Quote:

---

Under Minn. Stat. 609.27 subd. 1(3) Dr. Mitchell's conduct meets the elements to be found guilty of committing the crime of coercion. Dr. Mitchell orally made the threat to unlawfully injure Dr. Baker's trade unless Dr. Baker changed his autopsy findings. Dr. Mitchell told Dr. Baker to include neck compression in the final findings and warned Dr. Baker he was going to publish a damaging op-ed in the Washington Post. After Dr. Baker changed his findings, Dr. Mitchell did not publish the op-ed. Moreover, Dr. Mitchell unlawfully injured Dr. Fowler's trade by penning an open letter which resulted in an investigation into every death report in Maryland during Dr. Fowler's tenure. Dr. Mitchell has set the stage that he will threaten the trade and professional reputation of any physician who suggests that Mr. Floyd's death could be labeled as "undetermined".

---

Well, that is certainly problematical. Coercion and witness tampering anyone?

The open letter from Dr. Mitchell is super-political. The opening line is:

Quote:

---

Open Letter to Political Leadership,

---

https://drive.google.com/file/d/165AVCMm1qVLodz0ZHZkShWerN9GPEhvh/view

The fact that Mitchell threatened Baker, backed down after Baker changed his opinion on the autopsy, and then followed thru with the threat by damaging Fowler should be all the evidence you need of witness intimidation.

Quote:

---

Oh please.

Do tell exactly how the law and the legal system has changed from 40 years ago.

I'd kind of need to know that info to evaluate it.

---

Does 20 years work better for those of you smarta**es who question Hawg's bona fides? I clerked for a criminal court judge - participated in numerous criminal trials. What we saw in this trial would never have been allowed in front of the judges I practiced with. And Sullivan needs to be impeached.

This trial has turned into the election thread circa Nov-Jan. "Its coming" "it will all be overturned" "just look at all these FACTS that show how right I am" "just keep waiting, its coming"

Reminds me of when the rona-phobes used to say "wait two weeks"

LDA9336 said:

---

This trial has turned into the election thread circa Nov-Jan. "Its coming" "it will all be overturned" "just look at all these FACTS that show how right I am" "just keep waiting, its coming"

Reminds me of when the rona-phobes used to say "wait two weeks"

---

Well sorry if we're hopeful that a just judicial system will win out over the whims of the twitter mob.

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Quote:

---

Oh please.

Do tell exactly how the law and the legal system has changed from 40 years ago.

I'd kind of need to know that info to evaluate it.

---

Does 20 years work better for those of you smarta**es who question Hawg's bona fides? I clerked for a criminal court judge - participated in numerous criminal trials. What we saw in this trial would never have been allowed in front of the judges I practiced with. And Sullivan needs to be impeached.

---

When I practiced, a judge would sanction you for pulling some of the crap the state tried and got away with doing.

That whole "new evidence" for rebuttal on a medical report that had never been provided to the defense until that morning? No honest judge in the world would have let that in, in my day. Probably would have drawn a monetary sanction as well. Complete BS.

And then Blackwell repeatedly accusing the defense counsel of lying and making things up during closing?? And he did it several times again even after being admonished!! Yikes!! That would cause some judges to send the attorney into the holding cell to cool their heels for awhile.

It might have been in an old comedy bit but the line, "Bailiff! Whack his pee-pee!" was funny because judges did run their courtrooms and rarely tolerated attorneys getting outside of their lanes.

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Quote:

---

Oh please.

Do tell exactly how the law and the legal system has changed from 40 years ago.

I'd kind of need to know that info to evaluate it.

---

Does 20 years work better for those of you smarta**es who question Hawg's bona fides? I clerked for a criminal court judge - participated in numerous criminal trials. What we saw in this trial would never have been allowed in front of the judges I practiced with. And Sullivan needs to be impeached.

---

I wasn't questioning Hawg.

I was questioning the person deriding her opinion...

Quote:

---

I wasn't questioning Hawg.

I was questioning the person deriding her opinion...

---

I know.....should have quoted them.

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Quote:

---

I wasn't questioning Hawg.

I was questioning the person deriding her opinion...

---

I know.....should have quoted them.

---

Roger that.

Mea culpa...

It probably has escaped nobody that both the judge and jury are fully cognizant that they live in a state which permits violent "protesters" to show up at their doors. I am not saying it's right, but this judge has family whose safety could be at risk. He could have do change of venue: that was his mistake and that ringer jury member could be Chauvin's card for retrial based on jury bias.

HtownAg92 said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Are there not thousands of criminal trials across the U.S. each year? Isn't a trial like this with the level of publicity and media coverage and politicians weighing in an incredibly rare and unusual situation?

How many other trials anywhere in the States is currently being talked about on this message board? None?

Understandable folks may disagree or disagree about the verdict in this case.

But generalizing this case as having much to stay about the general state or future of our court systems...it was just one very rare type of court case. I would be leery of trying to read too much into it. Regardless of which side you were on in this one.

---

This case was a notable example, but the narrative of racial division, tension, white supremacy, etc. that has been forced on the country since before even Trump's presidency has had an effect on the state of the court system. I practice in the civil world, and it absolutely has affected my practice. I'll be danged if I recommend fighting a race case in any city right now, or pretty much anywhere for that matter. Tooth-and-nail fighter clients are reluctant to go anywhere near a courtroom because of bad pub, cancel culture crap, and odds against getting a fair jury.

---

You both could probably note that this abuse and misuse of process is far more likely in a city long dominated by Democrat control -- D.C. and Minneapolis both qualify. The probability of an absolutely law twisting politicized outcome seems greater in them.