Not surprisingly, the jury in the Chauvin case came back with verdicts of guilty on all

three charges, second degree murder, third degree murder, and manslaughter.

The case will be appealed, and the judge himself indicated that he thought that Maxine

Waters attempt to intimidate the jury, that's not his words, he just said, his statement,

might very well provide appellate issues.

I think it does provide appellate issues, in fact, I think that the conviction, though

I think morally justified, there's no way you can, in any way, try to justify what Chauvin

did morally to a George Floyd knee on the neck for nine minutes and a few seconds, particularly

the last three or four minutes, totally unjustified from a moral point of view and from a police

practice point of view.

But the question is, was it murder, was it manslaughter, was it a crime, those are issues,

the jury was supposed to resolve based on the law and the facts, and I worry, and I think

civil libertarians generally should worry, that the jurors may have been influenced by

the threats, the intimidation, the sort of demically is hanging over them.

Everybody in the country knew that if there were an acquittal or a verdict less than murder,

there would be violence in the streets, basically heard it from the people on the streets, we're

heard it from CNN, all of a CNN, there were essentially threats that the country would

burn down unless the, quote, correct verdict were erended, well, what is the correct verdict

as a matter of law, in my view, it was manslaughter, not murder, I don't think the elements

of the crime of murder have been made out, that of course will be a subject of appeal.

But even if all the elements had been made out, I don't have confidence that this verdict

was uninfluenced by the external threats, the threats by very many people outside the

...