Trial of Derek Chauvin: A Juror Supported What?!

[Shofercia]

That's very true. The Republican running against Maxine Waters in a heavily Democratic district where she was going to win no matter what, raised $10.5 million. That means that there are enough people to pay $10.5 million for the sole purpose of trolling the shit out of Maxine Waters.

This is exactly why I want Chauvin convicted by an unbiased jury of his peers, so that the Justice System can show that it works. Right now a lot of minorities think that it's broken, a lot of right wingers think that it's broken, and vigilantism is on the rise. That's the scary part and that's why a part of me wants a mistrial followed by a trial with an untainted, sequestered jury, with Maxine Waters shutting the fuck up, at least about the case, with cell phones and other photo devices banned from the courtroom, except for official broadcast news, and with the jury behind a one way mirror.

Problem is that at this point the trial had happened and most people have heard the evidence from both sides which means that most people who might have been neutral before are not so now. Honestly I am not sure how you go from here.

Most, but not all. Even if there are only 2% of people who haven't heard about it, or only heard about it passing, that'd be enough for an impartial jury pool where 12 jurors can be selected.

It's not about knowing what happened, foreknowledge doesn't equal bias. the juror went our and protested the event, and lied about it on the juror questionnaire. Big difference

Wanting fair treatment for all people isn't a bias against the defendant either. You wouldn't have a jury if that was the requirement.

Jurors are expected to be brutally honest in their questionnaires, and answer all questions fully, to the very best of their ability. Playing wannabe attorney on your juror questionnaire might be grounds for dismissal. He was asked, point blank, "did you go to marches in Minneapolis?" and he was like "I went to the exact same one in DC, so I'm going to hide that, since you said Minneapolis, not DC, teehee," and then flat out lied in his response to the second question claiming that a rally about abuse of police force wasn't about police force, but rather it was about equality, as if a rally cannot be about both, police force and equality.

[The Rich Port]

I heard some wise words I forget where, but very relevant to a lot of bullshit going on:

"When you are accustomed to privilege, equality will feel like oppression"

[Shofercia]

That's very true. The Republican running against Maxine Waters in a heavily Democratic district where she was going to win no matter what, raised $10.5 million. That means that there are enough people to pay $10.5 million for the sole purpose of trolling the shit out of Maxine Waters.

This is exactly why I want Chauvin convicted by an unbiased jury of his peers, so that the Justice System can show that it works. Right now a lot of minorities think that it's broken, a lot of right wingers think that it's broken, and vigilantism is on the rise. That's the scary part and that's why a part of me wants a mistrial followed by a trial with an untainted, sequestered jury, with Maxine Waters shutting the fuck up, at least about the case, with cell phones and other photo devices banned from the courtroom, except for official broadcast news, and with the jury behind a one way mirror.

I think overturning a conviction of a 12-person jury because of the BLM cap of one of the jurors will do little to restore faith in the justice system among black Americans. It's a liberal fantasy that everyone will just respect the system if it is shown to follow its own rullset to a fault.

The American justice system, also, is just broken, and declaring a murder conviction of a cop who murdered a mistrail is not going to fix that system.

Again, this isn't just about a BLM cap or t-shirt. He went to the event, wore the cap and t-shirt, and lied on the jury questionnaire.

Said juror's behavior implies that he's lying:

The picture shows Mitchell, 31, standing next to two cousins in Washington, D.C. He is wearing a Black T-shirt with a picture of King surrounded by the words, "GET YOUR KNEE OFF OUR NECKS" and "BLM" (Black Lives Matter). Chauvin knelt on Floyd's neck for nine minutes and 29 seconds... The event was "100 percent not" a march for Floyd, Mitchell said...

So were there t-shirts saying "get your knee off our necks" prior to the tragic killing of Floyd? Meanwhile at the event that was "100% not a march for Floyd" this happened:

Floyd's brother and sister, Philonise and Bridgett Floyd, and family members of others who have been shot by police addressed the crowd. It served as a rallying point for the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, a federal police reform bill.

With Mitchell's mindset in mind, let's take a look at the questionnaire:

The first question asked, "Did you, or someone close to you, participate in any of the demonstrations or marches against police brutality that took place in Minneapolis after George Floyd's death?"

The second asked, "Other than what you have already described above, have you, or anyone close to you, participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality?"

Mitchell answered "no" to both questions. My question is this: do you honestly think that an event in Washington DC where Floyd's brother and sister spoke to the crowd was not about the police use of force? Honestly?

Sauce: https://www.startribune.com/chauvin-jur ... 600053102/

[Ethel mermania]

It's not about knowing what happened, foreknowledge doesn't equal bias. the juror went our and protested the event, and lied about it on the juror questionnaire. Big difference

Wanting fair treatment for all people isn't a bias against the defendant either. You wouldn't have a jury if that was the requirement.

He lied on the juror questionnaire.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Wanting fair treatment for all people isn't a bias against the defendant either. You wouldn't have a jury if that was the requirement.

He lied on the juror questionnaire.

Any proof of this? Because I have only seen this on Daily Mail reporting, but with no mention of what the question actually was, and how the explanation was worded.

If he had to answer whether he want to any demonstrations on the death of George Floyd, and the went to a BLM protest against general police violence, even if Floyd's relatives had a platform, he would have truthfully answered 'no'. Don't elevate the idea that he lied to fact just yet.

[Vassenor]

So I presume we can look forward to this sort of character assassination if a hypothetical retrial also votes to convict.

[Kowani]

So I presume we can look forward to this sort of character assassination if a hypothetical retrial also votes to convict.

this is not character assassination

[The Rich Port]

If business aristocrats can get away with claiming that obvious conflicts of interest don't count as conflicts of interest, I think this juror can get away with holding a specific political point of view without being discriminated against in the trial.

This "one juror lied on their questionnaire" nonsense ignores the fact that the rest or the majority of the other jurors did not, were not BLM sympathizers or at least documented to be so, and found Chauvin guilty anyway. Unless this juror was particularly charismatic, had hypnosis powers, or everyone on the jury were all secretly BLM saboteurs, this stinks of "Derek Chauvin was not judged by a jury of his peers because they weren't all white".

[Ethel mermania]

He lied on the juror questionnaire.

Any proof of this? Because I have only seen this on Daily Mail reporting, but with no mention of what the question actually was, and how the explanation was worded.

If he had to answer whether he want to any demonstrations on the death of George Floyd, and the went to a BLM protest against general police violence, even if Floyd's relatives had a platform, he would have truthfully answered 'no'. Don't elevate the idea that he lied to fact just yet.

Since you ignored shof's response to you the first time.

viewtopic.php?p=38616413#p38616413

[-SARS-]

Eh... If someone lied on the juror questionnaire, that's a bigger issue than Maxine Waters running her mouth or whatever. So that may be a legitimate criticism of how the trial was conducted.

That said, I still believe that Chauvin committed a crime and belongs in prison.

[The Black Forrest]

So I presume we can look forward to this sort of character assassination if a hypothetical retrial also votes to convict.

It’s not character assassination if you lie during the interview process. He was asked about protesting, etc., and he lied about it. They do warn you about making up answers.

If he had said yes; he most like would have filtered out and at most questioned if he made to the challenge phase.

Now here is the problem. If he lied on the paperwork when there is the chance of punishment, he most likely would have lied during the verbal part.

I don’t know about you, I know what shirts I have and I have many comic and anime/manga shirts. I don’t buy not remembering if he owned it comment. If he is going to lie he should have stuck with “don’t remember wearing it”

His selfish desires have a pretty good chance of getting the trial tossed…..

[Grinning Dragon]

So I presume we can look forward to this sort of character assassination if a hypothetical retrial also votes to convict.

It’s not character assassination if you lie during the interview process. He was asked about protesting, etc., and he lied about it. They do warn you about making up answers.

If he had said yes; he most like would have filtered out and at most questioned if he made to the challenge phase.

Now here is the problem. If he lied on the paperwork when there is the chance of punishment, he most likely would have lied during the verbal part.

I don’t know about you, I know what shirts I have and I have many comic and anime/manga shirts. I don’t buy not remembering if he owned it comment. If he is going to lie he should have stuck with “don’t remember wearing it”

His selfish desires have a pretty good chance of getting the trial tossed…..

TBH, it never ceases to amaze me the lengths some jurors go to get their 15min of fame after a trial and go on just about every morning talk show they can get booked on.
The next question is, if shitbrick kept his mouth shut would this still have been found out that he lied both on the questionnaire and verbally during voir dire?
Because of shitbrick's actions and it does lead to a mistrial, do you suspect more riots and looting? And if so, who is the mob going to blame? Shitbrick or the court system?

[Adamede]

It's not about knowing what happened, foreknowledge doesn't equal bias. the juror went our and protested the event, and lied about it on the juror questionnaire. Big difference

Wanting fair treatment for all people isn't a bias against the defendant either. You wouldn't have a jury if that was the requirement.

Would you want someone seen wearing a thin blue line shirt of the jury?

I heard some wise words I forget where, but very relevant to a lot of bullshit going on:

"When you are accustomed to privilege, equality will feel like oppression"

Meaningless words that don’t relate to what anyone is discussing here.

So I presume we can look forward to this sort of character assassination if a hypothetical retrial also votes to convict.

Someone questioning your potential biases isn’t a character assassination.

[Heaven Hieghts]

If business aristocrats can get away with claiming that obvious conflicts of interest don't count as conflicts of interest, I think this juror can get away with holding a specific political point of view without being discriminated against in the trial.

This "one juror lied on their questionnaire" nonsense ignores the fact that the rest or the majority of the other jurors did not, were not BLM sympathizers or at least documented to be so, and found Chauvin guilty anyway. Unless this juror was particularly charismatic, had hypnosis powers, or everyone on the jury were all secretly BLM saboteurs, this stinks of "Derek Chauvin was not judged by a jury of his peers because they weren't all white".

I agree with this largely; to what extent have the political leanings of the other jurors been examined?

This is not to say that lying on the juror questionnaire isn't problematic, but I'm not sure that there would be such an acute focus on this, especially by media, if the trial itself were not so divisive.

[Gravlen]

Please stop saying it can lead to a mistrial. It cannot. The trial is over and done with, and the jury reached a verdict. A mistrial occurs if and only if a trial is cancelled / stopped without a verdict.

What you're trying to say is that it might be overturned on appeal (reversed and remanded), or that the presiding judge grants a motion for a new trial. That is something different from a mistrial.

[Heaven Hieghts]

Because of shitbrick's actions and it does lead to a mistrial, do you suspect more riots and looting? And if so, who is the mob going to blame? Shitbrick or the court system?

Probably the court system.

His lie is grounds to appeal for sure, but I doubt anything substantial will come of it.

[Ethel mermania]

Please stop saying it can lead to a mistrial. It cannot. The trial is over and done with, and the jury reached a verdict. A mistrial occurs if and only if a trial is cancelled / stopped without a verdict.

What you're trying to say is that it might be overturned on appeal (reversed and remanded), or that the presiding judge grants a motion for a new trial. That is something different from a mistrial.

This is correct. My mistake.

[Kowani]

Chauvin's filed for a new trial

Former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin filed an appeal for a new trial Tuesday after being convicted last month of murdering George Floyd.

Chauvin’s attorney, Eric Nelson, filed the request alleging that Chauvin's ability to have a fair trial was affected by pretrial publicity. The motion alleges that the court abused its discretion by denying the requests for a change in venue and a new trial.

Since the court failed to sequester the jury or "admonish them to avoid all media," they were not only subjected to prejudicial publicity but also "jury intimidation or potential fear of retribution," Nelson's filing said.

[North Washington Republic]

Chauvin's filed for a new trial

Former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin filed an appeal for a new trial Tuesday after being convicted last month of murdering George Floyd.

Chauvin’s attorney, Eric Nelson, filed the request alleging that Chauvin's ability to have a fair trial was affected by pretrial publicity. The motion alleges that the court abused its discretion by denying the requests for a change in venue and a new trial.

Since the court failed to sequester the jury or "admonish them to avoid all media," they were not only subjected to prejudicial publicity but also "jury intimidation or potential fear of retribution," Nelson's filing said.

Predictable. Pretty sure the motion is going to fail.

[The Rich Port]

Chauvin's filed for a new trial

Former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin filed an appeal for a new trial Tuesday after being convicted last month of murdering George Floyd.

Chauvin’s attorney, Eric Nelson, filed the request alleging that Chauvin's ability to have a fair trial was affected by pretrial publicity. The motion alleges that the court abused its discretion by denying the requests for a change in venue and a new trial.

Since the court failed to sequester the jury or "admonish them to avoid all media," they were not only subjected to prejudicial publicity but also "jury intimidation or potential fear of retribution," Nelson's filing said.

Predictable. Pretty sure the motion is going to fail.

Especially considering that apparently that juror questionnaire thing was supposedly a slam dunk for any kind of appeal.

Chauvin's lawyer is either an amateur or that questionnaire stuff is bunk.

[North Washington Republic]

Predictable. Pretty sure the motion is going to fail.

Especially considering that apparently that juror questionnaire thing was supposedly a slam dunk for any kind of appeal.

Chauvin's lawyer is either an amateur or that questionnaire stuff is bunk.

He is definitely NOT an amateur. He is defending his client and wants to make it look like he fights like hell for future clients.

[Fahran]

Especially considering that apparently that juror questionnaire thing was supposedly a slam dunk for any kind of appeal.

Chauvin's lawyer is either an amateur or that questionnaire stuff is bunk.

It's also possible that they're really angling for a venue change. I don't think this'll make much difference in the long-term. The evidence was overwhelming in the last trial.

[North Washington Republic]

Especially considering that apparently that juror questionnaire thing was supposedly a slam dunk for any kind of appeal.

Chauvin's lawyer is either an amateur or that questionnaire stuff is bunk.

It's also possible that they're really angling for a venue change. I don't think this'll make much difference in the long-term. The evidence was overwhelming in the last trial.

Indeed. Especially with the police, including the police chief and the longest serving member of the force testifying against Chauvin. That testimony was the most damning in my opinion, along with the testimony from the bystanders. However, I believe the former gives the type of impact that the most staunch “blue lives matter” folks can’t dispute.

[Kowani]

It's also possible that they're really angling for a venue change. I don't think this'll make much difference in the long-term. The evidence was overwhelming in the last trial.

Indeed. Especially with the police, including the police chief and the longest serving member of the force testifying against Chauvin. That testimony was the most damning in my opinion, along with the testimony from the bystanders. However, I believe the former gives the type of impact that the most staunch “blue lives matter” folks can’t dispute.

and yet somehow, 46% of republicans disagreed
almost like "blue lives matter" isn't actually about supporting police

[San Lumen]

Thanks for the above explanation!

Yes that was extremely stupid. If I had to guess; I am getting the feeling he is an opportunist? Anyway; I am now on the “Shit!” side and can see this could very well be a mistrial.

You're very welcome, even though you quoted Kowani

I do want to point out that Chauvin is still going to be spending years in jail, no matter the outcome. The question right now if whether or not it'll be years or decades.

If there is a mistrial why would he go to jail for years?