By Jake Kaplan

Here are some of the legal news stories making headlines this week:

On Tuesday, Derek Chauvin challenged his conviction for murdering George Floyd.

• Chauvin’s attorney, Eric Nelson, filed a motion requesting a new trial on the grounds that the court violated Chauvin’s due process rights by, among other things, holding the trial in Hennepin County, Minnesota, failing to sequester the jury, and permitting “prosecutorial misconduct.”
• The motion also alleges that the level of publicity the trial received made it inherently unfair. Nelson wrote, “The publicity here was so pervasive and so prejudicial before and during this trial that it amounted to a structural defect in the proceedings.”
• Meanwhile, a juror from the trial is under scrutiny after a photo surfaced that shows him in attendance at a Washington, D.C. demonstration honoring Martin Luther King Jr., in which the juror is wearing a T-shirt that said, “Get your knee off our necks.” Opponents are now questioning the juror’s impartiality, but the juror contends that his presence at the rally was not related to George Floyd’s killing. Before trial, jurors were required to answer a questionnaire that asked if they “participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality.” The juror in question responded “no.”

The Supreme Court has been very busy the past few weeks. 

• For the first time in years, the Court agreed to hear a major 2nd Amendment case. Oral arguments are scheduled to be held next term, and the case will provide the Court’s conservative majority with an opportunity to broaden the right to carry firearms in public.
• Last week, the Court heard oral arguments in a First Amendment case. At issue is whether a school may discipline a student for their speech outside of school. A decision is expected in June.
• Recently, the Court’s conservative bloc loosened restrictions on sentencing juveniles to life without parole. Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh ruled that the Eighth Amendment does not require a finding that a defendant under 18 years old is beyond hope of rehabilitation before they are sentenced to life without parole. In a scathing dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the Court abandoned precedent, which will result in “far too many juvenile offenders … be[ing] sentenced to die in prison.”