All right.
	Here we go.
	So play from the beginning, guys.
	And this is fair use.
	And we'll have to get this through probably.
	Prime legal commentary and law enforcement commentary.
	This is clear for you.
	Fair use.
	We're commenting on this.
	So, yeah.
	By the way, Legal Mindset has a perfect voice for a cartoon character like on Family Guy.
	Giggity, giggity.
	Giggity, giggity.
	All right.
	Let's go on.
	It's just after 8 p.m. on May 25th, and the security cameras of this local restaurant are rolling.
	The indicated time is about 20 minutes fast.
	A Balloon Mercedes has been parked curbside on East 38th Street for several minutes.
	We do not have footage showing when it arrived.
	George Floyd is in the driver's seat.
	A police car pulls up in front of this local convenience store and two officers walk in.
	Minneapolis police said in the statement, their officers responded to a report of a forgery in progress, meaning someone was trying to use counterfeit money in a store.
	A few minutes later, the officers crossed the street and approached the vehicle.
	Yeah, so guys, just so you guys know, you know, using counterfeit money is a federal offense.
	That's something that the Secret Service investigates.
	But anytime, and as you guys know, like in 2020, there was a big uprise and scamming, fakes checks, and everything else like that that was going on.
	So normally would the police respond for something like this?
	Meh.
	But with everything going on, I'm not surprised that they pulled up.
	And yeah, let's continue on.
	The police said they found the suspect in his car.
	The first officer approaches the driver while his partner walks around to the passenger side.
	The interaction between the officer and Floyd can't clearly be seen from this angle, but the driver of this black vehicle filmed part of it on his phone.
	The officer struggles to get Floyd out of the car.
	His colleague walks over to help him put the handcuffs on.
	The black car pulls away and drives off after a few minutes.
	Floyd falls briefly to the ground.
	So anytime you go hands-on, guys, I'll tell you this from a from a law enforcement perspective, like you're automatically, it's elevating the situation.
	You know, when someone, you're giving them verbal commands, they're not listening to you.
	It's very obvious that he's on something, you know, which is, you know, problematic because if they're on something, you know, typically it heightens a situation where they're going to be stronger.
	You know, they're going to be less, how do I say this?
	Less cognizant of what's going on.
	They're going to have less apprehension to do stupid shit.
	So it's a little bit of a dangerous situation because you don't necessarily know how they're going to react when you're going hands-on.
	And when you're a street cop like these guys, you don't know what you're going to run into.
	You know, fortunately for me, you know, coming from the feds, you know what you were dealing with.
	But when you're on the street like this and you're showing up to calls, you don't know who you're dealing with a lot of the time.
	And there's, we're going to get into this when we get into the appeal itself, but there's testimony from a passenger in that car that George Floyd was high.
	So, I mean, that's on the record.
	That's not disputed.
	And we're also going to pull up the death certificate and it's also in there.
	So, I mean, that's at this point a non-controversial fact of this scenario.
	All right.
	The officer lifts him back up before leading him towards the sidewalk where he directs Floyd to sit on the ground.
	A park police car shows up to the scene.
	Redacted body cam footage from that new officer was released by the park police chief.
	The officer exits the car to see his two colleagues questioning Floyd and two people who were just in the car.
	Okay, pause.
	A few minutes later.
	So I think it's important to note that this, we have two different agencies on scene here, guys.
	We got Minneapolis Park Police and then we got the Minneapolis City Police.
	Yes.
	So, and that's why they're saying it's redacted because, well, park police probably wanted to try to get not be involved in this as much as they can.
	Because the city actually settled with the estate of George Floyd.
	So the park police probably were like, yeah, we don't want to have to settle too.
	We want to be part of this literary civil liability.
	Yeah.
	Let's get out of this.
	So they just want to make this very clear to y'all that there's two different police agencies here at work, which I didn't even realize that Minneapolis has their own park police.
	Okay.
	Fair enough.
	Probably get some federal funding for that.
	The officer helps Floyd up off the ground.
	The video has no sound.
	So we don't know what was said between the two officers and Floyd in this moment.
	They walk him across the street back towards their squad car.
	Floyd falls to the ground once more.
	Police originally said they noticed Floyd going into medical distress and called an ambulance to the scene.
	Another police car pulls up, obstructing our view from this angle and making it hard to clearly see what unfolded in the next four minutes between the officers and Floyd.
	We do see Officer Chauvin pull up to the scene with his colleague.
	And behind the vehicle's open door, we can make out what seems to be a struggle.
	Whatever was happening between Floyd and the officers at that very moment caught the attention of this passerby who stops to watch.
	Pause real quick, pause.
	Two minutes later.
	I know, guys, there's some lysatic.
	I apologize for that.
	I don't know what it is.
	It's probably on the original video, I think.
	Yeah, because I've noticed that sometimes with certain videos, like with the playback, like you'll get this minor static guy.
	So I'm sorry.
	But yeah.
	It is what it is.
	A witness standing on Chicago Avenue captures part of the scene unfolding behind the squad car.
	One officer looks over as three of his colleagues restrain Floyd, who is lying face down on the ground in handcuffs.
	We don't know how Floyd ended up on the ground.
	One officer is pressing his knee into Floyd's neck, which we see clearly in.
	Yeah, and then you can see we could play a little bit longer in this video.
	It was taken only seconds later by another witness standing in front of the grocery store.
	She captured the next 10 minutes of his deadly arrest up until he is taken away in an ambulance.
	Pause.
	Okay.
	So, guys, I see in the chat some of you guys are saying, like, again, guys, we're not saying that he's innocent.
	What we are saying is that the prosecution made some serious mistakes in the prosecution and it could potentially have him walking.
	So I need you guys to, you know, take two seconds real quick.
	Get out of your fucking feelings.
	Understand that we're going to break down the case from an objective standpoint.
	We're not saying he's innocent.
	We're simply saying that the prosecution made some serious mistakes in the case.
	We're going to read the appeal, which actually has some serious merit to it.
	Yeah.
	If anything, if anything, guys, what we're saying is, is that the prosecution in many of these cases where people should be guilty, they fuck up.
	The state fucks up by bringing the wrong charges.
	I mean, this actually goes back to hell.
	We want to tie it back with OJ.
	They could have got OJ on different charges.
	Yep.
	The whole thing is, the whole situation is the state oftentimes tries to go for more.
	Casey Anthony.
	They brought the wrong charges.
	They try to go for these extreme charges when they really shouldn't.
	And in this case, they may lose the appeal.
	He may walk because, solely because they brought the wrong charges.
	The thing about an appeal is the defense only has to win on one point.
	If they can prove one point, one single point, he has to walk.
	Yeah.
	That's the problem.
	That's what we're trying to tell you guys is that it's not that we're saying he's innocent.
	We're not saying that he is guilty.
	But what I am saying is that the prosecution made some serious fucking mistakes on this thing.
	And you guys are going to see when we read this appeal.
	So, if anything, you guys need to know what happened.
	Okay.
	So, um, and don't worry, we have the appeal here, guys.
	So, uh, okay, uh, where are we at?
	We're, yeah, let's uh let's jump to the uh let's pull the appeal.
	Okay, actually, hold on, we can jump to the uh actually no, yeah, due process, yeah.
	So, okay, guys.
	So, yeah, some of you guys are international, so we're gonna break this down for y'all.
	Um, in the United States, we have something called due process.
	But first of all, we have a constitution, this is something that helped us during the pandemic.
	That we have a constitution, and y'all that are abroad do not have a constitution, so you had no freaking clue.
	Uh, you had no rights, you guys were uh totally locked up when a lot of us were free because a lot of these restrictions in the U.S. were thrown out as unconstitutional.
	Uh, we just had the mask mandate on planes thrown out as something that's unconstitutional because, well, it was, you know, and because we have a constitution in Canada, your constitution is optional.
	Yep, Trudeau can suspend it whenever he feels like it.
	Australia doesn't really have an enforceable constitution, New Zealand does not have a constitution.
	All these countries we saw during the pandemic not have a constitution.
	So, in the U.S., for this case, the particular two amendments we're going to look at are related to due process, and that's the Sixth Amendment and the 14th Amendment.
	So, Chris, can you bring up the Sixth Amendment tab?
	So, okay, so we're going to talk about the text is there: in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.
	So, let's stop right there.
	So, you have a right to have a trial that doesn't take 10 years to go to trial because otherwise you're locked up for 10 years.
	And whether or not you're guilty, you're in jail.
	Like, that's a big problem by an impartial jury.
	One more time.
	Impartial jury.
	That does not mean that the jury already comes in and being like, This guy's guilty.
	Yeah.
	If they come in like that, they can't sit on the jury.
	That's a big deal.
	That's not a small deal.
	It's a big deal of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been properly asserted by law and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have the compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to the assistance of counsel for his defense.
	So, those are all the protections you get in the courtroom.
	Yes, you get in the courtroom, guys.
	And the big thing I want you guys to really take away from this is trial by an impartial jury of the state, man.
	That is so important because you can't go in there with a jury that basically is already like, No, he's guilty.
	Well, what the hell's the point of having you know, having court?
	What the hell's the point of having a trial if they're gonna you know make you guilty and then also being able to confront your accusers?
	Exactly, huge, huge rights.
	So, yeah, this is so this one, this sixth amendment was originally interpreted to only apply to the federal government, but then you had the 14th Amendment.
	And we jump over to that one, Chris.
	It's a separate tab.
	Yep, and the 14th Amendment, uh, through actually case law related to uh racial restrictions, right?
	A lot of the uh racial prohibitions in the south were banned by use of the 14th Amendment, which includes a due process clause.
	So, I'm gonna read this whole thing, but there's there's one specific part that pays that you should pay attention to.
	So, all persons born and naturalized in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, it's right there, um, are citizens of the U.S. and of the state where they reside.
	No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person right here of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
	Boom.
	That's the important part right there for us right now.
	Yeah, you a criminal case is the ultimate deprivation of life, liberty, and property.
	Yep, your life is taken away from you, you no longer have control over your life.
	The state controls you, and in order to do that, in order to take that ultimate liberty from you, they've got to give you due process of law.
	And due process of law means a lot of things, but essentially, it's all the elements that come together to make a fair trial.
	Yep, guys, I mean, this is serious stuff.
	And here's the thing: it is so important that if this is violated, right?
	If these amendments are violated, someone that's guilty will walk.
	That's what I'm trying to explain to you guys.
	That when the prosecution prosecutes a case, if they fuck up and they infringe on someone's rights, even if the person is guilty, like in this case, the guy will walk because the importance of upholding the law outweighs prosecuting a single individual.
	Because the way the government looks at it here in the United States, guys, is it's better to let a criminal walk than to let someone rot in jail that's innocent.
	Okay.
	So that's just the way it is.
	So they're going to uphold the law, even if it means letting people walk.
	And this is what happens when, you know, a lot of the times, I hate to say it like this, but DAs, the state court in general, fucking kangaroo courts.
	You know, they allow cameras in there.
	They allow the media in there.
	They allow a lot of, how do I say this?
	Yeah, yeah.
	A bunch of fuckery in there.
	They have a lot of fuckery in there.
	And this is why federal, guys, you want to know why federal courtrooms are not allowed to be taped?
	Because of that.
	You know what I'm saying?
	Because they don't want to turn into a kangaroo court where they're doing shit for the most to get some, to get some claims, to get publicity, whatever it is.
	Nobody can bring in their phones in the federal court.
	So, I mean, you know, can you imagine if people were live streaming from federal?
	I mean, it just creates such an issue.
	You even saw in the Johnny Depp court in the Johnny Jeff Amber Heard trial, you had somebody get kicked out of the courtroom because of her behavior because she was live tweeting everything.
	Yeah.
	Like literally during the trial.
	And people were seeing it and the jury was like hearing about it like third hand.
	The judge was hearing about it.
	It was bad.
	It was real bad.
	The OJ Simpson case, same thing.
	It was a fucking kangaroo court.
	There was like TVs, you know, cameras everywhere, whatever.
	The state becomes more involved in like punishing the guy for like public appeal appreciation, right?
	Than like charging the right things, you know, prosecuting the case the correct way.
	And it sucks because it's like they got the cameras on.
	I'm like, oh, we got to get this guy for murder one.
	And then, you know, they try to cash a check that they can't fool, that they can't fulfill.
	And then bam, people walk free like OJ Simpson.
	And due process applies to everybody, guys.
	This is something that should apply to everybody, no matter what the crime is, no matter what you do, you're allowed to get due process of law.
	You're allowed to get all these same protections.
	Just think of it.
	Just think of it.
	People get so in their feelings about this case.
	Apply the facts to anybody else.
	Apply the facts to you, right?
	And put yourself in a different scenario.
	Trust me, you'll feel a different way about it.
	You'll feel a much different way about it.
	But let's get into this, guys.
	All right.
	So, okay.
	So let's get into the facts of this bad boy.
	Okay, guys.
	So now that we established the Sixth Amendment, 14th Amendment, and we have the general facts of the case that, you know, Floyd was encountered by police and everything else like that.
	Can we pull up that appeal, Chris?
	Yep.
	The actual appeal document.
	There you go.
	There we go.
	Bam.
	Okay.
	So this is the appeal.
	If you want to scroll up to the top just so you see the two names, like this is just the formatting here.
	So you have state of Minnesota versus Derek Michael Chauvin.
	So in this case, let me just show you the structure.
	This is an appeal, right?
	So trial is the lowest level.
	Appeal is the next level.
	So at this level, he's already presumed to be guilty.
	So the person who has to challenge it is the appellant.
	So the challenger, the guy who's got to say, hey, the court got it wrong, that's the appellant.
	So in this case, Chauvin is the appellant because he's guilty.
	The state is the respondent.
	Yep.
	Okay.
	So that's the, and they have to interpret this in a light favorable to the appellant, right?
	So they're, when they're reviewing it, they're saying, okay, let's assume that let's look at this in a light.
	Essentially, let's look at this as if the legal arguments had some level of merit, not as if they're merit less.
	Yeah.
	But let's continue down here.
	We'll see the we'll see the actual ways they're challenging this.
	Okay.
	So there's a whole table of contents.
	Chris, we can scroll past this and we'll scroll past that, scroll past all this.
	So table of contents, there's a bunch of sources.
	Okay, whoa, go back up there.
	82 page appeal, guys.
	We're not going to go through all of that.
	We're going to go through all of that.
	Here we go.
	Issues presented.
	Okay.
	So here are all the issues that are challenging on.
	Remember, they only need one.
	This is why appeals are so controversial because one issue is enough.
	So let's read the first one.
	Whether venue should have been changed, the jury fully sequestered or the trial delayed due to pre-trial publicity and riots.
	Okay.
	Let me explain something here.
	Venue is where the trial is held.
	Right.
	So a lot of times if it's too hot, if it's too controversial in a city, they can bring it to another city in the state.
	So let's say Myron did something in Miami, but everybody in Miami knows Myron.
	Myron would have to go to Tampa.
	Myron would have to go to Orlando.
	Misogyny.
	Misogyny.
	They'd have to try him in Orlando, Tampa.
	And hey, it still might not be totally impartial, but it's better.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	It's better.
	The jury fully sequestered.
	Sequestered means they're isolated.
	They literally have to stay at a hotel.
	They did this for the OJ trial.
	Now, this is one where I'll just say it right now.
	I don't think the sequestering argument is a strong argument in 2022 because they probably wouldn't take their phones away.
	See, to really make sequestering work, you got to take the phones away.
	And frankly, that's like in 2022, I think people would have mental breakdowns.
	They ran into the issue with the Glenn Maxwell case.
	Yes.
	One of the fucking jurors, clock chasing, he lied on his questions that he had never been a victim of sexual abuse.
	And then he went and like talked about the entire trial on Twitter and he did an interview and all this other shit.
	And like, it's like, they're probably going to go after him for perjury for lying, but that's a whole other thing.
	But that's, yeah.
	And so, should they been fully sequestered?
	I'm just going to go ahead and spoil it.
	I don't agree with that argument.
	So, look, I'm already telling you right now, that's a bad argument in 2022, but it's the defense's job to throw out as much as they can.
	Even weak arguments.
	That's a really weak argument.
	That's what the defense got to do: they got to go in.
	Guys, remember, all they need is one thing to stick.
	That's why I'm trying to present to you guys here.
	All they need is one thing to stick.
	And when you guys see all the errors that the prosecution made, then you guys are going to see where we're coming from here.
	Again, get out of your fucking feelings.
	We're not saying he's innocent.
	We're saying the prosecution did not cross their tees on dot their goddamn eyes.
	And the appeal here is very well written.
	There's a lot of issues with how the prosecution did this case, and we're going to go over them, guys.
	And if he walks, you guys are going to know why.
	You guys will know.
	He only needs one of these things, guys, to make it stick.
	And when we go through this, you guys are going to see what I'm talking about.
	All right.
	Let's open this back up, Chris.
	Okay.
	Yep.
	And so here we go.
	Oh, by the way, the last one there.
	If you want to scroll up, bro, Chris, because I want to read the last part there of that first one.
	The trial delay due to pre-trial publicity and riots.
	We're going to get into it.
	We're going to show you guys the video and some of the pictures.
	But if you remember, there were riots going on during the trial.
	And then you had the Dante Wright.
	If you guys remember Dante Wright and Kim Potter, that's the cop who shot Dante Wright when she thought she was going for a taser.
	Yep.
	Like she clearly thought she had a taser and she shot accidentally Dante Wright and she went to jail for that.
	She was convicted for that.
	That happened during the trial.
	Yeah.
	During the trial.
	Shout out to Captain Ahab.
	Yeah, shout out to you, man.
	Same guys will tell the girls on FNF to get out their feelings or in their feelings right now.
	Listen to the law and get out of your feelings.
	Chat.
	Yeah, guys.
	I mean, if this is too tough for you guys to watch, then you guys don't have to watch it, man.
	I'm just telling y'all that this is there that there might be the charges might get dropped here, man, or he might walk because, guys, the prosecution did a sloppy job and we're outlining it for y'all.
	Okay, let's continue on.
	Yeah.
	Oh, and then Hero Depper, Tubox Myron Gaines, you have an identity problem.
	I don't know what that means.
	And last one?
	Jaymont 24 autopsy report said George had high oxygen levels in his blood when he died and also had a lethal dose of fentanyl in his system.
	This proves that Neon the Neck did not kill Floyd.
	Bad optics?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	And we're going to show you guys the autopsy report here soon.
	Show you the autopsy report.
	We got trouble.
	That's not even that, guys.
	There's other stuff.
	So yeah, just remember about the riots.
	We're going to get to that.
	Okay.
	Number two, whether a police officer can be charged with felony murder with assault as a predicate defense.
	Okay.
	This is some complicated legal shit, right?
	We're going to break this down for you, but let me just put it this way: felony murder, felony murder occurs when a murder, a death occurs while a separate keyword, separate crime is being committed.
	So, for example, Myron, what's a classic case as law enforcement where you've seen felony murder charged?
	Robberies.
	Robberies.
	Yeah.
	Right?
	The classic case is a bank robbery.
	Yep.
	So if you rob a bank, right?
	Yep.
	You're stupid.
	You pull up to the bank, right?
	Right.
	So you pull up to the bank and you've got guns.
	You know, you've got your boys.
	It's like reservoir dogs, you know.
	And all of a sudden, the cops, they start shooting.
	Yep.
	Yep.
	And some of them die.
	Yep.
	Yeah, that's foreseeable.
	That's something you could see happening if you rob a bank.
	It's something that naturally follows from that.
	So even if you didn't intend to kill that person, let's say you didn't actually like intentionally shoot them.
	Let's say they shot themselves.
	Let's say the cops are shooting at you and they accidentally friendly fire each other.
	Yeah.
	You can be charged with felony murder.
	Yep.
	Even though you didn't pull the trigger.
	Yep.
	Because if you had you not robbed that bank, that death would not have happened.
	However, they pulled some novel shit.
	They have never done this before.
	This is unprecedented.
	And state law in the state of state versus Dorn says you cannot do what they did in this case with how they charged it.
	You cannot use assault, the underlying assault to justify calling stuff felony murder.
	That would essentially make any assault where there's a death a murder.
	They would pretty much, you pretty much get away with get rid of manslaughter, right?
	Manslaughter as a charge doesn't exist anymore.
	Yeah.
	If this is legal precedent, by the way, this is like horrible legal precedent.
	Yeah.
	If this is allowed, there's no more manslaughter.
	Everything is felony murder.
	Every single crime is felony murder because there's always an assault.
	If you can get somebody from manslaughter, you can get them for assault.
	So if you can convict him, it's a lesser offense.
	So you can get him for assault.
	So that means you can get him for felony murder.
	Yep.
	You can't use the underlying minor crime to get the major crime.
	That's the whole point.
	You need a mensrea.
	There's something called mens rea to have murder.
	And they were trying to.
	Can you tell guys?
	Can you tell the people what mens rea is?
	Mensrea means state of mind, right?
	That's why first-degree murder.
	We say cold-blooded murder.
	Yep.
	Premeditated murder.
	Thinking about murder.
	These guys couldn't prove that Chauvin intended to murder George Floyd.
	That he had the state of mind to murder George Floyd, but they need they wanted to get a murder charge.
	Yes.
	See, here's where it was political.
	And this is a problem with the left in the AG in Minnesota.
	They made this political.
	And by making it.
	Which actually hurts their case.
	Which hurt their case.
	They could have convicted him clearly on manslaughter.
	Yeah.
	Guys, I'm saying straight up.
	They could have gotten manslaughter.
	No problem.
	Yep.
	Easy.
	No problem.
	Easy.
	Like it's a win.
	You would have probably pled to that too.
	Exactly.
	He would have pled to that.
	And they could have probably aggravated it.
	We're going to talk about aggravating the sentencing later.
	They could have aggravated it too.
	But the problem is they didn't do that.
	They went for felony murder.
	Yeah.
	That's a huge mistake here.
	It's a tactical mistake.
	And this is entirely a mistake on the prosecution.
	And if it gets thrown out because of this, that is a prosecutorial fuck up.
	Yeah, let me make this very clear.
	This was a manslaughter, 100%.
	You know, if they had just charged it manslaughter, he would have pledged it would have been done.
	But obviously, this was an emotionally charged case.
	There was racial tension involved.
	The police were involved, etc.
	The city was burning down.
	They had to make an example of him.
	So they went for a felony murder.
	And just so you guys understand, like, Andrew's making this very clear: you cannot use assault as a prerequisite, right?
	For a felony murder.
	Like we said before, it has to be foreseeable that that murder would occur during the commission of that crime.
	So bank robbery, burglary, maybe a, you know, some other kind of violent crime, some other sort of crime.
	A grape, you know, a grape.
	Yes.
	Right?
	Like that would be, these are, these are all crimes where a murder would be foreseeable because it's violent in itself.
	Right.
	Right.
	So drug trafficking, right?
	But something like this, assault, you know, because it's an ambiguous, it's a fairly ambiguous charge, you know, assault, because it could be anything, guys.
	Assault can be literally you touching someone can be leaned as assault in some places.
	Right.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Exactly.
	It could just be that you touched someone.
	So literally, the case statement.
	I'm assaulting Andrew right now on camera.
	Oh, no.
	Felony Rural.
	Felony murder.
	So actually, let me give a good example.
	Let me give a great example because this is the actual case, State versus Dorn.
	So there's two guys.
	Let's say it's Chris and Myron, right?
	And they're messing around by a bonfire, right?
	And they're both drinking.
	Pause.
	So they're both drinking.
	Yeah.
	And Chris pushes Myron into the fire.
	Okay.
	And Myron dies in that fire.
	Stop dropping roll, Nick.
	What the fuck?
	They can't say if he just pushes him, the crime was pushing him, right?
	That's the assault, right?
	He assaulted him.
	But he didn't intend for him to die in the fire, like to stumble drunkenly into the fire, catch on fire and die.
	Yeah.
	Like you can't charge him with felony murder.
	You charge him with assault.
	Yeah.
	Right?
	Because he assaulted him.
	And then if I die, it would almost be like if a drunk hoe was on the balcony and they get nudged, right?
	You're not intending for them to like stumble over and fall, you know, 80 floors down into the Biscayne Bay.
	You're not intending that to happen, right?
	So once again, it would make manslaughter irrelevant.
	That's why they've got to not do this or get around this.
	This is a huge problem in how they charge it.
	And just so you guys know, because I know some people might want to try to challenge that.
	Understand, guys, the precedent for this is called state versus Dorn, okay?
	D-O-R-N, which basically set the case law precedent that you cannot assault.
	It's not a prerequisite for felony murder.
	Okay, guys.
	So that in itself was a fuck-up that they used assault to justify a felony murder.
	M MP, 100 bucks.
	Thank you so much.
	Hi, Mario.
	Just subscribed last week.
	Great content.
	Speaking of Maxwell slash Epstein light cases, was curious if you would be willing to cover the Franklin credit union scandal that happened in the late 80s.
	Would love to hear your take on it.
	I would have to research it.
	Okay.
	So let's continue on.
	So we pull up that appeal again.
	So we got a venue situation with the jurors, and then we got the issue with assault, which is the charge what they came at him for.
	Okay, so that's two guys.
	Next.
	Seven witnesses.
	Okay, so there's something called cumulative evidence, i.e., at a certain point, you're dogpiling.
	In this case, they had so many witnesses come in to testify for use of force.
	Now, each witness was supposed to come in to testify about something slightly different or something different.
	That's how they managed to let this happen.
	And they said, oh, no, it's not cumulative.
	It's different.
	No, it was exactly the same testimony.
	In cases, you're not supposed to get into what is called a battle of witnesses.
	You're not supposed to get into, okay, I have 19 witnesses saying this and you have 19 and, you know, make it last all day all night.
	Well, in the chauvin case, this is a rare situation where they did not just allowed it, but they allowed a ridiculous amount of witnesses to testify at the same thing.
	And we're going to show you when we scroll down and get into the facts here.
	There's a graphic that I'll do it later, Chris.
	I'll do it later.
	Where it shows they actually used in their closing argument the fact that they had multiple witnesses as proof, like as conclusive proof that it was unreasonable force.
	What should have happened is they get one witness to testify about use of force.
	And the defense gets one witness.
	Maybe if they get two, well, the defense can get two now.
	Typically a subject matter expert.
	Right.
	A subject matter expert is what you would want.
	But yeah, that's also strange that they did that.
	So many people come in on use of force.
	Just for use of force.
	Now, if it was something different, like for example, if it was a ballistics guy or whatever, and this wasn't a ballistics case, but whatever.
	You know, if this is some other sort of expert, that's fine.
	But this is the exact same testimony.
	You don't need that.
	You need one guy.
	So this is a technical issue.
	And once again, this is a prosecutorial issue.
	They control, the prosecutors completely control how many witnesses they called.
	They did not need to overkill this.
	They could have brought in two and it would have been fine.
	Yeah.
	Yep.
	Let's go to the next one, number four.
	Whether prosecutorial misconduct justifies reversal.
	Okay, we'll talk about it when we get to it.
	But the issue here is that the issue here for prosecutorial mixed conduct is that they presented discovery late.
	So discovery is when you give documents to the other side.
	So Myron's law enforcement.
	Let's say Myron's law enforcement and I'm the defense.
	He has to give me the law enforcement records.
	I got to give him anything that my client has, you know, or anything that's in my possession.
	We have to exchange files.
	And there's a timeline for that.
	There's a deadline for that.
	You have to do it by a certain date.
	Well, not only did the prosecution fail to do that, but they gave a lot of it, the majority of evidence in some cases after the deadline and some of it even during the trial, which is insane.
	Let me, let me, let me explain how much, let me tell you guys something.
	If you don't hand over discovery, you can get disbarred for that shit.
	Yes.
	I don't think I need you guys to really understand.
	Like, this is the essence of due process.
	If I arrest someone, right, and we indict him, after he's been indicted, I have to get that discovery over nine out of 10 times.
	The AUSA is not going to indict until they have all the evidence anyway, nine out of 10 times at the federal level.
	And then if I do have to give some stuff, they're not going to wait more than two weeks.
	This is after indictment, guys.
	This is nowhere near trial.
	The fact that they didn't hand over, and guys, discovery is essentially me as a law enforcement officer giving all the evidence over to my prosecutor.
	And then that prosecutor shares that with the defense counsel.
	The defense counsel has to have everything that is going to be used against their client.
	Everything.
	Okay.
	I mean, it's to the point where if I, this is why I tell y'all all the time.
	Remember how I tell you guys classified information is useless in the court of law?
	You guys want to know why?
	Because it's not discoverable.
	So the reason, so if I can't, if it's not, if it's classified, I can't give it to the prosecutor because the prosecutor can't give it to defense counsel.
	This is why I tell you guys all the time, classified information is fucking useless.
	However, it's happened before where the FBI has done this shit.
	They've used classified information and during the course of investigation, they're like, oh, fuck, oh, shit.
	And they want to prosecute.
	You know what they have to do?
	They have to declassify that shit.
	They have to declassify it and give it over to the defense counsel.
	That's how fucking important discovery is, guys.
	I really want to harp on this.
	It is that important.
	They will declassify documents to give it over to the defense counsel or drop the case.
	But guess what?
	When you got a terrorist in custody and you got some classified information, what you going to do?
	You're going to go and fuck it to FBI headquarters.
	You're going to get that shit declassified.
	You're going to hand it over to the fucking defense counsel.
	That's how important discovery is, guys.
	They will declassify the documents for a case if it's important enough to go ahead and get the prosecution, man.
	If you do not hand over discovery, you will get disbarred.
	You can get fucking in trouble.
	You can literally, it is a serious, serious issue.
	So the fact that they were handing over documents in the middle of trial?
	That's ridiculous, guys.
	From a legal standpoint, from a lawyer standpoint, that is like insane.
	That does not happen.
	So once again, why are they fucking this up?
	Why did the prosecutors, guys, if this gets overturned, blame the prosecutors?
	This isn't even on the defense.
	This is the prosecution messing up.
	So let's go on to the next one.
	Guys, discovery is very, very serious.
	And again, like I said before, guys, for some of you guys that are just joining, real quick, little summary of what's going on.
	And by the way, they had, this is a real quick summary though.
	Had like 13 attorneys on this.
	They had no excuse.
	They threw unlimited resources at this case.
	Prosecution had 13 attorneys.
	I think even more than 13 because they were rotating in and out, right?
	It was unheard of.
	They had an insane tag team of attorneys on this case throughout the course, not just during the actual trial, but due to the research to back this up.
	This was a case that had unlimited funding from the state.
	So they had no excuse to be making these amateur hour mistakes.
	No excuse.
	So a quick little summary for some of you guys that are wondering.
	Okay, so quick.
	Myron Gaines here.
	I got my boy Andrew Esquire from Legal Mindset.
	We're breaking down the Chauvin appeal.
	For some of you guys that know, obviously Derek Chauvin, police officer, former for Minneapolis Police Department, was charged and convicted of felony murder for the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis that read to the lot riots and everything else like that.
	We're going to be breaking down the appeal, okay, that Chauvin's defense filed recently, okay, to go ahead and get the charge pretty much dropped and he can walk.
	And the thing we're breaking down, guys, is all the mistakes that the prosecution made during the course of this case.
	So far, we've already identified three or four, which are major ones.
	First, venue, right?
	Venue issues, as far as like them not moving the trial to somewhere where it can be a little bit less biased where the riots weren't occurring.
	Okay.
	Second, we had issues with the charge.
	They're using assault as a prerequisite for murder, guys, which is not according to state versus Dorn.
	That is not, you can't do that.
	You can only do felony murder when there's a crime being committed where it's foreseeable that murder will happen, not assault, but like let's say a robbery or a grape or a burglary, something like that, right?
	And then third, we have a discovery issue, which I just explained to you guys, the importance of discovery in the legal proceedings.
	Nothing can happen without discovery because you guys got to understand the defense counsel is defending against everything that the prosecution is giving them during discovery.
	In other words, the defense is formulating their entire case based on what the prosecution gives them.
	So if the prosecution does not give them discovery with ample time to prepare, that's a big fucking issue.
	And I just told you guys before, I've had AUSAs drop cases.
	They could get disparate for that shit.
	You must give discovery.
	But of course, it's a state case, so I'm not surprised that they did a big blunder like that.
	But guys, we're already, well, we've only covered three things that are major fuck ups, and we have some serious issues here.
	Yeah.
	Like I said, I want to make this very clear.
	Me and Andrew think he's guilty as fuck.
	However, the fact that he may walk because of these stupid mistakes made by the state when I didn't even know they had 13 attorneys.
	It was ridiculous.
	They had no excuse.
	No excuse.
	No excuse.
	They had no excuse.
	They had no excuse.
	Ridiculous.
	They had unlimited funding.
	Like the state, that attorney general would have given unlimited funding to this.
	Like, period.
	Period.
	They would have funded anything regarding this.
	And yet they're making amateur and literally amateur mistakes.
	This is stuff that a law student knows not to make these mistakes.
	But they went there because they felt like they had to go extra.
	They had to go further.
	Here's the problem.
	When you start to get in your feelings, you lose your objectivity.
	And that's what we're trying to tell you guys on this.
	You got to stay objective because sometimes you drop the ball, you stop winning when you get non-objective.
	Yeah.
	So 100%.
	Prosecution dropped the ball on purpose, no purpose so that the defense could be able to appeal.
	I mean, shit.
	I don't know about that.
	That's a conspiracy theory.
	That's some tinfoil.
	You know, that's some real tense story.
	That's right there.
	Okay.
	What I honestly think was they were mostly charged.
	They tried to get, they tried to throw the book at him.
	And they bit off a little bit more than they can chew, man.
	And I think they definitely curbed to the mob.
	They curbed to the riots.
	Yes.
	I think that we're going to get into this because we're going to show you the evidence after we get through the charges here.
	Or rather, the appeal points.
	We're going to show you some of the videos, some of the pictures.
	Remember, this was so charged.
	And I think because it was charged, they messed up on the law.
	They went further than they should have gone.
	They could have gotten him like clean under manslaughter easily.
	Yeah, you're going to see a huge that state versus Dorn issue is already a huge one.
	It's a massive one, guys.
	That's a legal mess up.
	And that is 100% on the prosecution.
	How did this get past the judge?
	The judge was also intimidated as well.
	So let's go on with this.
	Whether not having not allowing Chauvin to present a complete defense justifies reversal.
	So this is the part where we get into testimony about George Floyd being high.
	Now, I don't think this is conclusive.
	I don't think this is that strong because, yes, it should have been allowed in.
	There was somebody else in the car and they testified that George Floyd had been, I believe he was on fentanyl and had been drinking as well.
	That testimony wasn't allowed in.
	However, it's not as strong because number one, the guy was allowed to plead the fifth.
	That's fine.
	They're saying, okay, well, then law enforcement should be able to disclose because that was in their statements.
	They should be able to get that out.
	They didn't allow that evidence in.
	It's not as strong.
	And also because we have it in the death certificate, which we're going to pull up.
	So there is evidence.
	There's other evidence that shows that he was intoxicated at the time.
	It just would have been better coming from somebody who was on scene and telling the cops in the moment he's on drugs.
	That's an impertinent fact.
	It's not like they didn't know.
	Like they knew at the moment that he was intoxicated.
	So, okay, next.
	Whether failure to record sidebars resulted in a violation.
	This is a weak one, guys.
	I'm not going to even cover this.
	So, but I'm going to tell you what a sidebar is.
	Yeah, that was weak from the defense.
	This is weak.
	This is a week.
	There's nothing out there.
	We're being objective.
	We're telling y'all where they're fucking up with this idea and where they're winning with this appeal.
	Yes.
	This is a bad one, guys.
	So a sidebar is when they meet with the judge.
	You do not necessarily need to record all the sidebars.
	So there's something that says that you need to keep a complete and total record of the trial for appeal.
	So it needs to be total transcriptions.
	And they didn't record the sidebar.
	So what they're saying is we don't have the sidebars to enter into evidence for the appeals.
	And that was material.
	I don't think that's a great, that's a winner.
	I think this is a weak one.
	Definitely on a trial like this, they're not going to overturn it for something as weak sauce as this.
	This might on a more minor charge, okay, maybe, but not on this.
	And a sidebar, can we tell the people what the sidebar is?
	So a sidebar is when the two attorneys, they go up to the judge and they speak privately.
	The reason why they do that is because they don't want the jury to hear because what they're talking about could bias the jury.
	So they go up to the judge by themselves and talk with the judge and the judge makes a ruling.
	That's called a sidebar because they are literally on the side of the bar, essentially where the judge is.
	So that's why it's called the sidebar.
	Now you got to do it.
	A lot of times they're discussing legal matters, you know, jargon, whatever it may be, and they don't want to poison anybody.
	You know what I'm saying?
	Because the prosecution is going to make the strongest argument that they can.
	The defense is going to make the strongest argument they can, but you can't have the jury seeing that.
	You don't want it to bias them.
	Make sure you guys, by the way, make sure you're smashing the like on this video.
	I like the video, guys, because you're not going to get an unbiased, you know, unemotional breakdown like this anywhere else on anything.
	Because you know, guys, people, Myron is obviously so afraid of controversy, right?
	He's so scared.
	No, I'm joking.
	I mean, and same thing for my channel, though, guys.
	I cover stuff whether it's controversial or not.
	I give you the facts over the feelings.
	My thing is be your own judge, make your own decisions.
	That's my slogan.
	So if you guys want to make up your own decisions, follow me over there at LegalMindset.
	Check him out, guys.
	Check them out on YouTube.
	All right.
	Next one.
	Whether upward departure in sentence was justified.
	Okay, this is the last one.
	It sounds complicated, right?
	Upward departure.
	What the hell is that?
	A plane flight?
	You know, no.
	It means they were supposed to give him based on the sentencing guidelines.
	So that is the guidelines that the state makes for sentencing people in the same situation as Chauvin.
	People with no criminal record, people that have otherwise been, you know, good citizens.
	They're supposed to be sentenced to a maximum of 150 months.
	Derek Chauvin was sentenced to 270.
	And there were two reasons why two reasons why they sentenced him beyond that.
	And the first one was, the first one was, was that he was in a position of trust and authority because he was a police officer.
	That's number one.
	Number two was it was cruel and vicious, like unnecessarily cruel, that it was extra cruel to be on him for that long.
	Okay, let's take those apart.
	The first one, extending the sentence because he's a cop, because he's in a position of authority, that is unprecedented, not just in Minnesota, but in the United States.
	There's no other case law.
	There's no other cases that have extended a sentence simply because somebody is a cop and using that factor alone.
	That's not enough.
	That's actually bad.
	That's a real bad reason.
	That's really problematic.
	And hopefully they actually, in this one, they can throw out that first one and say, hey, the judge screwed up on the first one.
	But on the second one, if you think he's guilty, then it's definitely cruel, right?
	This is clearly cruel.
	I mean, based on the amount of time here.
	Then the jury, at this point, by the way, when you're in sentencing, you're going with the jury.
	So at this point, the jury said he's guilty.
	So if he's guilty, this is 100% cruel and vicious.
	The judge should have just leaned on that and said, that's my reason.
	I'm giving him 270.
	Right.
	He fucked up because he included the first.
	And that's actually on the judge.
	So in that case, the judge actually messed up by adding that first one that he's a police officer.
	He might actually end up getting his sentence reduced because he used that other factor that he shouldn't have used.
	He should have just kept it as cruel.
	Hey, you had your knee on his neck for nine minutes.
	Enough.
	That would have been enough to provide that upward variance.
	But the fact that he threw that other one out there, like he was a police officer, and we should break down to them why that's problematic because they're probably wondering, like, well, shouldn't he get more time?
	He's a police officer.
	Well, what you guys don't get is that what that's going to do is that's going to have law enforcement scared because you got to understand as a police officer, you're coming in and you're, how do I say, use of force comes with the job.
	Right.
	You get what I'm saying?
	So it just comes with the job.
	So anytime someone goes hands-on, anytime someone gets in a shooting, anytime someone, and where they might have been using good faith, now they could be potentially looked at where, oh, you were doing your job.
	Well, you know what?
	We could still potentially go after you because you're a police officer.
	And this is precedent.
	This is court precedent that applies to every single case.
	Yeah.
	So remember, this is not just going to apply in the Derek Chauvin case.
	This can be used to apply in any case everywhere.
	Anytime a law enforcement agent does anything, oh, well, you know, you're a position of trust and authority.
	So there you go.
	Hell, that could be for anybody.
	That could be for anybody.
	That could be for firefighters, EMTs, anybody.
	And does it apply when you're on or off duty?
	What's the limit to that?
	The precedent is really, really bad on that one.
	So you guys can see why that's problematic now because it causes issues for anyone else that's in a position of public trust where they'll be afraid to do their job a lot of the time.
	Yes.
	And so what they should have done is they should have discharged him because it was cruel.
	And also, mind you, if this was manslaughter, yes, the sentence would the recommended sentence would have been lower, but they could have done the exact same thing, guys.
	If this was manslaughter, they could have just said, yeah, it's aggravated.
	This is horrible.
	We're giving him more time.
	Yeah.
	They could have done it that way.
	And it would have been perfectly fine.
	The problem is, is that people just don't have the same mental thing.
	Both of these are homicide crimes.
	This is a man killing another man, right?
	Murder is a specific legal term.
	And I know we use that like we're talking to each other.
	We say like murder in like a casual way.
	We're like, oh, he murdered them.
	We don't say, oh, he manslaughtered them.
	But now we got to hit them with the legal.
	Do you want to legal?
	Legal is different than non-legal, right?
	When we say murder, we somehow say murder whether or not the person intended it or not.
	Yeah.
	You know, but murder requires that, once again, the mens rea, the state of mind, right?
	So important.
	So state of mind and saying, I am going to kill this person, or I know what I'm doing can kill this person.
	I know that what I'm doing, it can kill this person.
	Shooting a gun into a crowd.
	You know that can potentially kill somebody.
	Right.
	So that's murder.
	Manslaughter is you're driving drunk.
	There you go.
	You're driving drunk.
	You're doing something that can lead to that.
	And so that's the big difference there.
	Yeah.
	It's not directly foreseeable, so to say.
	You know what I'm saying?
	But like, like I said before, guys, the mens rea, that's very important.
	Okay.
	That's a term that not enough people throw out there.
	Man, I haven't heard that in a minute.
	But yeah, guys, you have to be in that criminal state of mind where I, you know, it make, I'm robbing this person.
	I got my gun.
	I'm willing to use it.
	You know, and if I shoot him to kill him, like, it's foreseeable.
	Makes sense.
	And some people say handcuffed.
	That doesn't change the state of mind.
	Once again, you still need a state of mind, regardless of the facts.
	Like that, that's something that is hard to understand for murder.
	Murder needs intents.
	Intent is a state of mind of the person committing the crime.
	Yeah.
	So regardless of the facts of the person who it's being committed upon, that's irrelevant to whether or not it's murder legally, legally.
	You guys understand the law does not think about feelings like this.
	It doesn't think that you feel like it's murder, that it feels bad.
	Yes.
	And manslaughter is a serious crime.
	It's a serious crime.
	And you get serious time for manslaughter.
	It's not a joke.
	It's not like, you know, white.
	We're just saying it's a throwaway charge, guys.
	It's just saying that like, you got to remember that Chauvin was on duty working.
	So he has the defense right there that I'm in uniform.
	I'm working.
	Like, what are you talking about?
	I'm not trying to kill nobody.
	So that right there defeats the mens Rea argument that they could say that he had the criminal intent to kill.
	No, he didn't, bro.
	He was, he was, he had him handcuffed to part.
	He was had the guy in custody.
	They were trying to arrest him.
	And he has the defense that, hey, I was not in a criminal state of mind while I was trying to kill him.
	And by the way, people saying he had intent.
	Guys, gotta understand, but you guys can think he had intent, but at trial, they never proved intent.
	They never couldn't do it.
	Guys, listen, whatever, however you guys feel about it, because you can think that.
	And guess what?
	That could even be true.
	However, the prosecutors never proved intent at trial.
	Never.
	I watched the entire trial.
	I covered it.
	I have videos on it.
	Check out my videos on George Floyd.
	He was a lawyer, guys.
	They never proved intent.
	It wasn't in their closing.
	They never proved it because they went with the felony assault, felony assault, or sorry, felony murder with assault as a predicate charge.
	That does not require intent.
	They never proved intents.
	That's the issue.
	Guys, I know this is tough for some of y'all to hear.
	Trying to law, guys.
	We're trying to teach you guys, hey, the law doesn't care about your feelings, guys.
	You know what I'm saying?
	Yeah.
	And Jay Patson, trying to watch without being emotional, the title is what threw me off with the word unbiased.
	It seemed like this will be reasons to justify the live lynching.
	But now I see this about the case only.
	Yeah.
	I mean, go ahead.
	The title gets people worked up sometimes.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I'll mention it the whole time.
	Oh my God, not you listen.
	Okay.
	Yeah, man.
	Yo, listen, guys, you got to really, really put your fucking feelings aside, guys.
	You know what I'm saying?
	You guys really triggered it, man.
	You guys, like, like I told y'all before, this was a clean-cut manslaughter case.
	They should have gotten it for manslaughter, but felony murder, they fucked up, man.
	They try to bite off a little bit more than they can chew.
	And now the appeal might get send them free, guys.
	And we're not even through it yet.
	So I'm going to show you guys some of the problematic things right now that are considered.
	And remember, only one of these things.
	One thing.
	Can set him free.
	One thing.
	One thing.
	All right.
	So let's jump.
	Open it back up.
	Do you have any more supers?
	We caught it.
	Okay.
	So, Nora Elden, great content, Meyer.
	Keep it the good work, bro.
	Yeah, man.
	Guys, you got to come on, man.
	This is the law, baby.
	All right.
	All right.
	So bringing this down for y'all unbiased.
	We're going to tell y'all where they fucked up on the appeal.
	Okay.
	So let's scroll down here a little bit.
	So this is a statement, statement of facts.
	We're going to go past the arrest here because we all know what happened.
	We saw the video one happen.
	Keep going past that one.
	All right.
	So here we go.
	Riots occur in Minneapolis and St. Paul.
	So they give a bunch of facts on the riots.
	So instead of reading this part, I'll show you guys some of the pictures.
	Visuals.
	You got some visuals.
	Kitty, pull up the picture of the riots.
	It's pretty clear which one it is.
	It should be the Google thing right there, Chris.
	Yep.
	Yep.
	There we go.
	You got it.
	All right.
	So guys, this is what Minneapolis was looking like, man, during all this.
	So this was during the riots.
	This was during the trial as well.
	Like stuff like this was going on in Minnesota during the trial.
	A lot of stuff like this.
	You know, tons of property damage.
	These were the second most costly riots in all of U.S. history.
	You guys want to know how bad it was?
	So Destiny, as you guys know, she comes on the show.
	She helps us out behind the scenes as well.
	She was living in Minneapolis at the time.
	What's up?
	Quantum.
	Yeah, Quantum.
	Quantum.
	Yeah.
	Quantum.
	So she was living in Minneapolis at the time.
	So she got really sick, guys.
	And she called 911.
	And yo, literally, they told her, oh, yeah, no, we can't come out.
	And it wasn't until she called like several times.
	And they eventually came like two hours later.
	And this is right in the middle of the riots.
	And they were, I don't know if like they were because they were trying to defund the police and everything else like that.
	But guys, emergency service were essentially suspended.
	Yes.
	You know what I'm saying?
	For a period of time.
	Things were on fire.
	Business was destroyed.
	The city is still in shambles to this day.
	Even two years later, as you guys can see, it was crazy.
	And remember, all the riots that spawned off of this.
	Like this, once again, this spawned so many other riots.
	Then, of course, during the trial, we had Dante Wright and the riots that came off of that.
	So it was a lot.
	It was a lot.
	All right.
	And then we had the biggest thing, and this is most controversial, was during the trial, we had a sitting representative in Congress make an inflammatory statement about the trial.
	Oh, shit.
	Oh, shit.
	All right, let's pull that up.
	This is craziness.
	Fucking craziness.
	Okay, one second.
	Is it which one?
	Maxime Waters, Waters to demonstrators.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So play this as a short clip.
	Some of you may have seen this.
	Give me a large Chris on.
	Yeah, let me play it on Chrome.
	I mean, Firefox.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	And this woman is a, she's a city representative from California, Maxime Waters.
	Some of you know her, some of you may not, but she is, she's in the government, right?
	This is a person who's in the government.
	So they're, they're, you know, they swear an oath to the government and the Constitution, right?
	And, you know, she knows that protecting fair trials is important, not just the cornerstone of the United States.
	Yes, yes.
	She's over here as a government employee doing this shit.
	Crazy.
	You might have to refresh it or play from the beginning.
	One second.
	I think I'll share the wrong screen.
	It's all right.
	There we go.
	All right.
	There we go.
	Bam.
	I am very postponed.
	And I hope that we're going to get a verdict that is saying guilty, guilty, guilty.
	And if we don't, we cannot go away.
	And not just manslaughter, right?
	I mean, oh, no, not manslaughter.
	No, no, no.
	This is this is guilty.
	Murder.
	I don't know whether it's in the first degree, but as far as I'm concerned, it's first degree.
	This comes from what happens if we do not get what you just told?
	What should the people do?
	What should protesters on the street do?
	I didn't hear you.
	What happens?
	What should protesters do?
	Well, we got to stay on the street and we've got to get more active.
	We've got to get more confrontational.
	We've got to make sure that they know that we're being business.
	Okay, so that's the controversy statement.
	say when she said this when she said this guys the judge in the case peter k hill the actual judge said in court that this was the miss most idiotic thing he's ever seen because this statement alone could be enough just this statement alone the judge said this that on appeal this statement alone could be enough to overturn yep alone The judge said that.
	That's not even me saying this.
	That's not my interpretation.
	I'm just telling you what the judge said in court because she's literally saying, jury, you give us the, you give us this verdict, or we are going to get more confrontational.
	Myron, what are you staying out here?
	What do you think confrontational means?
	More burning, more fires, more.
	You guys saw the pictures.
	People were getting assaulted.
	Businesses were being destroyed.
	The city of Minneapolis wanted this thing to end so that they can go back to working and having their city back, bro.
	Yep.
	Like, guys, like, remember how in the beginning of the show, we showed you guys what the sixth and 14th Amendment were.
	And the sixth amendment was an impartial trial, an impartial trial with impartial jurors.
	Guys, I don't know what proves that.
	You guys, a government employee from California coming all the way over to Minnesota, talking shit, out there protesting with you guys.
	And mind you, guys, this was May of 2020.
	This is in the middle of the pandemic.
	Right.
	That's why she's wearing that crazy mask and all that other shit, right?
	Coming from California, all the way in Minnesota saying this as a government employee.
	It's insane.
	And it's not her district.
	Here's the thing.
	Here's the thing, guys, that pissed me off about this.
	It's not her district that was going to burn.
	Would she have made that same statement if this was in California?
	Nope.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	She's making a statement in Minneapolis where it's not her people.
	This isn't her people.
	This isn't her town that's going to burn because of this.
	So this statement alone is problematic.
	And let's look at the facts here because they show, Chris, can you jump up to the appeal?
	And if you scroll down, there's going to be a list of all the statements that the jury was afraid.
	So the jury literally came out and made multiple statements in the brief.
	You're going to see it here.
	So keep scrolling down.
	Keep scrolling down.
	Keep scrolling down.
	And I'll tell you guys, this is a former government employee.
	Like, there's a reason why something called the Hatch Act exists, which as a government employee, you can't talk about politics.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Now, obviously, this isn't, this basically damn near turned into a political situation.
	Yes.
	As a government employee, guys, you keep your mouth shut when situations like this happen.
	Okay, so this starts.
	So these are all the statements.
	We're not going to read all of them, but I just want you guys to look at them.
	These are all the words from the jurors.
	And look, if they're speaking up, that you know it's bad.
	Yeah.
	So literally, these are all the jurors.
	Jury number eight, concerns about safety for this particular case.
	Security measures, because guys, the National Guard was out with armored cars.
	There was barbed wire.
	There's police dogs.
	There's all sorts of security outside.
	So I said the security made him more concerned.
	Yep.
	And then they went, oh, I'm concerned for my wife, my family.
	And scroll down, Chris.
	Yep.
	For the safety of those family members.
	And there's hesitation to serving.
	And you're especially concerned about harm and destruction.
	Boom.
	More safety concerns.
	Jury number 10, 17.
	He was anxious.
	26, mental safety.
	Okay, whatever.
	We'll go past that one, right?
	Nervous about this case because of pressure of doing the right thing, considering broader implications, reactions from the general public.
	Height and level of security.
	That's from juror 30.
	Put someone a little bit unat ease.
	Concern for safety, military, police, and fence also raised my concerns for herself and her kids.
	That's juror 37, juror 38.
	That's the number on the far left, right?
	Yep.
	Number eight.
	I did have concerns just for the safety of my family.
	Concerns for your personal safety.
	It caused my wife concern.
	She definitely was afraid.
	Guys, do you see how this all infringes?
	Look at that.
	Hold up right there for 48.
	I want to get this one.
	Security of my family comes first.
	And was concerned about seeing all the security around the courthouse, which was eye-opening.
	It reminded him of Iraq.
	Damn.
	I mean, that's bad.
	And guys, remember, it goes back again.
	Get your feelings out of this, guys.
	It goes back to why we showed you guys the Sixth Amendment in the beginning.
	When you are tried for a crime in the United States, it is your right to be tried by a jury of your peers impartially.
	Impartially.
	Impartially.
	So there's two things they could have done here to fix this, right?
	There's two things they could have done.
	Number one, they could have changed the venue to outside of Minneapolis.
	Which they should have done.
	Which they should have done.
	Big time.
	That's a huge fuck up.
	They should have moved it outside of Minneapolis.
	Like just having it in the city was creating a security issue.
	So they're going to move it outside the city.
	Like that, that's.
	Know why they didn't, like, why they kept it in the city of Minneapolis.
	It's like it's it was it boggles my mind why they did not need to do that.
	Um, second of all, after the Dante Wright situation, this Maxine Waters situation, they should have you know called it off until things heated down, so people went home.
	Yeah, there are people that were out there that flew out there specifically for that.
	Let those people go home, let that defuse.
	And with Dante Wright, like that shooting that happened during the trial, Dante Wright's shooting, Kim Potter, who shot Dante Wright, thought she had a taser.
	She accidentally pulled out her service weapon, her Glock, and she shot him, shot him, right?
	And she's convicted for that, right?
	She was convicted for that.
	That's a separate trial.
	We're not talking about that today, but that was linked together, right?
	These politicians, Maxine Waters, the people like her, they linked these things together.
	They said it's all systemic racism.
	Yep.
	To me, these are two separate isolated incidents with completely different facts.
	Yeah.
	Right?
	They are.
	But they linked them together and the protesters came together on that.
	You should have said, okay, it's too hot right now.
	We got to let this thing cool down.
	It made the atmosphere in Minneapolis even worse.
	Yes.
	It made the protesters more aggravated.
	It increased the violence.
	Increased again, guys, as things get crazier and crazier in Minneapolis, the jurors get more and more afraid, which, as they get more and more afraid for their personal safety, guess what?
	There's more pressure on them to do what?
	To convict.
	And as there's more pressure on them to convict, guess what happens?
	That impartiality?
	Boom.
	And whether we want to accept it or not, the reality is this.
	He did not get an impartial trial.
	Yeah.
	I mean, that's what it is, bro.
	They should have moved it.
	And here's the thing.
	That's a fact.
	Once again, who's to blame for this?
	To blame for this are the prosecutors.
	You want to get mad?
	Blame the prosecutors because they had the power.
	They control so much of the case, the prosecutors.
	They screwed up.
	They had unlimited money.
	They had unlimited attorneys.
	They could have put as much time as they wanted on this.
	By the way, Chauvin was sitting in jail.
	He wasn't out on bond.
	He was sitting in jail during this.
	I mean, he's not going anywhere.
	Yeah.
	He's in jail.
	He's serving the sentence just like he'd be serving the sentence if he was convicted.
	So just leave away the jail.
	Yeah, they should have let him sit in jail.
	No bond.
	Yeah.
	Waited it out.
	Pick a safer venue out somewhere in the middle of nowhere.
	Another county that's safer, that's more rural.
	Higher security, have that same security, but in a rural area.
	You know what I'm saying?
	And yeah, guys, I mean, this is the thing that's like I said before, man.
	He was guilty, 100%.
	But the prosecution fucked up so many things.
	And it's like, you might have a guilty guy walk now because the prosecution wanted to go for like a fucking like mega slam dunk doing all this extra shit, windmilling three times and trying to get the, you know what I mean?
	When they could have just like went, it was an easy layup, bro.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	I saw that one from Haitian Jack about the police brutality.
	If you want to bring that back up.
	So Sakpasse, my brother here.
	Chauvin says 22 prior incidents of police brutality and was deciphered once he clearly abuses position as a law enforcement officer.
	Look, that may be not even in dispute.
	Let's say he did all that.
	That wasn't the charge in this case.
	This was not a police brutality case for these other incidents.
	Those other incidents weren't.
	You got to understand.
	The law looks at the facts of the present case.
	Yeah.
	Like even if you assume those things are true, even if you assume they're true.
	It's not material to the case.
	It wasn't the case that was at hand.
	He needs to be tried.
	The point is, we're tried for all those things.
	If those things weren't brought to trial, there's a reason for that.
	Maybe that's a problem.
	Maybe they should be investigated.
	Maybe they should look into eternal affairs why they didn't bring those.
	But that's not what was at trial here.
	They had to prove that he abused it in this instance.
	And they didn't prove that.
	They didn't show that.
	They didn't have those facts out there to show that in this instance.
	Yeah.
	And like I said before, guys, this is if he walks, the prosecution fucked up.
	You know what I'm saying?
	A lot of serious mistakes here.
	What's the next thing you want to cover?
	So we can.
	We're going to get any more of the super chats.
	Yeah, I'll read some of these chats.
	Okay.
	Juan Antonio, it goes, I didn't watch all the video available, but I did see the videos focusing on the knee on the neck.
	They mostly showed his knee floating above the neck.
	Okay, we're going to talk about that too with the use of force.
	Don't worry about that, guys.
	Wayne, 10 bucks goes, what would be the difference between a manslaughter charge and negligent homicide?
	Okay, so negligent homicide, they're very close.
	And in fact, in some states, they're the same thing, right?
	But let me just get this simply.
	I don't want to law nerd out on you here, but involuntary manslaughter is essentially criminal levels of negligence.
	So it's where you're not, there's no intent, right?
	There's no intent, but it's criminal levels of negligence.
	So essentially, let's say you and Andrew are chilling and I'm playing with my Glock.
	Right.
	And I accidentally like shoot him.
	Right.
	Just like throwing the clip in and out, or like pulling the trigger randomly, you know, or whatever, like where he puts a bullet in and injects it, but you know, puts it in and out, and he just shoots me randomly.
	Or here's another one, right?
	Let's say you inspect somebody's car and you see that the brake wires are cut, and you're like, but you're like, nah, car's good to go, right?
	Stupid, yeah, you might be criminally negligent, right?
	If you knew and you see that, and you're like, yeah, I know this car's break brake lines are cup.
	I'm gonna let him go here, you know?
	Like, if you know, that's creative examples.
	Like, come on, man.
	Like, come on.
	That's criminal negligence.
	That can be negligent homicide.
	Big out.
	Think of it this way, by the way.
	Negligent homicide is like involuntary manslaughter.
	That's a good way to put it.
	Fiery but mostly peaceful protests.
	CNN.
	See, once again, that's why they, if they didn't, see, here's the thing, guys.
	If the media just covered this fairly, we would have gotten a fair trial and we would have gotten a conviction.
	The media just needed to cover this fairly.
	They got too hyped up on this because it was their cash cow, because they saw this as their ticket to big ratings.
	So they made it.
	They made up all these lies, like fiery but mostly peaceful, you know.
	And they, it took them so long to pedal back.
	It got took them so long to backpedal on the defund the police stuff.
	Yeah.
	Uh, global product and gaming.
	Uh, what is it with the YouTube attacking your reputation by saying things that are not true?
	I'm grateful for all the content you have provided, bro.
	Hey, just going, hey, bro.
	Yeah.
	You know why?
	Because we're not afraid to tell you guys shit like this right now.
	Like, what are we doing?
	We're covering something that's extremely controversial.
	Hell, even people in the chat are a little mad.
	Oh, man, Myron, you could do it.
	Hey, bro, we're not saying that he was innocent.
	We're just telling you guys that the prosecution is seriously fucked up and he may walk because of it.
	Stop arguing because you're mad, listen, and understand.
	Thank you, Cardi Bands.
	Yeah.
	And I was saying, you know, stop arguing.
	And yeah, what is it?
	Go rewrite the laws.
	There you go.
	Because here's the thing, though.
	I'm telling you the laws as they're written right now.
	Yeah.
	If you guys feel like this is wrong, like if you're in your feelings, yeah, exactly.
	Be like, okay, change the laws.
	Change the laws.
	Because that's not the way the laws are written right now.
	If you want to, change them, but that's not what the laws are.
	Regardless of how you feel about it, it's not the law.
	Yep.
	Yep.
	W. Alfonso, five bucks.
	Thank you so much.
	Stop arguing because you're mad and listen to understand.
	Yeah, bro.
	Rest in peace, George Floyd.
	That's from Cardi Bands.
	Okay.
	And then Canadian saying, 50 bucks.
	Thanks for all the work here, guy.
	I'm loving the show.
	Got you, man.
	There you go.
	Guys, we'll cover tough topics like this too, man.
	Like I said, I knew some of y'all were going to get mad about this, but hey, man, we're just covering the law.
	We're reading it to you guys black and white, giving you guys the legal perspective on it, right?
	And yeah, and you guys do what you want with it, right?
	Yeah, right.
	Do what you don't with the information.
	All right.
	I want to jump back to the appeal.
	So let's jump back here.
	You guys like the video, by the way, because you're not going to get an unbiased breakdown like this from two guys that come from this world anywhere else on fucking YouTube.
	I promise you.
	I mean, because this is something, guys, look, we try to cover this impartially.
	We try to cover this objectively.
	And this just shows how it's impossible.
	It's impossible.
	Like, we just put up the title and you guys are lit, you know?
	Yeah, yeah.
	And we're telling you guys where the appeal is up too because the defense made some mistakes on this as well.
	Don't make no mistake about it.
	But here's a big key that I want you guys to understand.
	When you're the prosecution, you can't afford to fuck up.
	When you're the defense, you can fuck up as much as you want.
	All you need to do is prove one thing.
	That's it.
	One thing.
	That's all you got to do is prove one thing.
	You could, that's why defense, they just throw everything, right?
	Let's just make spaghetti at the wall.
	Throwing spaghetti at the wall.
	All the defense has to do is get one thing, guys.
	The prosecution can't afford to fuck up.
	The defense can.
	That's what I'm trying to explain to you guys.
	That's the difference.
	Okay, cool.
	So I hope you guys are enjoying this, by the way.
	All right.
	So let's get back to this brief here.
	So we're going to scroll down past all these jury statements and we're going to get to the next section.
	So if you wanted to scroll down to hit the next section, Chris, past this.
	These are all the jury statements.
	These are all jury statements concerned about safety.
	So clearly we see that here.
	Okay.
	So here's a big one.
	Oh, scroll back up real quick to this one, this heading.
	We'll just read the heading.
	Okay.
	The city of Minneapolis announces during the fifth day of voider.
	So voider is when the juries are jurors are being questioned.
	So during the trial, this is part of the trial.
	It's the first stage of the trial when they select a jury.
	So on the fifth day of jury selection, it agreed to pay out the estate 27 mil.
	Here's the thing.
	Here's the thing.
	And just that announcement alone knocked two jurors out.
	Like literally, like knocked two jurors out because of that settlement.
	They should have waited.
	They shouldn't have done it during that, biased it unnecessarily.
	And once again, the city had control over this.
	The city had control of this.
	The city didn't have to settle then.
	They could have waited, right?
	Most of the time, in fact, in almost all cases, in almost all cases, they wait till after the murder trial to settle.
	But instead, they decided to do it during the trial.
	Oh my God.
	That shows that they wanted to try to make that influence the jury.
	You don't do that.
	This is abnormal.
	They did something abnormal.
	They shouldn't have done that.
	The city had control over when they settle.
	They did not need to do that then.
	They just had to wait, like literally, like two more weeks, and it would have been fine.
	And just so you guys know, the Voor Diar is a very sensitive process.
	It's basically jury selection, right?
	You're asking a jury selection.
	You're asking the jurors a bunch of questions.
	You know, you're figuring out who's qualified, who's not qualified.
	You're getting rid of people that aren't necessarily going to be good jurors.
	And for them, for the city to announce, hey, we're going to give him $27 million.
	Okay.
	They're basically admitting that they fucked up.
	To a degree.
	They're saying they're at fault.
	The city is saying we're at fault, guys.
	Convict shows.
	Now, granted, I want to tell you from a legal perspective, sitting here as a lawyer, civil standard is lower than criminal standard.
	Civil standard is preponderance of the evidence.
	So think of that as 50% plus one.
	So 50.1%.
	Good for civil, right?
	Yeah.
	That's good enough for civil.
	Think of reasonable doubt as 99.9%.
	Like you need to be like so sure.
	Yeah.
	Like 99.9%.
	That's the difference.
	This guy did it.
	Like this guy did it.
	That's the standard we're thinking of when you get a reasonable doubt.
	Huge difference.
	So yes, it doesn't necessarily mean it, but in the eyes of people who the reasonable person, right?
	You think, oh, if we're paying out this money, then he must have done it.
	Yep.
	Right.
	And here's the thing, just so I can visually show it to y'all.
	So let's say, you know, preponderance of the evidence is right here.
	Right.
	Beyond a reasonable doubt, all the way up here when it comes to like what's required.
	Okay.
	Y'all see that?
	So preponderance of the evidence, civil case right here.
	Reasonable doubt all the way up here.
	Just so you guys know, OJ Simpson won his criminal case.
	Guess what?
	He lost his fucking civil case.
	Yep.
	Okay.
	Because preponderance of the evidence did not need to have to not need to bring nearly as much evidence to show that he was liable and culpable for Nicole Simpson's death.
	All right.
	And he had to pay out on that civil suit and he lost it.
	Okay.
	So that just puts things in perspective for you guys: how low the threshold is for civil.
	However, a regular person ain't going to know that.
	They'd be like, oh, the city's paying?
	Yo, this dude guilty as fuck.
	Yep.
	Done.
	What we showed you guys at the beginning of the podcast.
	Sixth Amendment.
	What is it?
	Again, guys, repeat after me to be tried by a jury of your peers impartially.
	This right here is literally the definition of bias.
	Yeah.
	It's crazy.
	It's crazy.
	And once again, guys, remember, one thing is all it takes.
	It only takes one, right?
	That's a big one.
	This is a huge one.
	$27 million.
	Bro, imagine you being a juror, right?
	They call you into a case.
	Hey, Myron Gaines, I need you to come in, all right, to this trial.
	This dude killed this guy.
	All right.
	Oh, by the way, the city's paying the fucking victim 27 million bucks, by the way.
	But you're going to, but we're going to, I need you to be unbiased here and listen to the facts of the case and everything else like that.
	Number one, I'll be mad.
	I'll be like, where's my money?
	And then I'll be like, what the fuck?
	This dude guilty as fuck.
	The city pay on 27 because here's the thing, guys.
	Cities almost never settle that quickly.
	Ever.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So that's.
	Yeah.
	Hey, man.
	So, all right, let's go to the next one.
	Scroll on down to the next bolded bolded section.
	Should be right here.
	Or right here.
	Boom.
	Like I said, guys, Brooklyn Center, which is right near, right nearby, right?
	Kim Potter shoots and kills Dante Wright, leading to renewed anti-police while it's still pending, and you're not sequestering the jury.
	Now, guys, I already called this out.
	The sequestering argument, I think it's a shit argument.
	It's a week, yeah.
	It's a shit argument.
	And social media days.
	Really, social media days, you don't sequester anymore.
	It's not really useful unless you're really going to lock people in like a literally a cage.
	But that's like cruel and unusual to people.
	So they're not going to do that shit.
	People don't have the stomach to do that, right?
	But so the sequestering part of that don't really agree.
	However, delaying it, just putting it off for maybe a week or two.
	I could see that.
	They already waited a year.
	The guy's not going anywhere.
	He's in custody.
	He's not going anywhere.
	He's still in jail.
	So just wait, wait till this stuff calms down, right?
	So people stop burning stuff.
	Oh, yeah.
	And maybe move it outside the city, right?
	Good chance to say, hey, we're going to pause.
	We're going to move this outside the city.
	This is too much.
	You know, and like I said, there's a curfew.
	The National Guard was activated after this.
	This was serious.
	Yeah.
	It's a serious, serious incident.
	All right.
	Let's go.
	Next one.
	All right.
	So this is a very small one, but the media reports on it.
	So that doesn't really do much.
	You could say, oh, that might have biased people, whatever.
	But here you go.
	Here's the excluded evidence.
	So the court excluded evidence of the prior arrest on 19th.
	Where he made that, Chris?
	Yes.
	Where Floyd made the same complaints when he was arrested.
	So essentially, Floyd had been arrested before.
	And if you want to scroll down here, Chris, to the next page.
	Oh, go, go, go up, go up a little bit.
	There you go.
	Okay.
	He is like crying, saying he wanted his mother in this other one and he swallows narcotics as he's arrested.
	So it's just context, right?
	It's context.
	And that was excluded.
	So should they have included it?
	This is not a case winner.
	This is kind of like a medium one.
	There's some great points, like the Maxine Waters one, that was horrible.
	That was bad.
	The, you know, that's a real bad thing.
	That's a strong argument for the defense to overturn this.
	The sequestering, that's weak, weak sauce.
	This is like medium.
	This is medium.
	I think they should have admitted this evidence and allowed this in because it gives context.
	That doesn't mean that what Chauvin did was right.
	That doesn't make Chauvin innocent, but you need to present everything at trial, get everything out there.
	And this is something that should have been allowed out there.
	Yeah.
	Okay, here you go.
	This is a big one.
	Now, Myron can speak to this.
	So the court excluded evidence of training materials, establishing that the Minnesota Police Department trains officers to put suspects into with one officer putting his knees on the suspect's back.
	So scroll down here, Chris.
	So scroll down, there's a picture.
	Okay, so the top picture, that's what they showed in court.
	And they blanked out.
	This is the PowerPoint slide.
	They showed this in court.
	And they blanked out the picture that was as part of the training materials.
	But let's scroll down here.
	This is what was in the photo.
	Oh, man.
	Guys, this photo is the Minnesota Police.
	We didn't make this up.
	This is their own police department's training materials.
	Their own police department's training materials.
	And they excluded it.
	So once again, you need to ask them why.
	That doesn't make this, once again, it doesn't make what he did right.
	But let them enter this into evidence and show, hey, in the training, they do a move like this.
	This is what that works.
	This is a trainer in a training circumstance doing a similar move.
	Not putting it in the materials is bad because it makes it look like, okay, why'd y'all hide this?
	Why are they hiding it?
	Okay.
	And here's the other thing, too.
	I'll tell you guys this from my training, right?
	When I was going through Agent Academy, everything that we did, all of our scores, our shooting range, all that stuff, it's all documented and scored.
	And the reason why is because if you ever get in a use of force incident where someone gets hurt or someone gets killed or whatever, they can always pull your training file and see how you did.
	Okay.
	So the fact that they pulled his training file and they found that he was trained to do this and then they withheld it, bro.
	I don't, man, this was a big fucking blunder by the prosecution.
	Look, all they had to do was, you guys say nine minutes.
	This is what they had to do.
	Look, I'll be the attorney right now.
	Allow them to show it.
	So the defense attorney shows this, right?
	It says, oh, this is the training materials, right?
	And they'll say, yes, it's training materials.
	So come up and say this.
	This is what this is what literally the prosecution can say, you know, to the witness.
	Let's say the witness on the training materials.
	Myron, is it anywhere on the training in this training?
	Is it anywhere to put the knee on the neck for nine full minutes?
	Is that not specifically?
	No.
	No.
	Is it foreseeable that putting someone in this specific position for nine minutes might cause harm?
	Potentially.
	There you go.
	You got it.
	Yeah.
	You know, done.
	I just debunked it, right?
	Just here's the point with evidence, guys.
	You have to allow, you don't just get in evidence that is nice to your side.
	You have to, there's evidence on both sides.
	Some of it favors the defense, some of it favors the prosecution.
	But during the course of trial, you're supposed to put everything else out and just say, and just diffuse it.
	Just diffuse that.
	Yeah, it looks bad on the prosecution that they didn't, that they redacted it because this gives the defense a little bit of wig room to say, yo, why'd y'all hide this?
	Why'd you guys hide this?
	Oh, oh, it's because he was trained to do this.
	Now, obviously, he did it incorrectly.
	I think he put his neck a little bit, his knee a little bit high on the neck.
	And he did it for way too long, nine minutes.
	Like, goddamn, that was not necessary.
	So for this, for this, for the super chat, though, I want to say, I want to save our prediction for the end.
	I want to save our prediction for the end, but we will give a prediction on whether it'll be overturned or not.
	Yeah, we'll get it.
	We'll do that at the end because I want to do it when you guys have seen all the evidence.
	Yeah, we want y'all to see everything.
	And we want y'all to go.
	We should take a vote in the chat too.
	What y'all think after you guys go through it?
	After you see everything, whether it'll be appealed or not.
	Again, guys, I want to make this extremely fucking clear.
	Put your feelings aside for two seconds.
	All right.
	We're not saying he should have put his neck, his, his knee on his neck for that long.
	And we're not saying he did it correctly.
	But what I am saying is that it's really bad that the prosecution didn't handle this during the trial and bring this up.
	So now what it's allowed the defense to do is say, why'd y'all hide this?
	Look, Chauvin was trained to do this.
	See, look, the department trained him to do this.
	Okay.
	Now it gives them the wig room to be able to contest this in an appeal where the prosecution, I don't know if they're going to respond to this.
	Are they going to respond to this?
	No, no.
	Well, they haven't.
	No, they have a chance.
	So, this is Chauvin's brief.
	They are allowed to file a counter brief.
	They are allowed to file a brief that's like responding to this.
	Yeah.
	But the point is, is that once again, the judge only has to find one thing.
	That's the problem.
	And there's so many things.
	There's just so many reasons why it can be overturned.
	And these aren't like some of these are strong reasons.
	Like, this is a pretty good one.
	Like, and once again, and it's the prosecutor's fault.
	Yeah, I don't know why the fuck they redacted that.
	They could have easily beat that in trial.
	I don't know why they redacted that.
	They did not need to redact that.
	They did not need to redact that at all.
	They should have just showed it and then debunked it in court.
	Yeah.
	That's what you're supposed to do.
	Let it out and then mitigate it in court.
	Because all they could have done, I'll tell you guys right now.
	The prosecutor, all you have to do, okay, I see because they would have probably had a training use of force guy there, right?
	From the Minneapolis Police Department, whatever.
	Okay.
	I see this photo here.
	This is how they're trained at the academy.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Is it standard protocol to put your knee on someone's neck for your knee on someone's neck for nine minutes when there's no threat?
	No.
	Okay.
	Done.
	Okay.
	That's witness.
	Thank you for so much.
	And done.
	But them not them redacting it.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, that's dumb.
	It's dumb.
	It's on the prosecutors, too.
	Yeah.
	They did this, guys.
	The prosecution did this.
	The prosecutors, the state did this.
	They effed up.
	Yeah.
	Not a good move.
	Let's get to.
	There's a poll in the chat going on, by the way.
	There's a poem in the chat.
	Okay.
	He's walking on that.
	Okay.
	Okay, guys.
	But I would like you guys to reserve it until we're done.
	A little bit more.
	There's a little bit more in here, guys.
	I want y'all, and we'll do a recap as well of all the blunders, and we'll take a vote at the end and see what y'all think.
	Okay, I'll end the poem right now then.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Do it again.
	Do it again.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Yeah, do it.
	Do it at the end when we're done.
	Okay.
	Let's keep going here.
	So scroll past this.
	Yeah, you're not going to get this anywhere else, guys.
	Nobody's breaking this down impartially.
	Hell no.
	Okay.
	Here we go.
	This is what we talked about.
	The state presented seven witnesses who testified on unreasonable use of force.
	So scroll down a little bit.
	Chris, there should be like a graphic.
	Here we go.
	Okay.
	There you go.
	Like, look, okay.
	So this is literally in their closing.
	So they literally had a PowerPoint slide that showed the fact that they had seven witnesses, right, that say it's unreasonable.
	This is what we call cumulative evidence.
	You're not supposed to do this.
	You're not supposed to have people who are saying the same thing like this.
	Literally, their PowerPoint slide proves that they did the thing they shouldn't be doing.
	They told on themselves.
	Guys, this is like TikTok girls telling on themselves for being hoes.
	Oh, God.
	This is the same thing.
	It's the same.
	This is probably one of the biggest things.
	And can you break?
	So cumulative evidence is when they are testifying on the exact same thing.
	Experts, subject matter experts, like Myron said, SME subject matter experts are testifying on the same thing.
	You are not supposed to do this.
	This is not what we call court is not a battle of who has the most experts.
	You're supposed to each get an expert, right?
	Defense gets an expert.
	Prosecution gets one expert to speak about one thing.
	So maybe one of you gets an expert on use of force.
	The other one gets an expert on use of force.
	One of you gets one on his medical conditions.
	Another one gets a medical, you know.
	You're not supposed to have one side getting 20 and the other side getting two.
	And sometimes this benefits the defense.
	If Chauvin had been a celebrity, let's say it was Alec Baldwin in Alec Baldwin's shooting case.
	You better believe Alec Baldwin is going to have as many people as he wanted to because he has money, right?
	But in this case, the state threw unlimited funds at this.
	So they said, you know what, we're going to spend all our money on this cumulative evidence, this thing that can get the case overturned.
	Bro, I just, it just fucking hit me.
	Yeah.
	It just fucking hit me.
	Now I know why they redacted it.
	Why did they redact it?
	Look at these experts.
	They're all from the fucking police department.
	Ah, right fucking there, bro.
	They probably were impossible.
	That's what it is, man.
	Because they knew.
	Well, one of them is, one of them is a law school person.
	Yeah, one of them is a law school person, but a couple of them.
	Clearly, for the department, you can see the uniform.
	That is why they redacted it, guys.
	Wow.
	That's not good.
	And here's the other thing, too, guys.
	The fact that they had multiple witnesses for the same exact thing, this could be considered unduly suggestive.
	It's kind of like that saying, the lady doth protest too much.
	Like, I think they did this literally because they know they know the city could look bad on this.
	And they're trying to save the city.
	Yeah.
	Chauvin was crucified in order to save the city, but the city is very much culpable here.
	Yeah.
	Dude, that is.
	And now they trained officers.
	It just hit me right there.
	Literally, they shot themselves in the foot.
	The reason why they didn't show the picture in the trial is because they would have had to go ahead and explain why the fuck do you guys train your police officers to put knees on the neck.
	And I'll tell you guys this from the Fed Academy.
	They didn't teach us to put knees on necks ever.
	Right.
	Yeah, they shouldn't have taught us that.
	Which is kind of crazy.
	So that makes sense because they had literally people from the police department there.
	That's why.
	Wow.
	That's crazy, right?
	So are you guys seeing how this stuff comes together?
	Are you seeing how and all of it so they can save their own ass?
	They didn't really care about this case enough to do it right, to not do things like this.
	That can get it overturned.
	Wow.
	Crazy.
	That's bad.
	Crazy.
	And yeah, it's also why someone say that's why they're settled.
	Yeah, that's why they settled.
	Well, it's settled.
	Man.
	Okay.
	Let's keep going here.
	All right.
	So that's one.
	National Guard called out after testimony concludes to prevent riots and congressperson calls for protesters to fight if a jury renders a non-guilty verdict.
	We covered this one.
	This is Maxime Waters calling for people to fight if there's no jury verdict to get confrontational.
	Like I said, the judge, Peter Cahill, legit said that that alone is an appealable issue.
	And so that was, that's just a massive mess.
	And to be honest, if there wasn't so much national news on it and he wouldn't have gotten killed if he ruled unfavorably, I mean, any other judge would have probably declared a mission.
	If the judge wasn't terrified, he wasn't scared.
	Terrified.
	That's missed trial type shit right there.
	Yes.
	Alone by itself.
	You have a federal government official.
	Federal government official literally out there in the streets protesting with people saying, we need a guilty verdict or else we're going to continue to basically be out in these streets and cause havoc.
	Yeah.
	Crazy, man.
	It's crazy.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Keep going.
	Okay.
	Yo, I hope you guys are liking this fucking video, bro.
	Because me and Andrew are breaking this thing down on a molecular level.
	Okay, here you go.
	Once again, another prosecutorial screw-up.
	Yeah.
	Misconduct, discovery.
	Okay.
	So under the rules of evidence, which these are mirror, these are state rules, Minnesota rules of evidence, but they mirror the federal rules.
	So they're very similar.
	So this is at basic ease right in here.
	The state must disclose all matters within the prosecuted possession or control that relate to this case.
	Okay.
	So all matters.
	So if you scroll down, it says right there, the court scheduling order requires all disclosures be completed by August 14th, 2020.
	So everything was supposed to be done by then.
	Well, well, if you go here, they failed to complete the defenses.
	There's eight dates after August 14th on which the state made additional disclosures.
	So of the 27,000 pages of documents, scroll up a little bit closer.
	Sorry, you passed it.
	Right there.
	Stop.
	Can you highlight it real fast?
	Yeah, 27,060 pages of documents, right?
	They only got 27,000 before August 14th and 15K, 15,131 pages after.
	So like, what is that?
	A third, right?
	So like a third of the pages were after the deadline.
	And then look at the video.
	The state produced 139 gigs before and 172, the majority of the video evidence, the audio and video files, after late.
	That's huge.
	That's real bad.
	I explained that to you guys before, the importance of discovery and how if it's not adhered to, you throw the fucking case out, bro.
	Like this is, I mean, this, this alone, guys, this can get these prosecutors disbarred.
	Right.
	This is unethical behavior on the parts of the prosecutors.
	So once again, like you said, disbarred.
	They can be sanctioned.
	This is really bad behavior on the parts of the prosecutors.
	And once again, it only takes one at one piece of bad behavior, one bad behavior on the part of the prosecutors is all it takes to get this thrown out.
	Just one thing.
	Remember, guys, as the prosecution, okay, you cannot fuck up.
	All right.
	You can't fuck up.
	The defense literally makes their case off of you making mistakes.
	And this is why the feds have such a high standard for their attorneys, because they got to make these cases airtight.
	Yeah.
	Because they don't want them to fail.
	That's why the feds have a higher conviction rate because they don't get silly shit like that.
	They don't make this.
	Yeah, this is crazy, bro.
	This is amateur out.
	This is amateur out.
	I've seen agents literally get their cases thrown out for not bringing discovery within two weeks.
	Yeah.
	Within two weeks.
	And this is months before the trial.
	This is before the guy even pleads out.
	You got to have the discovery.
	Yeah.
	Let alone in the middle of a fucking trial.
	Are you serious?
	Yeah.
	Crazy.
	Are we going to do these super chats?
	This is the difference between stay and dude, stay in federal court.
	Like state court is a kangaroo, man.
	Kangaroo circus.
	It's like a fucking circus.
	It's crazy.
	Cloud world.
	Marquise 912.
	Worst case I saw in Glenn County, Georgia was a baby who was shot in the stroller during a robbery by two teams.
	They moved the case and did everything right.
	Yeah, I was in Glenn County, guys.
	The Fletse, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, is in Glenn County.
	Did you guys bring up the juror that went on a promo tour?
	He might have lied to be a juror.
	Oof.
	I mean, that's a problem, but if you lied to be a juror, that's a problem.
	However, I will say one thing.
	You are allowed to write a book afterwards about your experience on the trial.
	So that is actually a griff that a lot of jurors do after they're on the jury.
	Like, I mean, if you're an average Joe, that's probably your best opportunity to make a lot of money real quick.
	Become famous.
	Yeah.
	Love your takes on a trial.
	I watched the full trial, and I believe this trial was unfair.
	And I'm, and I, me, believe he is innocent.
	I hope in 2024, people don't fall for the lies again.
	Stop watching fake news.
	Okay, you're going to get some people that hate on you for saying that.
	Shout out to you, uh, Soralita Bass.
	Uh, five bucks, uh, golden.
	Uh, uh, Pasis.
	Uh, I'm blind.
	Can you read it, bro?
	Uh, says, Based on this overwhelming evidence, look like this is going to be overturned.
	You guys think it's 100% case closed or 70% chance?
	Oh, that's gonna do that at the end.
	We're gonna do that at the end.
	Uh, Marquis says, Bad training is why the cops got off from Rodney King because they were taught to strike repeatedly with the ASP Patana tel compliance.
	Yeah, guys, yes, yes, that is why they always pull the training, and that's why it's bad that they redacted the photo.
	They shouldn't have done that.
	Once again, this is a tactical mistake.
	This is a tactical mistake.
	Again, it opens it opens the door for the defense to go ahead and creep in, and that's all they got to do is dilute it a little bit.
	XY XV YNZ.
	Okay, love how you two shared everything, and I mean everything, which all of these points do you believe the defense will likely be.
	So, let me clarify here.
	Uh, they used all of them.
	This, this is an appeal, so they are raising all of these points.
	So, in an appeal, you raise every single potential problem, and once again, for the hundredth time, you only need to get one to stick.
	Yep, so they're raising all of these.
	It's like imagine that it's like poker, they're putting all these chips on the table, yep, right?
	All these chips, and you only need one to ride.
	In fact, it's like each claim is like a separate hand, yep, and you only need one hand to win, right?
	One hand to win, and the state's only got one hand, you know, Daryl Xavier.
	Uh, Jash should uh look at video of the death of Tony Tempa, identical Floyd, white guy, 14 minutes on neck, died, family received uh, zero uh, cops kept job.
	Yeah, that shit happens, guys.
	It happens, I mean, it does happen, really mang ENT.
	Alex Jones predicted he walked really.
	Oh, man, okay, Alex Jones, he ain't wrong.
	A lot of he's been right about a lot of things.
	I mean, he may walk, he may walk because of these fuck-ups.
	I mean, that's something we're going to talk about here, but I mean, if you, if, if it's anything, it's because the prosecution screwed up on prosecution, yeah, yeah, because some of these uh defense, some of these arguments the defense is raising are trash.
	I ain't gonna lie to y'all, we me and I'm gonna trust them, some of them are trash, some of them are really uh, uh, while Floyd wasn't a threat once on the ground, the crowd was getting hostile and made the cops' job take longer, which resulted in the nine minutes.
	Yeah, well, I mean, the thing about an appeal is those are good facts, like those are facts, but the point is that at an appeal, we're not talking about the facts, this is just the law.
	So, if anything, like at this stage, guys, there's no feelings involved.
	Yeah, this is a judge that is supposed to make an emotionless decision on the law.
	This is like the facts of the facts, whatever was presented at the trial is admitted.
	You assume the facts of the trial are true.
	Yeah, yeah, you guys notice they're not talking about the facts anymore, they're talking about everything that occurred during trial that fucked it up.
	Yes, they're not talking about the facts anymore, guys, right?
	They're not disputing the facts.
	Uh, the trolls, uh, nope, got that one, and then XXNSC own case, uh, Michael Lewis.
	Uh, that will be in the future.
	Um, let's go back uh to it.
	Um, it's a state case, as you guys know, I hate state cases just like some of them are good, some of them are good.
	This is good to break down because there's so much, guys.
	You're learning so much about law enforcement, about prosecution, about court cases.
	You guys get both sides, and guys, one thing which I do on my channel, and I love that Myron does this too, and this is great, is he goes to the original source document, man.
	He pulls the original.
	This is not the news, this is not CNN, it's not MSNBC, this is not like whatever other news you're getting your information from.
	This is the direct document.
	We're reading the original, you guys.
	If you really want to understand, read it for yourself.
	Make your own opinion.
	That's why I started my channel to help people make their own opinions.
	Yep.
	All right, let's go down here.
	So, a lot.
	So, there's a lot of stuff, a lot of information the way they did discovery was bad.
	So, we'll just go to the next section here.
	Okay.
	Because we kind of cover that.
	Okay.
	Preparation of witnesses.
	So, they barred clothing with logos and slogans.
	However, scroll down here to the picture.
	Show it, Chris.
	Up.
	What's under that shirt?
	What's under that dress shirt?
	Fuck.
	That's a block.
	It's Black Lives Matter.
	Yep.
	Black Lives Matter.
	He's wearing Black Lives Matter.
	Under his dress shirt.
	Oh, my God.
	Damn.
	That's just dumb.
	Like, once again, this shows like this guy cannot get out of his feelings and say, look, I wanted this guy to be convicted.
	And if you, if you really want him to be convicted, you won't break the rules because breaking the rules is how this guy walks free.
	If you really want to convict him, play by the rules and get the conviction clean.
	Get it clean.
	Emotional damage, bro.
	They're like, in fucking credible.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	They fucked it.
	They fucked up.
	That's incredible, bro.
	All right.
	Let's keep going here.
	Chris.
	People don't understand.
	When you do emotional shit like this, it fucks it up, bro.
	Here we go.
	Belittling the defense.
	This is weak.
	This is a weak argument.
	I'm not even going to give this too much time.
	I'm just dismissing that.
	This is a weak argument.
	You're allowed to belittle the event, the defense.
	The closing, you have a really wide range.
	So this is fine.
	That's really up to the judges.
	This is a judge's discretion.
	This is a weak one.
	Some judges let them fucking go on a fucking rant.
	Some of them say, shut the hell up.
	And you can tell it's weak because it's only like three sentences.
	Like the other ones are much longer.
	This is like, he belittled us.
	It's like, okay, well, you can kind of do that.
	It's kind of in their feelings too.
	Emotionalo talent.
	That's getting in their feelings.
	Yeah, they felt that one.
	Okay.
	Okay, here you go.
	After the trial, a seated juror in alternate admitted to providing false testimony in void, once again, void is jury selection.
	And jury questionnaires on issues directly prejudicial to Chauvin.
	Bias and concerns for safety if jury found Chauvin not guilty.
	Wow.
	Guys, this is big.
	This is big.
	Saying they lied in court.
	Scroll down here to what they actually said here.
	So they said no to this, right?
	So this is the questions.
	Let's read them here.
	Myron, do you want me to read your question?
	Okay, I put my glass on.
	I couldn't.
	I'll read the first one.
	I'll read it.
	Did you or someone close to you participate in any of the demonstrations or marches against police brutality that took place in Minneapolis after George Floyd's death?
	They answered no to all of these.
	So they said no, they're not in any demonstrations or marches.
	The survey says that is a lie.
	That was a big fucking lie right there, my friend.
	Oh man.
	My detector test determined.
	That was a lie.
	I got you.
	You got me, bro.
	He's got shot to Myron's soundboard.
	He's got everything.
	It's a second.
	Have you or someone close to you ever helped support or advocate it in favor or of or against police reform?
	Okay.
	He said, yeah, he said, no.
	My detective test determined.
	That was a lie.
	The defense in this case were officers from the Minneapolis Police Department.
	Is there anything about their employment with the NPD that would prevent you from rendering a fair and impartial verdict in this case?
	He said, no.
	My detector test determined.
	That was a lie.
	Other than what you have already described above, have you or anyone close to you participate in protests about police use of force or police brutality?
	My detector test determined.
	That was a lie.
	Is there anything else the judges, the judge and attorney should know about you in relation to serving and this jury said no by detector test determined that was a lie guys there you go not understand so when you go in for voider right and they ask you questions they ask you questions to make sure that you're going to be impartial in the trial he said no to all these questions which clearly is going to make him biased right okay and he lied to the court you can't lie to the court guys like do not lie to the court that's perjury right you that is perjury that's a crime that is a crime that
	crime you can be tried for statements now they typically do not try jurors because it's a bad look it is about but it is technically a crime and if they really wanted to they can do it so um so this guy lied to get on the jury on the jury when he was clearly biased let's read well let's read this little statement here so immediately after the trial he contacted the media here's what he said mitchell stated that he has been pulled over by the p the police probably 50 times for no good reason one time having a cop pull a gun on him while
	he was changing a tire on the freeway and answering what message he would give to those who asked to participate in the jury mitchell said we would have a chance to make history i knew from the gate what it was and could be he saw jury duty as one of the avenues to correct some wrongs and try to spark change he's stupid he said that the verdict could have been rendered in 20 minutes but for one juror so confirming confirming bro so
	bad we got we lost a myron we lost a myron it's so bad it's so bad we literally lost a myron here that's how bad it says yeah this is this is insane buyers this is insane bias you can't have somebody like that uh on the jury period period uh all right let's scroll down here chris go to the next section okay here we go so once again you got the protest that this guy was at in dc he
	he was at the protest in DC and he was wearing a t-shirt.
	Scroll down a little bit.
	So you see that last part, which says, get your knees, get your knee off our next BLM and a BLM cap.
	So he was wearing those, that paraphernalia, the t-shirts and the cap at a protest in D.C. So he's been proven that he was at a protest and he lied and commit perjury.
	Stupid.
	Guys, again, social media.
	I want to make this extremely fucking clear.
	Me and Andrew already, Chauvin is guilty.
	Okay.
	We've pretty much already said that a million times.
	But what just like this is probably one of the most egregious breaches of the United States Constitution I've ever seen get by.
	Guys, my man admitted, okay, to circumventing the Voider process to get in on the jury so that he can convict a guy from a biased standpoint.
	He didn't give a fuck.
	I'm convicting him.
	Guys, you see how this infringes upon Chauvin's Six Amendment rights.
	Let me make this very clear.
	It's not a privilege.
	It's a fucking right.
	When you're tried in the United States for a criminal case, you have a Sixth Amendment right to an impartial, unbiased jury.
	Okay.
	Do you guys not see what I mean by this?
	When you have issues like this, where people come in and try to take the law into their own hands, it actually sets the guilty free.
	Okay.
	This is a big fucking monumental fuck up.
	I can't even describe a bunk.
	All the other problematic issues that we've come across on this case.
	This is terrible.
	Literally terrible.
	And he goes, and the fact that he had the gall to get on a radio station and admit this shit.
	It's insane.
	Do you guys see now where we're coming from on this?
	Again, like I said, guys, even the worst criminals get the right to an impartial and fair trial to be judged by their opinion.
	And here's the thing.
	If you want to actually convict him, if you believe that this guy's guilty, you want to give him a fair trial.
	Yeah.
	Because you don't need to cheat to win.
	You have enough evidence here.
	You have enough sentiment.
	Why do you need to try to cheat?
	It's like, for example, imagine it's like, you know, a Harlem Globetrotters game, right?
	Yeah, yeah.
	You know, where you know they're going to win, right?
	It's like, why do you got to go out there and like kneecap the other guys on the other team?
	Right.
	Like, you know, you're going to win.
	It's a layup.
	And you have to, and then like on top of it, you got to beat the other team with a baseball bat.
	Yeah.
	Like, it's unnecessary.
	And then the slow triders lose because they, because they had to forfeit.
	Right.
	Because you beat the shit out of the other team who was going to lose anyway.
	Right.
	Right.
	Like, they were already going to lose.
	Like, you didn't need to do it.
	You didn't need to do it.
	It was unnecessary.
	And I think I saw, you know, one of the super chats was talking about why they did it.
	And once again, it's because of the coverage.
	It's the one who said, yeah, right there from Anna, which says, if you guys see this fumble, why couldn't the prosecution predict this?
	Or else the actual trial was just to calm the fanfare.
	I think there's a part of it, an element of it, was to calm things down.
	They went extreme to calm things down.
	Because here's the thing, the city and the PD and the state, they were worried about the systemic, right?
	Because it's being called systemic.
	And they think that if they bend the knee and they're going to be fine.
	But here's the thing.
	People just wanted to see justice, but bending the knee to the narrative was where they went way too far.
	And justice would have been done by just getting out the facts.
	Inevitably, get out the facts.
	They didn't have to do all this, all this shit.
	You know what I mean?
	Like, literally, bro, it was because emotional damage.
	Bro, too much emotions, man.
	Perfect meme, bro.
	Perfect meme.
	Do you think the prosecutors?
	Do you think the prosecutors did all this on purpose so he could win on appeal and not cause more riots?
	They can't be that stupid.
	All these mistakes.
	That's what we're getting into.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	A little bit of conspiracy, a little bit of truth there.
	The emotional damage meme is the perfect caption from Aaron Jr.'s latest post on IG.
	Okay.
	And that's from Big Al.
	Thank you so much.
	Okay, guys.
	I hope you guys are liking the goddamn video because this content is fucking fire.
	You will not see anybody else covering this like this.
	No, no, not like nobody.
	They're going to be too scared.
	I mean, exactly.
	They're scared of this.
	They're going to be scriptural signaling and all this other shit.
	It's a terrible person.
	I know this other shit.
	It's like, bro, we're not here to talk about if he's a good guy or bad.
	It doesn't matter.
	It's irrelevant.
	This is a law, guys.
	We're just telling you the law.
	We're teaching you the law.
	Like, and hopefully you guys know now.
	So when you guys read a case, you can say, oh, was this good or bad?
	Remember, the law applies to people you like and people you don't like.
	Yep.
	That's the point.
	These laws apply to good people and to bad people.
	They are impartial To whether or not you're a good or bad person, you want these protections if the guy is innocent.
	Yep, yep.
	And like I told y'all before, they would rather let a guilty man walk than let an innocent man spend a day in jail, guys.
	Yeah, so let's keep going with the brief here.
	That's why they wrote the laws like that, and that's why they take this stuff so seriously.
	Okay, yeah, this guy, Jesus, yo, he should be charged for perjury, bro.
	Yeah, he should be that's that's egregious.
	He should 100% be prostituted.
	Yeah, here's so right there.
	So he, that's him on the right.
	That's the guy whose face is not blurred.
	He's the one with the Black Lives Matter cap and the get your knee off our next BLM shirt.
	Stupid man, bro.
	Why, why couldn't you just watch the trial from the side?
	Why would you have to get on the jury?
	You it up for everybody.
	He did it for everybody.
	He doesn't realize he almost it up for everybody.
	This, this, by the way, once again, guys, this alone, this alone, this guy's dumbass social media behavior could screw up this trial.
	Real talk.
	Him thinking he's going to do something, him wanting to make that change can literally screw up this trial.
	I think I got my imagine if Chauvin walks because of this dumbass.
	Imagine that.
	And he was one of the 12, right?
	Yeah.
	No, he was on.
	He was actually, this guy was on the jury.
	He wasn't the alternate.
	This guy was on the jury.
	He was a man.
	Just the only thing that could make this worse is he could be the foreman.
	Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.
	Yo, this is crazy, bro.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	Let's keep going.
	All right.
	Let's continue on.
	Yes.
	Damn.
	Okay.
	NFT said this is biased as fuck.
	But NFT, please tell us how this is biased as fuck.
	Yeah, I don't know what you're talking about.
	From what perspective is this biased?
	Okay.
	Oh, I think that's pretty much it.
	Well, if we scroll up for a second, though, okay.
	There's a little bit.
	Okay.
	Well, that's good here.
	I believe we got almost all of them, except for if you want to scroll down much more, there's going to be a part.
	We're going to keep going.
	Keep going.
	There's a part about the sentencing that I want to catch before we get out of here.
	So just explain to you guys about the sentencing.
	Not there.
	Once again, we already went through.
	We already covered a lot of this on the jurors, on due process.
	Oh, okay.
	I think NFT meant the trial was biased as fuck.
	Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	They didn't need to do it in a biased way.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	They had this clean, bro.
	This was it.
	This is a clean manslaughter case, bro.
	If they had given it, given it manslaughter, Chauvelin would have pled guilty.
	Keep going.
	100%.
	He would have pled guilty.
	Oh, yeah.
	Yeah.
	He could have pled to manslaughter.
	And here's the thing: they could have sentenced him in an aggravating sentencing and given him a lot of years.
	Yeah.
	We would have got probably some of what he got already.
	A lot of years for that.
	Honestly, some he could have said, oh, did we talk about aggravated?
	We're going to talk about it right now.
	I'm going to the aggravated.
	I want him to get to the argument on the aggravated.
	It's the very last point.
	Misconducts.
	No, keep going.
	It's the very last point.
	Oh, no, you went too far.
	guys like the video uh here you go This is it.
	Once you get to the header.
	Okay.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	Oh, actually, go up a little bit more.
	Go up a little bit more.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	Actually, you can go down.
	You can go down.
	Go down.
	Go down.
	Go back down to the last one.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	There you go.
	Right here.
	Okay.
	So, M, Chauvin's sentence should be reduced to the presumptive range.
	So there's sentencing guidelines in every single state.
	Yep.
	Those are guidelines in which under certain circumstances, how should you be sentenced?
	If it's your first crime, how are you sentenced?
	Right?
	If you have no prior criminal history, how are you sentenced?
	If it's your ninth time committing the same crime, should you be Marmon, Myron, do you think you're someone who's committed the same crime 10 times?
	Should be sentenced the same way as a guy who's committed it for the first time.
	Of course not.
	Exactly.
	There's the reason why DUI in the third time is a felony.
	Exactly.
	Yeah.
	If you knowingly do something over and over again, it should be more severe.
	Stupid.
	So this was his first offense, period.
	He didn't have a criminal record.
	Yeah.
	So the range was supposed to be between zero and 150 months.
	Instead, they considered this aggravated and gave him 270.
	And there's a two-stage process.
	So the first is there must be a factual finding.
	There's one or more aggravating factors present.
	And two, the court must explain why those factors create a substantial and compelling reason to impose a sentence outside the range.
	So here's the two factors.
	The court said, number one, scroll down, Chris, just a little bit.
	Okay, number one, Chauvin abused a position of trust and authority.
	Number two, Chauvin treated Floyd with particular cruelty.
	So let's hold on to those.
	When we discuss this remote, remember, yep.
	Trust and authority.
	Number two, particular cruelty.
	Okay.
	So, number one, sentencing guidelines do not recognize abuse of a position of authority as an aggravating factor.
	Let's be very clear: there's no case law on that.
	It is not in the statutes.
	Being in a position of authority is not a thing until now.
	Yep.
	So, guys, they just made it out of thin air in English.
	They made that out of thin air using that as an aggravating circumstance that he was in a position of trust.
	Yeah.
	And so, scroll down a little bit.
	So, the argument here.
	So, I just want to make sure I get the argument.
	So, essentially, they made that a factor.
	And guess what?
	It should not have been a factor at all.
	The cruelty now.
	Yes.
	The cruelty.
	The cruelty.
	They had a great point.
	This was particularly cruel.
	I mean, if you if once again, sentencing happens after you've convicted him.
	So if he's guilty, nine minutes is cruel as hell.
	It's super cruel.
	Yep.
	So why not just use that?
	You didn't need to use the one.
	And because the judge screwed up there, once again, one mistake is all it takes.
	Because he screwed up, they might reduce his sentence.
	So the appeal, the appellate court could come back and say, Yeah, we don't agree.
	We're going to reduce his sentence.
	But guess what?
	If he just said 270 months with one factor, maybe they wouldn't reduce the sentence.
	Yep.
	Yep.
	Once again, the prosecution opened the door for the defense to come in and challenge them, just like they with redacting the training photo, just like this, where they put an unnecessary aggravating circumstance.
	Unnecessary.
	So that's it, guys.
	That was it.
	This was filed by William F. Moorman.
	This is an attorney number.
	You can look him up.
	And he's recap real fast.
	Okay.
	There's a lot of issues here.
	So okay.
	So guys, quick little summary.
	As you guys know, Myron Gaines, my boy Andrew Esquire from my legal mindset.
	We broke down.
	Let me make this very clear.
	We both know and think that Chauvin was guilty of manslaughter.
	Okay.
	Now, the problem is that the state charged them with felony murder, which to be honest with y'all, they put off a bit more than they can chew because there's a lot of issues with that charge.
	Okay.
	So I guess we'll start.
	Let's start in order.
	So number one.
	Number one, they failed based on the setup of the court by the defense argued.
	The defense argued that failure to sequester the jury, failure to move the venue, and failure to wait when there's riots going on actively was an issue.
	Yep.
	Sequestering, bad argument.
	But waiting and moving it, good arguments.
	Yep.
	Both of those are good arguments.
	Oh, let's show him the fentanyl.
	We forgot about the fentanyl.
	Yeah.
	Let's show them the fentanyl.
	Chris, want to show the picture of the fentanyl?
	It's the image on the far right.
	So, okay, that was the first point, but this is another point we'll get into.
	This is another point.
	Failure to recap one more time for y'all.
	Don't worry.
	No, no, no, that's the first part of it.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So one more argument, guys, or one more thing that the defense had as well.
	Okay, yes.
	Yep, that's it.
	Pull that.
	So, so this was admitted, right?
	So this was admitted in evidence.
	This one was admitted in evidence where it says, okay, this is George Floyd's cause of death, his death certificate.
	Cardiopulmonary arrest arrest complicated, complicating law enforcement subduel, restraint, and neck compression.
	So once again, it said he was into cardiopulmonary arrest.
	That's what happened while he was being subdued.
	And then what says contributing factors, arteriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease.
	So he had heart disease.
	He had fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use.
	So he was currently presently intoxicated with fentanyl and he had recently used meth.
	And down there under manner, this is very important.
	They brought this up at trial, but I want to refresh you guys' memory.
	So anytime it's a death that involves two people, the medical diagnosis is homicide, but that is not a legal conclusion.
	That's a medical diagnosis.
	So whenever two people are involved, that's a homicide.
	Yep.
	So let's say Myron shot me in self-defense.
	You know, I had a gun.
	I'm trying to shoot Myron.
	He shot me in self-defense.
	It's ruled as a homicide because you shot me.
	Another human caused the death.
	Okay.
	But that's not a legal conclusion that he murdered me.
	Bam.
	Okay.
	So you guys got to separate that out.
	The medical examiner doesn't make a murder conclusion.
	Okay.
	He's just telling you the facts.
	Yeah.
	He's just telling you that another person led to that.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	Let's get this up.
	That's a big distinction.
	Giant superhero.
	Okay.
	Henry, Chris is here at 200 bucks.
	Thank you so much.
	Shout out to Myron and Andrew for breaking this down because there was a lot of stuff that I don't know about this trial.
	Also, thank you for all the things that you put people on from money, lifestyle, the value of yourself, laws, et cetera, because you truly changed my life.
	Like the video.
	Thank you so much for watching.
	All the high Q people out there that understand that this is just an objective legal breakdown.
	We're shitting on the prosecution and the defense.
	We're taking both.
	We're basically objectively looking at it and giving you guys the plus and negatives of both sides.
	And hopefully this equips you guys so you at home can look at these documents for yourself.
	And like I say on my channel, legal mindset, be your own judge.
	Make your own decision.
	When it's a case you really want to look at, look at it and say, hey, I remember Myron talking about the fact that if there's a riot going on, maybe they shouldn't move it.
	Maybe this is an unfair trial for that.
	Because guess what?
	Somebody you like will be on trial and you're going to look at these appeals.
	You're going to look at these trial factors and you can make up your own mind and say whether this is a fair trial or not because we are teaching you the law.
	We're teaching the facts.
	Shout out to Annie Chris, by the way.
	I guess you're not drunk for this one.
	Or is he?
	Yeah, or is he none of these points will overturn his trial.
	I have read a case where a juror said racist remarks about blacks during the trial and he believed blacks were criminal.
	Prosecutors knew not overturned.
	Did they appeal it, though?
	That's the question, my friend.
	Did they appeal it?
	Yeah, did they appeal it?
	And also, what year was this?
	Was this fucking 1892?
	Like, what are we talking about right now?
	Like, you know, so relates a bass, 10 bucks.
	Even if I believe he is innocent, I know I'm not a judge, police officer, or lawyer.
	So when someone explained the law, listen, a verdict was a manslaughter.
	It will never be disputed today.
	Opinion.
	If it was manslaughter, he would have agreed to it.
	He would have taken it.
	He would have taken it.
	He would have pledged to that.
	He would have pledged to it because he knew he would be guilty of it.
	There's no way he would not plead to that.
	When being questioned several times, Floyd repeatedly denied being under the influence.
	Yeah, well, his literally, his passenger testified that he was.
	And that's what wasn't admitted in the trial.
	The Chauvin trial was the Montreal screwdrop.
	We wanted a clean wrestling match, no interference.
	Shout out to Wrestle.
	The least wrongful death, the most manslaughter.
	Okay, and that's from Juan Antonio.
	And that's from Big Al before.
	Thank you.
	And then the last one here, SCO 971, Fed of 1811, you have to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
	Wouldn't the fentanyl on the system be in all?
	So that's a fact that the trial, that's a good point.
	You brought up the fentanyl.
	And that's what the defense tried to raise at trial.
	So at trial, the defense tried to raise the fentanyl as the cause of death.
	Now, the jury, because they found him guilty, did not believe that.
	So the fentanyl would be what we call in law a superseding cause.
	So something that caused the death other than the knee, right?
	So saying the fentanyl was really the cause here, not Derek Chauvin.
	It was the fentanyl that killed him.
	Now, they tried to raise that.
	Clearly, the jury didn't believe that.
	Yeah, they didn't believe that, but they tried to raise that at trial.
	But at this point, we're not even getting to whether the fentanyl itself at trial was persuasive.
	It's the fact that they excluded evidence.
	This is a problem, guys.
	At a trial, you have to let all the evidence in.
	It's a procedure thing.
	They screwed up on the rules.
	They should have just let it in.
	Let the testimony come in about the friend saying, the passenger saying that he's on fentanyl.
	The police report that said, yeah, no, the guy said he's on fentanyl and he's intoxicated.
	Again, the defense doing stupid shit to try to, you know, dumb stuff.
	They're trying to do and maneuver some things that they didn't have to.
	They could have easily beat it.
	They wanted to make, and also part of it was they wanted to make George Floyd look more clean than he was.
	They wanted to make him St. Floyd.
	Yeah.
	They didn't want his character to be.
	George Floyd was no saints.
	George Floyd was no saint, but that does not mean that what happened was right.
	And that does not mean that George Floyd, that Derek Chauvin doesn't deserve to be punished.
	People can be mixed bags.
	People are mixed bags.
	Everyone's got good and bad things within them, right?
	But nobody deserves to be treated like that by police.
	Nobody deserves to be treated like that by police, anyone, regardless of how they are, what their moral character is, whether you're a good guy or a bad guy, right?
	So, yeah.
	And the fact that they tried to do that is because of the politics because they wanted to make him into St. Floyd.
	They didn't need to do that to win the case.
	Because they knew the defense was going to attack, you know, oh, he had robbed a pregnant woman before.
	He had been arrested this many times.
	He's a drug user.
	He's an addict.
	He's a multiple time convicted felon.
	They knew they were going to do that.
	So the prosecution pretty much was like, okay, we're going to go ahead and take away anything or get rid of anything that's going to make our victim be in a less favorable light, so to speak.
	Okay.
	All right.
	So, so, okay.
	So, we're going to go ahead and recap everything, right?
	So, if we pull up the appeal one more time, yeah, Andrew, I mean, Chris, please.
	So, okay, guys.
	So, like I said before, we're going to go through all the defense's points as to why they think that this conviction should be overturned.
	So, we're going to show this appeal to y'all one more time.
	We're going to run through the facts.
	We're going to give you guys a quick little recap.
	And then the poll is over.
	And then what?
	The poll is active right now.
	And then the poll is active right now.
	Perfect.
	Good call, Chris.
	Scroll all the way to the top, and we'll go to that little kind of list of the issues, and we'll just hit them quick one by one.
	Yep, summarize it for proof.
	And then you guys will be able to come up with what you guys think as far as do you think he's going to walk.
	Again, guys, this is not, is he guilty?
	We've already established.
	We're not talking about the facts here.
	I see you guys in the chat talking about facts.
	Yeah.
	This isn't about the facts, guys.
	Like, get away from the facts.
	This is about the law here.
	And when I'm talking, we're talking about the fentanyl.
	That's a fact at the case.
	That's not for appeal.
	The appellate issue is whether or not they should have let the evidence in.
	Yeah.
	It's not whether or not that caused his death.
	Yeah.
	That doesn't matter.
	That's irrelevant.
	Yeah.
	So it's where a gun?
	Okay.
	The top, the very top.
	One where we had like the really short points right there.
	Issues presented for review.
	Okay.
	So number one.
	Number one, guys.
	Venue should have been changed, jury fully sequestered or delayed due to the publicity.
	Okay.
	Venue changed.
	Yeah, that's a strong point.
	Very strong.
	Trial delayed, strong point.
	Sequestered, weak point.
	Weak point.
	Yep.
	Next.
	Okay.
	Second.
	Police officer can be charged with felony, murder, with assault as a predicate defense.
	This is a super strong point.
	This is an insane piece of law that has no precedent.
	And if you look at the A opposite, means opposing.
	So the law that goes against how they ruled.
	So that's state versus Doran, 887, Northwest to 2nd District 829.
	You guys can look that up.
	Yep.
	By the way, this is linked in the description.
	You can look up that case and read it.
	It's clear.
	You cannot do this.
	You cannot go assault to felony.
	Like what the fuck?
	Or assault to felony murder.
	Sorry.
	Now, the third point: whether allowing seven witnesses to testify on reasonable use of force is cumulative evidence justifying reversal.
	I would say this is a medium point.
	This is pretty good.
	I mean, they shouldn't have brought in that many witnesses.
	I don't think they'll overturn it on that alone, but this doesn't look good.
	They brought in way too many witnesses.
	And now, we, from me, me and you breaking it down, we know why they did that.
	Yeah.
	Because they redacted the picture of the knee on the neck because seven of those witnesses were Minneapolis police officers.
	Yes.
	So that makes sense why they would because they would have had to question them.
	Well, it's in your fucking training putting knees on necks.
	So explain that.
	So that would have put the city in a bad position.
	So now we know why they're redacting it.
	So yeah, I would say this is medium point.
	There could have been more riots over the training material.
	We should measure it.
	So the first one, the first one with the venue and everything else like that, I would say pretty serious because Minneapolis, like where they had the venue was serious, waiting was serious when there were riots going on.
	Dante Wright's situation, that's good.
	Sequestering was bad.
	Yep.
	And then the second one, as far as the law, serious, very serious.
	Very serious.
	This one is medium.
	This is medium.
	Yeah.
	Next four.
	Next four.
	Okay.
	Keep going.
	All right.
	Prosecutor and misconduct justifies reversal.
	This is really bad.
	The failure to disclose is pretty bad.
	Yeah.
	I'm going to say it's medium to bad.
	This is pretty bad.
	I mean, not giving information in a timely manner to the defense is really bad.
	It's taken very seriously.
	And because of that, this is another one that could be grounds for because I've been there, man, when discovery isn't.
	I think this is one of the worst ones, man.
	Yeah.
	You need to give everything you have over to the other side.
	That's the whole point.
	Each side exchanges information.
	You, as a lawyer, I have a duty of candor to the court and candor to the opposing counsel.
	That means I have to be honest with them.
	So I have to be honest with the court and honest to my opposing counsel.
	Yep.
	And because they didn't debar, yeah, not only could this get overturned, but those attorneys for the state could all lose their law licenses.
	Get this guy.
	They could be disbarred.
	They could be fined.
	Ethical issues, man.
	Huge ethical issues here.
	Huge.
	This is huge.
	Whether not allowing Chubbin to present a complete defense justifies reversal.
	So this is the part about allowing him to enter in the evidence of the fentanyl.
	This is a big deal.
	They should have allowed it in.
	Oh, also the training material.
	So this is both the training materials and the fentanyl.
	So that's so he as a complete defense means entering all the evidence.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	Not allowing that in is big.
	Yeah.
	On his part.
	Yeah.
	It's big.
	And hiding the redacting it was not a good move.
	Yeah.
	They should not have done that.
	Shouldn't have redacted it.
	But now we know why they fucking did that shit.
	Once again.
	So it wouldn't make their seven witnesses look bad.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	Guys, there's always a reason for this.
	There's always a reason for this.
	You got to think beyond.
	Guys, like the fucking video.
	You would not have been able to come to that conclusion had you not been had me here with my law enforcement experience and a fucking lawyer in here breaking this down for y'all.
	If it was two regular people, oh, we're just doing this shit.
	You would not have been that.
	We just figured out why.
	Why they didn't fucking redacted that shit.
	There's seven witnesses on use of force literally would have looked stupid if they would have had a picture there with the fucking guy knee on the neck, Minneapolis Police Department training video.
	Yep.
	Would have looked real bad.
	Would have looked really fucking bad.
	Real bad.
	All right.
	Let's continue on.
	All right.
	Whether failure to record sidebars resulted in a violation of a fair.
	No, this is bad.
	Well, this is a weak argument.
	A weak argument.
	It's a sidebar.
	It's actually technically not even part of the record.
	What's important from a sidebar is the ultimate result of how the judge rules.
	And that is recorded.
	So this is a weak ass argument on the part of the defense.
	So yeah, not a good argument on the part of the defense.
	Yeah.
	And last one, whether an upward departure in sentence was justified.
	So this is one where he gave a part answer.
	Partly it was, partly it wasn't.
	It was justified because it was cruel.
	That was justified.
	But they screwed up by adding in the because he was in position of authority.
	That's unprecedented.
	It doesn't exist in the guidelines.
	It's nowhere.
	So why did you have to add that?
	That's a screw up.
	Now, the thing about this one is because it's sentencing.
	If they did rule in Chauvin's favor on this one, he doesn't get off.
	He just gets a reduced sentence, possibly.
	Yeah.
	So this one is medium.
	This is, yeah.
	Because they had it right half, 50% right.
	Right.
	This is at this point, he's guilty.
	So that's sentencing, which is a separate part.
	Wait, was there more to that?
	That was it.
	No, that was it.
	That's the last point.
	So I want to see what the people think.
	So what is a poll?
	What is the poll?
	I want to see, do you guys think he's going to walk?
	Oh, and then the juror.
	The juror.
	So that was part of the impartial trial.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	But that, bro, that was.
	The juror was big too.
	The juror was huge.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	I want to see what the audience says and then we'll give our predictions.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And that's super chat here, meaning that if he walks, it has nothing to do with being innocent or guilty.
	All it does with errors in the case.
	Justin said, yes.
	So because this is an appeal, because it's in an appeal, this is just about errors.
	This isn't about the facts.
	Yes, guys.
	So guys, you guys are all in your feelings on this, but this is about the facts and the law.
	The case is, guys, the facts of the case is done.
	Okay.
	As far as we're concerned, Chauvin killed Floyd.
	We know that.
	Now it's about, did he get a fair trial to prove that?
	Okay.
	So we got, wow, 61% said yes.
	38% said no. 368 votes.
	So what do you think, Myron?
	Want to give your take and I'll give my take?
	Yeah, you, you, you, of course, you're going to go last.
	So I'm definitely going to go last.
	Okay.
	But I got a take.
	I got to take.
	Yeah.
	I think there's a damn good chance he's going to walk.
	And I will say that the most egregious things from my opinion are discovery, not getting pushed over.
	Because I've seen literally cases lose just because of that.
	And people literally, I've seen heads roll.
	I've seen district judges literally almost make attorneys cry, bro.
	Make a USAS and see it and make attorneys cry.
	The federal system takes, I think it's rule 42 in the federal system.
	Discovery, extremely serious.
	So I think that's a big problem.
	And then the juror, if they don't, if they don't indict him, I don't know what the fuck is going on.
	He needs to go to jail.
	He needs to go to jail for undermining, for undermining the judicial process.
	Yes.
	And then what else?
	What else was bad?
	I think the training thing was bad, that they didn't disclose it.
	That was just like, why the fuck did you guys do it?
	Why are you hiding that?
	You just opened up a door for no reason.
	That could have easily been defeated.
	But it makes sense now because a bunch of their witnesses were from Minneapolis Police Department.
	Stupid.
	What they should have done was pull another police department that does use of force, the state police.
	This is what they should have done.
	And they did have one of those officers.
	I believe one of those officers from like LA, like one of them was from LA.
	Could have used anyone.
	But they could have just used him.
	Yeah.
	So that solves two of their objections.
	So remember, there were two issues.
	One was the cumulative evidence, having a bunch of witnesses for one issue, right?
	That was one objection.
	And the hiding the training video.
	So guess what?
	Have one officer do use of force from outside of the department and then have one do it from inside the department, but he has no, he's no relation to the training.
	He like didn't do it.
	He didn't put it together.
	Like he wasn't involved in it at all.
	Exactly.
	He wasn't involved in coordination because I guarantee you some of those officers were.
	Yeah, they could.
	I guarantee you they were.
	They should have used the Minnesota State Police because their training is going to be very similar to the Minneapolis State Police.
	They should have used them and then use that and then not use the own officer so they wouldn't look as bad using their own fucking training tapes.
	But that's a whole other thing.
	So I think, okay, the discovery, the juror that fucking is out here wearing Black Lives Matter and no knees on next or whatever, terrible, terrible.
	He should never have been selected.
	That's so bad on his social media.
	Because now, literally, he lied.
	He lied.
	And he went on a radio station after to add insult to injury.
	And then what else?
	There was one other thing that was really bad that I was going to say.
	The fentanyl, that's not, that's not, there was one of the evidence about the fentanyl?
	No, there was one other thing that like.
	Maximum Waters, huh?
	The statement to fight in the streets get confrontational.
	That was bad.
	That was real bad.
	That was real bad.
	Dude, they can end it just on that.
	On that alone.
	And the fact that the judge said at trial, this is in the record.
	Like, I remember hearing this live and I was with lawyers and we were like, what?
	Because it was like a judge never says this alone can overturn it on appeal.
	Any other circumstance would have, it would have been a mistrial right there, but he was scared.
	He was scared.
	Peter.
	Yeah, he was terrified.
	He was terrified.
	Oh, now I know what it was.
	The ridiculous coverage by the media and the fact that they did not move the venue.
	I can't believe they actually held a trial in Minneapolis.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I can't fucking believe that.
	Stupid as fuck, which they learned their lesson with the Rainhouse case.
	They moved it.
	It was not, it was not, it was not where it occurred, which was smart.
	Yeah, so all right, man, you give it away, but yeah.
	Uh, let's read the super chat.
	The case impacts international soccer and sports in the world.
	He will not win the appeal, even if only because of backlash.
	Yeah, that would be huge.
	And I think Jeffro said the case was in 1999, appealed to not work.
	Innocent Project got governor clemency in 2021.
	Appeals failed.
	Yeah, once again, 99.
	Uh, that was before a lot of this, a lot of the movements in order to review these cases and uh you know overturn some of these uh these old bad cases.
	1999 is years ago, yeah, bro.
	Um, things have changed.
	Google's fucking legal message back in the states.
	Yeah, bro.
	Uh, I leave tomorrow, but uh, yeah, I'll be back in three weeks.
	Yeah, he's gonna be back, and we're gonna do more.
	I see you guys in the chat, you guys love this.
	So, I mean, I know some of you guys are like, yo, um, you know, this is a sensitive case, I get it, but hey, man, you ain't gonna get an unbiased uh situation like this.
	So, uh, give us your okay.
	The appeal at this level fails.
	I think these appellate court.
	So, here's my take: there's three levels of the court: there's the trial court, there's the appellate court, which is in the middle, and then there's the Supreme Court.
	Yes, and I think the appellate court is going to be scared, they're going to be scared of what's going to happen if they overturn this.
	So, maybe at most, I think, because they're going to be scared and it's so serious.
	They may modify the sentencing, like they may have the balls to just modify the sentencing, but not overturn the verdict.
	But I think that goes to the Supreme Court, and I think at the Supreme Court, they find one of the errors.
	I think there's no all the way out.
	Because remember, no, just the state Supreme Court, right?
	Okay, let's take a look.
	Okay, but it still could go to the Supreme Court.
	It could, okay, but I think it can go to the state Supreme Court and they'll do it.
	So, at least they show they took it seriously.
	Yeah, because this is the George Floyd case.
	This is not the Billy Bob case.
	Yeah, this is a huge case.
	And the fact that you guys are fired up in the chat shows how important this is.
	Yeah, right.
	That like you guys are the proof, you know, that this is an important case.
	They're over here arguing the facts and shit.
	We're like, bro, this is not about the facts anymore.
	This is right.
	This is about the law.
	The law and the trial itself.
	They screwed up on the law.
	They really did.
	They made too many errors that a basic lawyer should never have made.
	So it's going to go up.
	I think it's going to get there.
	And I think if they find an error, it's going to be the state Supreme Court level.
	And that's where Chauvin will walk.
	Damn.
	I like that prediction, bro.
	That right there.
	You ain't going to get that nowhere else.
	You know what, bro?
	Yeah, you're fucked.
	So, so he's going to walk, but it's going to be, you know what?
	You're fucking right.
	Because the appellate court is just three dudes.
	It's like this.
	Yeah, everybody.
	No, they're going to go.
	It's too much heat.
	No, we're good.
	Yeah, guys.
	That's, I like that.
	Do you see it?
	Do you foresee this going to the Supreme Court?
	Yeah, it can go.
	It can't.
	You mean U.S. Supreme Court or State Supreme Court?
	I'm talking about U.S. Supreme Court.
	It's going to go say Supreme Court.
	Yeah, State Supreme Court, I think it'll go for sure.
	I could see this going.
	I could see someone who was Supreme Court.
	You know what?
	It's because of the felony charge.
	That is such a, I will say one thing that's so bad for the law is that that interpretation that take on felony murder.
	Yeah, that could literally change the entire law in all of the United States.
	The impact on that.
	Guys, every crime will be a federal, a felony murder.
	Every single manslaughter, every single involuntary homicide, they're all felony murder now because of this case.
	It's insane.
	It can't stand.
	That's got to be overturned.
	That's a big problem.
	That's a huge problem.
	Bro, you're right.
	If anything, that's got to get fixed.
	So that's got to get fixed.
	You can't have that precedent on the books.
	You can't.
	You can't do it.
	Guys, they screwed up.
	The prosecutors screwed up on this.
	Jesus, man.
	Blame the prosecutors.
	Blame the prosecutors.
	We know Chauvin's guilty, but the prosecutors might help him fucking what, bro.
	All they had to do was do a lesser charge and they would have got him 100% in the bag for sure.
	It's an overcharge.
	It's literally like, you know, like you're playing basketball.
	You got that one guy that's just doing all these fucking random crossovers for no reason when it's like an open lane to the hoop.
	You're just like doing this shit.
	Yeah, yeah, I got this.
	Woo!
	Try to get the fucking uh, you know, what's that game?
	NBA Street?
	Yeah, I get the fucking special up.
	Doesn't get open time.
	The shotglock runs out and you lose by one point.
	That's what the prosecution did here.
	Trying to be fucking fancy for no reason.
	Yeah.
	No reason.
	No reason didn't need to do this, guys.
	All they had to do was walk this in.
	They only had to do the layup.
	And the prosecution, because they were fired up, because the mob was out there, because Maxine Waters was saying, We need it guilty.
	We got to find first degree.
	You know what's so funny?
	It shows how ignorant she was because he wasn't even charged.
	Derek Chauvin wasn't even charged with first degree murder.
	And this ignorant woman is out there in the streets saying, Give him first degree.
	This shows they had no respect for the rule of law, no respect for the process, and they didn't understand the law.
	They didn't even know the charges, they didn't even know the facts, nothing.
	They just were there with their emotions, protesting like a bunch of retards.
	And uh, and now this guy might walk, bro.
	A murderer might honestly walk just because people want to get in their feelings because they couldn't do it right because they got emotional damage, yeah, man.
	Anyway, guys, like the video, subscribe to legal mindset.
	Okay, subscribe to this channel.
	Hope you guys enjoyed this thing: 1.3k, 1.2k, almost 100% engagement.
	Guys, thank you so much, guys.
	Thank you.
	Appreciate it.
	It's amazing, guys.
	All the ninjas out there that were able to put their feelings aside and listen to the case and listen to the appeal, guys.
	Because, like I said before, hey, it's done.
	He killed him.
	We know that.
	Now we need to talk about how the trial went.
	Were his rights violated?
	And guys, I mean, y'all saw it, Sixth Amendment.
	I didn't make it.
	It just says a right to fucking be tried by your peers impartially.
	Guys, man, he might.
	I like your prediction, man.
	Yeah.
	So, one more time for the people out there.
	What's that mindset?
	My prediction, one more time, is that the appellate court is going to puss out because it's too hot.
	It's too hot to touch.
	It's going to go to the state Supreme Court.
	The state Supreme Court will be the ones to overturn it.
	They'll be the ones to find one of these issues at least.
	One of them.
	And I'll take it a step further.
	Lil the addition for the people out here.
	If this goes to the Supreme Court federally, it's 100% getting overturned.
	It's dead.
	It's 100% getting overturned.
	It's dead if it goes federally.
	The discovery alone is they're going to say, are you fucking serious?
	Are you kidding me?
	This is like ridiculous.
	Like in the felony murder thing, they're like, no.
	Yeah.
	Just no.
	If this goes federally, Supreme Court, it's a fucking rap.
	The juror alone is going to fuck it up.
	And that government, the fucking lady went up and said, Doxy Water showing up.
	That's ridiculous.
	Ridiculous, man.
	Ridiculous.
	Here's legal mindset.
	Check him out, guys.
	Go subscribe to his YouTube channel.
	Subscribe to this one, Fed 1811.
	We're going to, when he comes back, you're going to come back and make it.
	Oh, yeah.
	June, yeah.
	You know what, guys?
	Comment below what case you want me and Andrew to break down together.
	We'll break down anything you guys got.
	You want to do something happier than this?
	They'll do it.
	Whatever.
	Now that any case is happy.
	But we'll break down anything for you guys.
	I'm happy to do this.
	And I'm glad to be the first in-person collab.
	Yeah, you're the first one.
	If you guys like this, these in-person collabs, like let Myron know so he can, you know, have other people on too.
	Yeah.
	And that's probably going to be you, bro.
	I ain't going to lie.
	It's only going to be you, bro.
	All right, guys.
	Love y'all, man.
	Peace.
	Peace.
	NCIS.
	Okay.
	All right.

▲