Wikipedia

Talk:Trial of Derek Chauvin/Archive 3

< Talk:Trial of Derek Chauvin
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Slatersteven in topic Criticism
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Requested move 20 April 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago62 comments46 people in discussion
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)


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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    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)
    @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)
    @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)
    @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)
  • 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)
    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)
    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)
  • 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)
    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)
  • Oppose: state of Minnesota V. Chauvin, or trial of Derrick Chauvin would be better SRD625 (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Oppose per above arguments. JediMasterMacaroni (Talk) 02:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
    What? He's now facing his ex-wife, too? Is there no mercy for this man? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    Mercy?—Bagumba (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. State? Which one? Why leave us in suspense? Nelson Ricardo (talk) 05:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Supreme Court says State. Wretchskull (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)
  • 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)
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)
    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)

Proposed name changes

Latest comment: 3 years ago16 comments8 people in discussion
Formal RM is now open below at #Requested move 22 April 2021—Bagumba (talk) 08:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

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 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).

  • Comment We literally finished a discussion on this yesterday EvergreenFir (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    That discussion was for a requested move, not for finding consensus among proposed names.Phillip Samuel (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Title 4, for proposed reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
    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, Title 5. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    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)
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)
  • 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)
    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)
  • Title 4, but use hatnote to disambiguate I agree that WP:COMMONNAME applies here. I think we can deviate from MOS:LAW in this matter, as Bluebook tends to be used more for legal citations and not for everyday news references to criminal trials. MOS:LAW is more relevant when we're talking about court precedent or judicial opinions, not criminal trials. (I also think it may be worthwhile to update MOS:LAW to reflect the existence of "Trial of..." articles.) If the tax evasion trial is independently notable, then we should have separate articles. However, this murder trial would still be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so this article should display a hatnote that directs readers to information about the tax evasion charges. Edge3 (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's not a news source. The fact that everyday people are going to use the wrong terminology constantly (like call this a "trial") doesn't justify improper usage here. The tax evasion case being ambiguous is a red herring: Almost nobody knows about that case. If we were going to go COMMONNAME then this article should be called "Murder of George Floyd". 69.174.144.79 (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    Wikipedia gets its references and information from notable and reliable sources. The vast majority of them are using the terminology "trial of derek chauvin" over the legal name, and the fact that they are neither makes the usage wrong nor improper. And no, the murder of George Floyd and Derek Chauvin's trial are both connected and notable in their own case to merit separate articles, with common names for each page title. Phillip Samuel (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Title 4, per WP:COMMONNAME. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Title 4, Per WP:COMMONNAME, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above.[5]". This mandates that articles be titled to what readers commonly refer. Googling "State v. Chauvin" outputs under (20,000) results, but googling "Trial of Derek Chauvin" outputs ~(9,500,000) results. Also per WP:OFFICIAL, "The preference for common names avoids several problems with official names. Obscurity - Some official names are never used except in legal or other esoteric documents, or for theatrical effect." Most reliable and notable sources are not using the technical legal name but calling it the trial of Derek Chauvin, and thus there is no rationale to depart from WP policies to an obscure legal title for an infamous murder trial known internationally. Per WP:CRITERIA, article titles must be recognizable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent, and Title 4 follows this much more closely than Title 1. Phillip Samuel (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
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.

Presumptive sentencing in lead

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

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: ([1]).

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)

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)
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)
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)
Yes, leave it out of the lede. Anywikiuser (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
It`s spelled LEAD...leave it in...he will be out in 10-20 if that 2600:1702:2340:9470:E0AC:CD44:4802:427 (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Should this be placed? If so, where?

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
External videos
  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)

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)
At the endm it shows. aeschyIus (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh, OK, I see. Shows a masked man barely reacting to the verdict. Even if you'd trimmed the 99% of filler, I don't think it'd add much beyond "The defendant's eyes darted about". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 22 April 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago72 comments41 people in discussion
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: moved. There is consensus to move to Trial of Derek Chauvin per WP:COMMONNAME. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

State v. Chauvin → Trial of Derek Chauvin – Per WP:COMMONNAME, "State v. Chauvin" only has around 100 hits while "Trial of Derek Chauvin" has ~1,000,000. Similar examples include Trial of George Zimmerman, Trial of Michael Jackson and Trial of Susan B. Anthony. Note: The last RM was closed with the suggestion that a new RM can be opened with a new alternative name. #Proposed name changes (above) suggests this title has support, so this formal RM is opened to minimize having to duplicate arguments. —Bagumba (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Support For my reasons stated in #Proposed name changes. Phillip Samuel (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Same InedibleHulk (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose as this article is about the criminal case, not the trial. The case includes investigation, pretrial motion practice, the trial itself, posttrial motion practice, sentencing, and direct appeals. MOS:LAW governs here. This is an article about a case, not about a trial. The fact that a number of other articles we have are wrongly named is of no moment; WP:WAX. I implore those rushing to jump on this terrible name choice because they're being wowed by someone's claim of more WP:GHITS to actually make a policy-based argument. Just because this is a high-profile case does not require it to have different handling from other articles about legal cases. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Point of order as well, Bagumba is misrepresenting the search engine results given above. The first, purportedly showing the number of Google News search hits for "Trial of Derek Chauvin" only returns 114 results, and not the one million-plus results falsely claimed. Assuming good faith, Bagumba has simply failed to perform a search engine test properly. This is clearly not a WP:COMMONNAME situation. But even if it were, the test is not what news sources—which use sensational, often incorrect terminology to refer to things—but what the common name is. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 11:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
      I see 1.9M when I click the link he provided which is a google news search for "Trial of Derek Chauvin" with quotes. Same search with quote for a general search I see 7.6M. WikiVirusC(talk) 12:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
      You see a claimed estimate of each large round number, the actual numbers of results for each query are around a hundred (including mere duplicates). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
      It's rather ironic that you make accusations of my "misrepresenting" while claiming AGF. Regarding searching news sources, WP:COMMONNAME states: When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search. Cheers. —Bagumba (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support for reasons given on previous two discussion, such as WP:COMMONNAME. WikiVirusC(talk) 12:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support the common name in media reports. Few sources are using the technical legal name of the trial. (t · c) buidhe 12:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
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.

Where should this be placed?

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/05/03/chauvin-trial-juror/

https://www.startribune.com/chauvin-juror-defends-participation-in-march-on-washington-after-social-media-post-surfaces/600053102/?refresh=true

I think these two articles about the Juror Brandon Mitchell wearing a black T Shirt with the words "Get your knee off our necks" and a BLM cap should not be mentioned in the article until its get brought up in the court case not to confuse people. Since this has raised questions about the jurors impartiality that can be brought up on appeal but hasn't raised any action yet ( such as Judge Peter Cahill questioning the juror) right now it seems more like speculation than fact. Jonvah (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it's fine to add expert speculation about potential grounds for an appeal (e.g. that juror, Maxine Waters' comments with an unsequestered jury, whatever else). We don't speculate ourselves, we're not a crystal ball, but we can certainly include expert commentary on it. E.g. Jury consultant Alan Tuerkheimer said it is likely that Chauvin’s defense attorney Eric J. Nelson will use this information to push for an appeal but argued that the photo itself would not be enough to dismiss the conviction from the first link and The matter is likely to be cited by Nelson as one of many bases for an appeal, said a law professor and defense attorney from the second seems fine to include. Regarding where? I don't know. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Basic information to add to this article: how much this trial cost. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

How much did it cost? Find a source for total amount if possible. I've read articles about security cost but not about overall general costs. Probably going to still be more cost added before we have a final total, from at least sentencing date, and possibly appeals if they aren't counted separately. WikiVirusC(talk) 22:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Agree. Derrick Chauvin's attorney filed a motion for a new trial so lets see how that plays out first.
https://www.npr.org/sections/trial-over-killing-of-george-floyd/2021/05/04/993665655/derek-chauvin-files-for-new-trial-in-george-floyd-murder-case Jonvah (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
A lot of the prosecution attorneys are working on this case pro bono, and the ones employed by the state are salaried, so you're probably not going to get an actual amount for this trial. Edge3 (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Keith Ellison as prosecutor

Latest comment: 3 years ago15 comments9 people in discussion

Isn't Keith Ellison supposed to be special prosecutor? The infobox doesn't have him listed. Phillip Samuel (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

As far as I could tell, he wasn't actually prosecuting the case during the day-to-day coverage. Edge3 (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
By all accounts, state Attorney General Ellison was the lead prosecutor, [2] which is also stated in the prose. Is it standard to only list those public facing in the infobox? No mention in the documentation.—Bagumba (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Skrelk commented on this above, so they might know something about it. I assume it shouldn't be, but I don't really know either. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Its unclear to what extent Keith Ellison is prosecuting the case. Its routine for the elected prosecutor to be an attorney of record, even if they aren't actually prosecuting the case. I dont know Wikipedia usually includes those as prosecutors or not, but it wouldn't make a ton of sense. I'm inclined to think that Ellison was just an attorney of record by virtue of being the AG, since looking at the publicly available pleadings, it doesn't look like he signed any. It would be surprising if he played an active role, since as a politician, he probably doesn't have much recent litigation experience Skrelk (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

He didn't participate in any of the in court roles but there have been coverage of his role in prosecuting the case. [3] While Mr. Ellison did not speak in court, he was there most days on the prosecution side of the room, .... He was deeply involved in just about every aspect of the case, from preparing witnesses to weighing in on jury selection, said Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general during the Obama administration who was part of the prosecution team. WikiVirusC(talk) 19:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
He is also the one that gave the press conference speech following the verdict with the other attorneys all giving a shorter commentary. I'd add his name if I could figure out how to do it, but I can't... Gandydancer (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I added his name in wikilink with "(lead)" on the side. Should it be (special) or (lead)? Phillip Samuel (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I think lead as I'm not sure what special might mean. Gandydancer (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
They could be thinking of a special prosecutor, now known as a Special counsel. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I doubt it. In my understanding that is quite different.Gandydancer (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Just because you understand does not mean other people do. The North Carolina Government recently asked for a special prosecutor to look at a black man being shot by a police officer [4]. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Gandydancer is right though. There's no situation in which the attorney general would be the special prosecutor. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I am not saying that they were wrong, just that it is not unreasonable that other people may have gotten confused. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, here's the facts. Matthew Frank is the lead prosecutor and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison’s office is prosecuting the case.[5] I'd fix it myself but it is so complex that all I see is a huge jumble.   Gandydancer (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The court

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Chauvin was tried in the Hennepin County District Court. I believe The Minnesota District Court is for cross-country crimes only Minnesotabaddie (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hennepin is the court house location where the trial was held. I believe district court refers to the entity that has jurisdiction i.e. not the physical trial location.—Bagumba (talk) 05:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Criticism

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

We should detail the criticism of the trial by the accused's attorney. Specifically, the potential jury intimidation, and the perjury and bias of one of the jurors. This will be a major point when a new trial will be granted, and has already saw a wave of reporting.Francis1867 (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree however we should stick to what is written in the appeal or any other motions. This is to have a good source to cite these criticism and stop the article from being seen as opinionated. Such as in the motion for a new trial the attorney doesn't mention the specific juror's photo just juror misconduct. For example when you imply that a new trial will 100% be grant I agree with you but that is just opinion not fact. Jonvah (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree however we should stick to what is written in the appeal or any other motions: No, we reflect with WP:DUE weight what reliable, secondary sources say. The actual appeal is a primary source.—Bagumba (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
"No, we reflect with WP:DUE weight what reliable, secondary sources say.": I didn't know that thanks for telling me. Jonvah (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
THen we can wait until the wave of new reporting when the second trial starts.Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
There is already discussion in the media, a lot of reliable sources have exposed that at least one juror lied to get on the jury and to secure a conviction on all charges. Court documents are primary sources when you try to prove their content, but are secondary sources when you use them to prove the fact alleged. The secondary source rule is often abused to ensure that MSM outlet bias are reproduced here. Francis1867 (talk) 10:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARY: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Secondary sources do the "proving", not Wikipedia editors.—Bagumba (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Again, when RS assay it so can we, not "the media" RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trial_of_Derek_Chauvin/Archive_3&oldid=1073171672"