Jump to content

Talk:Trial of Derek Chauvin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 36.77.95.2 (talk) at 03:42, 22 April 2021 (This article is wrong subject. It is not under AP2 as be placed by El C, It is actually under BLP discretionary sanctions.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Neck for time?

"While Floyd was handcuffed and lying face down on the street, Chauvin knelt on Floyd's neck for nine minutes and 29 seconds.[9]"

This is wrong. Lt. Johnny Mercil is a PROSECUTION expert on use-of-force; "showed Mercil a series of still images taken from officers' body-camera videos, asking after each one whether **Mercil agreed that it showed Chauvin's knee appearing to rest more on Floyd's back, shoulder or shoulder blades rather than directly on Floyd's neck. Mercil often agreed."**

From the trail coverage; https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/us-news/chauvins-lawyer-argues-knee-on-shoulder-not-neck.html

This sentance should read; "While Floyd was handcuffed and lying face down on the street, Chauvin knelt on Floyd's neck, back and shoulders for nine minutes and 29 seconds.[9]"

The phrase "neck area" is becoming fashionable in mainstream American media. Definitely concise. Anyway, please sign your posts and put new sections at the bottom; that's beyond mere style choice, a standard practice. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neck area was adopted because the defence had demonstrated the knee on neck claim to be grievously flawed - still showing knee on shoulders. Rather than drop the prosecution they simply changed their terms人族 (talk) 07:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schedule

Is there some theory of how long this trial is supposed to last? Can that be added to the article? Thanks. 2601:648:8200:970:7809:A2B2:9D4C:F27C (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing arguments are expected on Monday, judge said yesterday, then the jury could take minutes to days to deliberate. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If they come back with a guilty verdict, of course, we continue with the sentencing phase (eight weeks later). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If they come back hung or not guilty do we cover the subsequent rioting at the 'wrong' decision? 人族 (talk) 10:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If history is any indication, we'll summarize the rioting here, but cover it in a linked standalone article. By my own oracle, I'd also expect some outrage if the state wins. Since last May, much more exculpatory evidence has gone mainstream, ergo more Chauvin supporters (though still likely the relatively small camp). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My word IH, I am not sure anything about Chauvins conduct has changed in almost a year that would be exculpatory by any measure. Chauvins supporters are the same ones as started out, and almost nothing will change that - even a guilty verdict. Koncorde (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable prophets can disagree, cheers! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the prosecution was dropping about 500 new pieces of evidence on the defence each day of the trial it's entirely plausible exculpatory evidence exists but has been buried by the prosecution's corporate law style dirty tricks. If a guilty verdict is returned an appeal or mistrial request is pretty much guaranteed. Outrage is guaranteed, but I wouldn't expect rioting - Chauvin's supporters aren't the crowd prone to rioting. 人族 (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, "some outrage", lawful and orderly-like. Not sure where you saw anything like 500. As far as I remember (from the unmuted sidebars, anyway), the only thing the state even attempted to weasel in late was that last-minute blood test result. If the jury convicts him, I won't blame any (unusually) dirty tricks. Sometimes when faced with contradictory information, people choose which to bury for themselves. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 500 pieces of new evidence a day from the prosecution is via LI coverage of the trial. The blood test result is probably about the only dirty trick the MSM has covered but it's far from the only 'night before' raised by the prosecution. 人族 (talk) 05:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'll take your word on that. I've been watching the trial stream itself, avoiding pretty much any secondary coverage that isn't directly related to a dispute on this talk page. From that perspective, no side complained (at least unmuted) about getting blindsided until The Return of Dr. Tobin. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've now heard Crusher Blackwell repeatedly accuse Private Nelson of keeping kayfabe, "shading the truth" and spinning yarns into fool's wool that he couldn't even pull over a simple nine-year-old's eyes. That was pretty heelish of him, long day or not. Props to Nelson for maintaining composure and not hurling his shoe! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mistrial Section?

Is it worth having a section about a mistrial, or including it in another section? I'm thinking https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/548445-judge-warns-of-mistrial-in-chauvin-case-if-prosecution-witness-even for instance. Fowler advanced the possibility that Floyd's death was partially due to carbon monoxide poisoning, something the state never tested for. After said expert left to fly home, the prosecution sought leave to recall one of their witnesses, despite having rested their case. The allege they only just received blood gas evidence, and that Fowler's testimony constituted new evidence - despite being in his February report. Judge Cahill ruled the state's new evidence could not be referred to (the prosecution having rested their case) on pain of mistrial. While Cahill didn't rule a mistrial based on what the witness said, sources other than the linked piece suggest the state's witness referred to the prohibited data 4 minutes into his rebuttal, with defence immediately seeking a sidebar. While Cahill hasn't himself ruled a mistrial, this and other grounds already exist for it. 人族 (talk) 08:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is already filled with tons of UNDUE/WP:RECENTISM information. The mistrial content doesn't belong. The judge made it in a passing comment as to why the report the prosecution now wanted to add into the record couldn't be mentioned. Everything else just seems like speculation. If a mistrial is found, add it in, otherwise it's not germane. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, if and when there is a mistrial that would be diffenet.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We also have the Maxine Waters aspect. As Judge Cahill has said "Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned". If a not guilty verdict is given then the mistrial will be ignored. Should a guilty verdict be returned however ... 人族 (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chauvin merely "accused of contributing to the death of George Floyd" ?

The article on Martin J. Tobin (an expert witness for the prosecution) includes the phrase "Derek Chauvin, who was accused of contributing to the death of George Floyd". Since the article here has these specifics: "second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter" I have to wonder if "contributing to the death" is accurate - and if not then if someone here could suggest an improved formulation for the other, related article. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe accused of being responsible for ...? The jury have yet to determine if Chauvin is actually guilty of anything. There's also moves afoot to call for a mistrial given Maxine Waters interference, not to mention the games played by the prosecution. 人族 (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where do we say Chauvin killed him?Slatersteven (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're not funny. 82.28.152.167 (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems straightforward to simply list the charges against him. Readers can determine on their own how much he "contributed".—Bagumba (talk) 08:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a person from the future, I have a more straightforward answer: "killed." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the page in question, since Chauvin has been convicted of second-degree murder amongst other things. The sentence now reads, in part, "who was accused of killing George Floyd in Minneapolis in May 2020." Pianostar9 (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. I'm going to close this early because it's clear, after substantial participation, that consensus will not emerge for Minnesota v. Chauvin. There is a possibility another title (most prominently discussed seems to be Trial of Derek Chauvin) may achieve consensus, but the current discussion is turning into a slight WP:TRAINWRECK with not all new responses considering alternate proposals, making it (probably) difficult to judge consensus to another target title. As such, it's almost certainly going to be easier to determine what the consensus is via an RM proposed explicitly to that title (or a different desired title). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


State v. Chauvin → Minnesota v. Chauvin – Could be normal practice, see e.g. the article on the trial of Michael Jackson's doctor. PatGallacher (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC) PatGallacher (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The official name under court documents is ‘state vs...’ so the title should stand. That being said, a redirect to this page titled ‘Minnesota vs...’ or ‘state of Minnesota vs...’ would be good for the purposes of accessibility. Whall005 (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whall005, many such redirects already exist. If you think of any that aren't here, feel free to create them. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should change it either to "State of Minnesota v. Chauvin" or just "Minnesota v. Chauvin". "State" isn't specific. BazingaFountain42 (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Prosecution is always "the State" - the present title is the right one. P-K3 (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Granted either Minnesota or State of Minnesota sounds better, reading the above posts it seems that at least for now we should not make a change. Gandydancer (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think it’s officially called State in the trial but I don’t think we can expect the global audience to inherently know what state is being referred to in the title. So State of Minnesota could be suitable. Trillfendi (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Trillfendi Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 00:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If this case somehow reaches the Supreme Court, then it could be changed to say Minnesota. Until that happens, it should say State. Mlb96 (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as this was already determined to use State instead of Minnesota. I would support Trial of Derek Chauvin as that is a more common name that RS refer to it as, and wouldn't be the only article to do it that way. WikiVirusC(talk) 23:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counter-offer- Minnesota v. Chauvin or State of Minnesota v. Chauvin would be better suited for the article. State v. Chauvin is a pretty underwhelming title that isn't quite the title you expect to find this under. State of Minnesota v. Chauvin would be better. aaronneallucas (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the split proposal and previous talk discussion. MOS:LEGAL recommends Bluebook format: Unless needed for specificity, leave state names out of the title, e.g., use State v. Elliott, not State of Vermont v. Raleigh Elliott, et al., and redirect the latter to the former. No need for specificity here, at least for now. See Category:U.S. state criminal case law. Tvc 15 (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put on hold – in a way, it's too soon to say. If you look above, almost everyone alludes to what might happen in the future, and I think that's right, also; but since this is all too WP:RECENT and we can't predict the future, it would be a shame to waste a lot of words and editor time in having this discussion now, when it's almost certain to come up again after the current round of news coverage settles down in some weeks or months (sentencing is in 8 weeks). Firefangledfeathers, as the OP, you have the right to end the requested move by simply withdrawing it. Would you consider withdrawing this now, and restarting it again down the road, perhaps a month or two after sentencing? If you wish to do so, just remove the {{requested move}} template at the top of the section, or <!-- comment it out. --> If not, then I oppose for now, but may well change my vote in some future move request later, depending on conditions then. Mathglot (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, FF; misread the OP sig; PatGallacher, the above request is directed at you, not to FF. My oops! Can you withdraw this move request, and bring it up again as needed, in a few months? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mathglot: For a moment, I thought you were the person who submitted it and were asking to withdraw it. I was going to remove the tag until I read the context. Perhaps 'suggest withdrawal' would be more apt. Local Variable (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Local Variable:, thanks for your comment, and glad you didn't, as only the OP has the right to do that individually. The group can do so, but that requires a consensus decision; the OP can do it on their own, and that ends it. You may have been led astray by this edit by another user, who changed my vote (?!!) in a way that may have confused you, as well as other editors. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mathglot: Goodness me! Yes, it was not at all apparent that somebody had edited the text of your comment. Sorry about that. Local Variable (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Support - While MOS:LEGAL is clear in following Bluebook style, the Bluebook itself states (paraphrased from an excerpt on Bluebook style from The University of Texas at Austin), that "Only use "State" as a party name when citing opinions within that state; otherwise use a state's proper name."[1] - since this "citation" (i.e. the title of this page) isn't being cited in legal opinion/commentary (and therefore, there is no context of which "state" opinion is being cited in), we should err to use the full name of the State. JCBird1012 (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point. However, my reading of this is that the Bluebook should be followed in relation to the general format, but there follows particular guidelines which apply for the purposes of the Wikipedia manual of style. One of those guidelines, listed within the list, is that the State's name is generally omitted. The manual does not refer to context-specific inclusion/exclusion (which is what the Bluebook in effect says, or at least appears to say). Rather, the MOS rule is not to include the State [u]nless needed for specificity. Local Variable (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, after reading what the Bluebook says, and what the MOS says, *I* personally believe the guidance in each are in slight contradiction with one another.
    Regardless, the MOS is a set of generally accepted guidelines for editors, but shouldn't be the end all be all. In this case, I feel that the MOS guidelines aren't appropriate and fail to provide adequate context (especially for a global audience) - but that's just me.
    After reading the discussion here, I think I lean more towards a rename to "Trial of Derek Chauvin" - but even then it's too soon to tell if that rename would be appropriate (if there's an appeal or other opportunities for that rename to be ambiguous). JCBird1012 (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is there a reason the article title and lead sentence are inconsistent? Wouldn't the effect of MOS:LEADSENTENCE be that the lead sentence reflects the article title? The lead sentence says State of Minnesota v Chauvin. The fact it was considered necessary there may be indicative that the article title, as stands, is not specific enough. Local Variable (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Further comment I don't have a firm view on the correct title, but I would provisionally oppose a move to Trial of Derek Chauvin. Those proposing a move to that title are yet to address the potential ambiguity caused by the anticipated tax evasion trial. I doubt that will subject to its own article, but I can see the scope for potential ambiguity. Local Variable (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: state of Minnesota V. Chauvin, or trial of Derrick Chauvin would be better SRD625 (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't have a strong opinion (yet) on "State v." vs. "Minnesota v.", but I would oppose "Trial of" unless we're prepared to split any appellate proceedings into a separate article. Zimmerman was acquitted, making the trial (and preliminary proceedings) coextensive with the legal process against him. In Chauvin's case it's basically guaranteed we'll see an appeal, probably multiple ones, and those won't be part of the trial. Splitting those off into a separate article(s) wouldn't be necessarily unreasonable, but it's a discussion we should have before deciding on a "Trial of" title. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer Trial of Derek Chauvin as most sources are not using the technical legal name but calling it the trial of Derek Chauvin. (t · c) buidhe 01:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per MOS:LEGAL — disambiguation of which state is unnecessary. I am ambivalent on whether Trial of Derek Chauvin would be a better name. Tol | Talk | Contribs 02:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above arguments. JediMasterMacaroni (Talk) 02:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Anything but State v Chauvin. It's too informal, unnecessarily non-specific, and it reads like the name of a movie (i.e., People v Larry Flynt). Trial of, Minnesota v, State of MN v, any of those work for me. Murder trial would work too. HOWEVER, if we simply go with Trial of Derek Chauvin, that will be even less specific as soon as his federal trial begins (if it does). Oh yeah, and he is facing numerous felony state tax fraud charges in MN along with his ex-wife. Dcs002 (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What? He's now facing his ex-wife, too? Is there no mercy for this man? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mercy?—Bagumba (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. State? Which one? Why leave us in suspense? Nelson Ricardo (talk) 05:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Supreme Court says State. Wretchskull (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Staff, Reference. "Tarlton Law Library: Bluebook Legal Citation: Cases". tarlton.law.utexas.edu. Retrieved 2021-04-21.

•Counter-offer - Rename to "State of Minnesota v. Chauvin". I agree the current title requires changing because "State" by itself is too bland and oversimplified, but "Minnesota" by itself has the same problems. In my opinion it should be: "State of Minnesota v. Chauvin". Existing123456789 (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The state needs to be specified to clear up ambiguity. --BonsMans1 (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Might be better to change to State of Minnesota v. Chauvin to sound official.

The problem with that proposal is that the state is also prosecuting Chauvin and his ex-wife for tax evasion in a separate trial, so State of Minnesota v. Chauvin is an ambiguous name. Edge3 (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The short form case caption is State v. Chauvin and not Minnesota v. Chauvin. If and when it goes to the United States Supreme Court it'll be captioned as Minnesota v. Chauvin but not before. I also disagree with State of Minnesota v. Chauvin as needless expansion. The longstanding practice in law cases on Wikipedia has been to use the Bluebook-compatible short name for the article title and include the full name in the infobox or first mention. Also strongly oppose "Trial of Derek Chauvin" as this article is about the case not the trial. Focusing on the trial excludes all the investigation, pretrial motion practice, post-trial motion practice to come, sentencing, and appellate litigation to come (none of these things are part of the trial). 69.174.144.79 (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Suggestion. Why not go with the full case name? State of Minnesota v. Derek Michael Chauvin as indicated in the infobox. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 23:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:LAW flat out says unless it's needed for specificity you use the Bluebook-compliant case name. No specificity is needed here. Nobody, even in law, outside of the highest level of formality (such as when the judge reads the charges) uses the full case name. We all say State v. Chauvin. All this name change business is a solution in search of a problem. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of prosecutors is inaccurate

I'd change this myself, but every time I edit an infobox, I break it. The list has a couple errors in it. Keith Ellison shouldn't be on the list if the list is meant to be a list of the attorneys who were in the courtroom prosecuting the case. The list is missing Steve Schleichert, who was one of the most prominent members of the prosecution team, and gave the closing argument. Skrelk (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Years in prison

The article currently says "He faces a maximum of 75 years in prison" but both of the linked sources say 40 years. The NYT says that the max sentencing time for 3 charges *in total* would carry 75 years, but should they be added up? Or do they run concurrently so the total is still 40? Legoktm (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this Slate article which says it's up to the judge to decide if the sentence is served consecutively or concurrently, suggesting that the true maximum is 75 years, but the realistic max is 40. Legoktm (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Truth is realistic. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not sure how to interpret your comment. What are you suggesting the article say? Legoktm (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hulk likes to add flavor text and whimsical musings. I don't think there's much to interpret there. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for edit conflicting my detailed answer! Shorter, but clear, there is no distinction between truth and reality in potential maximums. Find one, you have both. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It might not even be 40; most sources are saying 12 years plus whatever aggravating circumstances add onto that SRD625 (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

there’s also federal charges that the department of justice is considering so we just don’t know yet and I don’t think that should go in this article anyway SRD625 (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Future federal charges are irrelevant to this current state trial's article. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentencing reminds me of a fairly recent high profile case near me (Kidnapping of Jayme Closs). The person convicted in the case had no prior record but was still sentenced to the maximum for all the charges they were convicted of, with the sentences running consecutively. -- Dolotta (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Several sources[1][2] say that because all of the charges stem from the same crime, it is very unlikely that a judge would have Chauvin serve the penalties consecutively. So the maximum would be 40 years total, although it is likely to be closer to 12 1/2. Nosferattus (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The prosecution has made a verbal motion (to be followed in writing) for a Blakely hearing and stated their intention to apply for aggravated sentencing. The "presumptive" sentence under MN law is 150 months with a max of 40 years, but in order for the judge to sentence more than 180 months (he has +/- 30 months sentencing discretion), they have to go through what amounts to a second trial. After the verdict, Chauvin waived his right to a jury for his Blakely hearing, so Judge Cahill will be the trier of facts for that process. I believe that is set for 2 weeks from now? Anyway, all of this was broadcast on the live feed, and the sentencing guidelines and statutes are easy enough to cite if anyone cares to. I think it might be a bit weighty right now, before any release of a written Blakely petition, but maybe later it will be helpful.

What I learned decades ago in a high school law class is that a person may not serve more than one sentence for the same action. That's double jeopardy. In other words, for the judge to sentence Chauvin to consecutive terms (max 75 years), he would first have to rule that each crime was a separate act committed by the defendant. I think that's why we have concurrent sentences for cases like this.

SRD625, this article is about the state of MN v Derek Chauvin only. Federal charges aren't really a part of this. Not yet anyway. In a few years this will probably be combined with an article about the federal charges, and all of it will be combined with the Chauvin article. Dcs002 (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Past tense

In the opening sentence we use the past tense "was". Am I mistaken in thinking the case is not over, just the jury trial is. We still have the sentencing phase to complete. As such, shouldn't we use present tense? EvergreenFir (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, yes, still on. To the layreader, though, the climax and closure have probably come. Depends who our audience is, I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I changed this back before the article got semi'd. The case is not over by a long shot. Post-trial motions, sentencing, appeals, etc. are all part of the case. I believe the rush to change it is borne of the same misunderstandings (as reflected above in the rename proposals) to change this article's title to "Trial of Derek Chauvin", which would be massively inaccurate and misleading to our readers. Put briefly, trial=past tense, while case=present tense. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presumptive sentencing in lead

Should we include the presumptive sentence of 12.5 years in the lead? We would only need to do this until the sentencing hearing is concluded in 8–9 weeks, and the information is currently included in the body of the article. Virtually every RS appears to report on the 40 year maximum, and then very soon thereafter on the 12.5 year presumptive sentence. This is helpful, I think, to avoid creating the false impression of the likely penalty/range of penalties in this case, which seems important enough information for the lead too. Here is the sentence that I had originally added to the lead: ([3]).

Minnesota sentencing guidelines suggest a presumptive sentence of 12.5 years, discounting aggravating factors.

Alternatively, we could do a slim version of this (something like "the presumptive sentence under Minnesota law is much lower"), or just state that the sentencing hearing will begin in 8 weeks. — Goszei (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An evaluation of the "headline stories" and what they have to say. Many organizations later released smaller "sentencing analysis" articles. AP News only mentions 40 years. NYTimes mentions the 12.5 years. The Guardian mentions a shorter sentence. WaPo mentions 11 to 12 years. WSJ mentions 11 to 15 years. Reuters mentions the 12.5 years. BBC only mentions 40 years. CNN mentions 12.5 years. ABC mentions 12.5 years and speculates on 15. — Goszei (talk) 07:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd leave it out of the lead, which should keep to simple facts not subject to dispute. Sentencing possbilities can be explained in the body.—Bagumba (talk) 09:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per Bagumba, we really shouldn't put speculation in the lede. The lede is meant to be stable and summarise content. So add it to the body narrative and then we can refer to it in the lede as / when sentencing takes place. Koncorde (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, leave it out of the lede. Anywikiuser (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International

Hi!!!. I added international reactions from some international politicians. I'm not native in English. Could please any kind-hearted and willing editor check my grammar? I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you and excuse any misspelling. CoryGlee (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be placed? If so, where?

External videos
video icon Pioneer Press Live Stream of Derek Chauvin trial on YouTube (1 hr 44 min 58 s)


It is from a known news organization and may be useful. aeschyIus (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you have the right link? I see downtime. If that's the point, it works here and only here. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change title to State of Minnesota v. Chauvin

This title is more accurate then the current one and provides more information that is instantly available from reading the first words. It should also be noted that when the judge read the jury's verdict, he referred to the plaintiff as the "State of Minnesota", not just the State. Existing123456789 (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See existing ongoing discussion here on talk page. Mentions of why just "State" was chosen for current title are included there. WikiVirusC(talk) 17:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed name changes

I compiled a list of proposed titles in previously requested moves and in discussions. Hopefully, we can hash out which title is better and achieve some consensus. Choose Title # and discuss why it is the most appropriate. Beside each title I propose some reasons for choosing it.

  • Title 1 (current title) State v. Chauvin - per WP:LAWMOS "Unless needed for specificity, leave state names out of the title, e.g., use State v. Elliott, not State of Vermont v. Raleigh Elliott, et al., and redirect the latter to the former."
  • Title 2 Minnesota v. Chauvin - Rename this for clarify the state of jurisdiction (ex. California v. Murray)
  • Title 3 State of Minnesota v. Derek Michael Chauvin - The article's first sentence has the full name, so consistency?
  • Title 4 Trial of Derek Chauvin - per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIAL. If you search up "Trial of" on the Wikipedia search bar, almost every murder trial's page title is "Trial of [defendant]". (ex. Trial of George Zimmerman, Trial of Michael Jackson, Trial of Susan B. Anthony, etc.)
  • Title 5 Derek Chauvin murder case - In case Chauvin faces any more cases (ex. O. J. Simpson murder case, O. J. Simpson robbery case)
  • Title 6 State of Minnesota v. Chauvin

Please use the following format for choosing the title you want

  • Title # _____

Also if anyone wants to add another title, you can add Title 6 in the same format and so on. Phillip Samuel (talk) 01:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment We literally finished a discussion on this yesterday EvergreenFir (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That discussion was for a requested move, not for finding consensus among proposed names.Phillip Samuel (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Title 4, for proposed reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Title 1, weakly Title 5. The rationale for title 2 is incorrect: California v. Murray is incorrectly named here and should be called People v. Murray. Title 3 is ridiculous and makes Wikipedia look foolish: Nobody except a pedant uses the full case name except in the legal contexts where it's necessary, and it gives this entire article the air of being written by someone who knows nothing about legal practice. Title 4 is incorrect: This is an article about the criminal case and not just the trial, which began with jury selection and ended with the conviction, and retitling it in that way incorrectly narrows the scope of this article to the trial (or inaccurately uses the word "trial" to refer to a criminal case). Just follow MOS:LAW. Zero rationale has been given to depart from that guideline. If you don't like that guideline go amend it. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In my experience, central topics are often titular, with background and aftermath sections (by any name) bookending the main event. I have a very hard time believing a tax trial can draw coverage comparable to racially-charged viral murder. If and only if I'm wrong, 5. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    By your rationale this article should be called "Murder of George Floyd" and have a subsection about the prosecution. Calling this article "Trial of Derek Chauvin" and talking about the motion practice, sentencing, and appeals just makes us seem ignorant. Just as saying "if and only if" as a way of emphasizing your point does the same. It just makes everyone who knows better roll their eyes and reinforces improper usage among our less-educated readers. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That last point is about whether a boring and untelevised tax trial will get its own article (Al Capone's is conspicuously absent). The "murder" itself has an article. Has pre and post, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Title 4 Trial of Derek Chauvin - for reason proposed and I stated in prior move requested, would be fine with 5 as well. Hopefully someone can ping prior participants since this was brought up in response to the prior move request being closed. A lot of the discussion after initial request was about alternate names. WikiVirusC(talk) 03:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Article is about more than the trial. It's about the overall criminal case. Once again there's no rationale for a departure from MOS:LAW. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trial_of_Derek_Chauvin&oldid=1019216414"