We recently learned that at least one juror in the trial of Derek Chauvin was not what he presented himself as being during voir dire, having been a prominent activist in the BLM movement and someone very well acquainted with the story of George Floyd. Combining that bit of news with the previous antics of Congresswoman Maxine Waters led me to wonder if the entire trial might be thrown out during the appeals process. But it sounds as if Chauvin’s attorney isn’t waiting around for those sorts of formalities. Defense attorney Eric Nelson has filed a motion asking for Chauvin’s convictions to be thrown out and for a new trial to begin. His list of complaints is fairly lengthy. (Fox News)

Ex-Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin has filed a motion seeking a new trial in the death of George Floyd, arguing that his constitutional right to a fair trial was violated multiple times throughout the proceedings.

Defense attorney Eric Nelson took issue with the judge’s refusal to grant a change of venue and for declining to sequester jurors during the trial.

He also accused prosecutors of “pervasive, prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct” and alleged that jurors convicted Chauvin on charges that the evidence did not sufficiently support.

Oddly enough, Nelson’s motion doesn’t even mention Maxine Waters’ rant urging the public to “get more confrontational” if Chauvin wasn’t convicted of murder. He also failed to mention Brandon Mitchell, the juror I referenced above. Instead, Nelson is focusing on several procedural steps where he claims that the court violated Chauvin’s constitutional right to a fair trial.

The first complaint is that the judge refused a change of venue request and failed to sequester the jury so they wouldn’t be exposed to media coverage of the ongoing proceedings. That one seems like an obvious target to go after at first glance, particularly considering all the massive local and national media coverage that the entire George Floyd saga received. But for the same reason, it’s difficult to see how it would influence the outcome significantly. I rather doubt that there’s anywhere in the entire state where people weren’t inundated with news coverage of Chauvin’s upcoming trial.

Nelson might do better with his claim that the court refused to read statements that witness Morries Hall had given to the police into the record. Hall was in the vehicle with George Floyd and was the closest witness to the events in question but he pleaded the Fifth and the court didn’t attempt to force him to testify.

The final part of the motion may prove to be the strongest. Chauvin’s attorney is claiming that the court incorrectly instructed the jury on what would be required to convict his client on charges of second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder. From the beginning of this entire affair, I’ve heard legal analysts saying that any murder charge was a significant stretch, though the prosecutors managed to land a guilty verdict on all counts. Was the jury misled about whether or not Chauvin’s actions rose to the level required to meet those definitions? That will be up to the judge to decide. The only thing that’s clear for now is that we’re far from the end of this saga. Even if the request to toss out the previous convictions and start over is denied, Chauvin can still appeal the convictions at several levels and that process could drag on for years.