Trial of Derek Chauvin: A Juror Supported What?!

[Adamede]

Yah I don’t see how you can’t sense some form of bias there dude.

Now prove that it actually influenced the decisions.

Funny that the straw salesperson is now interested in proof.

I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know exactly this shit works in regard to jury selection and bias of jurors, but tell me would you be okay with some who went to a protest dressed ins thin blue like or blue lives matter shirt on the jury?

[Shofercia]

He went to a BLM protest in Minneapolis, and lied on the juror questionnaire about it. So yes there is enough to question the jurors integrity, and he should be prosecuted for perjury.

It’s not enough to overturn the result.

Expecting a completely impartial jury is rather silly in the age of high speed communications. This was a extremely publicized event and then add in the public pressure.

People can be biased and still evaluate.

An impartial jury is a Constitutional guarantee and I doubt that every single person watches the news. Also, the 11 other jurors have, thus far, passed the impartiality test, so it's not as impossible as you're suggesting.

It's also a trial by your peers and if all your peers happen to think killing random black people for no reason is bad well you're just shit out of luck.

Somehow the other 11 jurors managed to pass the impartiality test. Must've been magic.

Vass if the juror withheld evidence of bias, it was malpractice. While I think Chauvin deserves to spend forever in prison, we can't just ignore blatant wrongdoings on the side of the jury or else this could keep happening again and again.

But similarly, you can’t assume wrongdoing every time the Daily Mail alleges it.

There were numerous other sources posted, aside from the Daily Mail.

No, you can have foreknowledge and not be biased, you can't protest the event and then claim an honest evaluation of it.

As mentioned previously, I think the trial should have been moved. I dont think the result would be different. Whether I like him or not Chauvin is entitled to fair process, and I am not seeing him getting it

It wasn't and in my view he got a fair trial. The standard your using would likely mean no jury is impartial and therefore i can;'t see it holding up in court.

And yet, 11 other jurors held up to Ethel's standard.

[Neutraligon]

The reason for the question is to determine if the juror already had their decision made. By being at the protest in that shirt, it suggests that they have already made their decision and as such regardless of evidence would choose guilty, regardless of evidence.

[Shofercia]

No, you can have foreknowledge and not be biased, you can't protest the event and then claim an honest evaluation of it.

As mentioned previously, I think the trial should have been moved. I dont think the result would be different. Whether I like him or not Chauvin is entitled to fair process, and I am not seeing him getting it

It wasn't and in my view he got a fair trial. The standard your using would likely mean no jury is impartial and therefore i can;'t see it holding up in court.

If you can find 11 impartial jurors, you can find 12 impartial jurors. Not that difficult.

No, you can have foreknowledge and not be biased, you can't protest the event and then claim an honest evaluation of it.

As mentioned previously, I think the trial should have been moved. I dont think the result would be different. Whether I like him or not Chauvin is entitled to fair process, and I am not seeing him getting it

Sure you can. As a jurist you are given what to evaluate even then bias is not really a rule of measure. We all biased on just about everything. We still have the capacity to evaluate as per rules even when we have issues with them. People who can’t “usually” get eliminated through the interview process.

We have this guy with his bias for blm. What about the other 11? Nobody biased towards the police?

Once again, you only need one partial juror for a mistrial.

How was he not impartial? By the standard your using no juror would ever be truly impartial.

Except for the other 11 jurors. Who's grasping at straws now?

[Vassenor]

Now prove that it actually influenced the decisions.

Funny that the straw salesperson is now interested in proof.

I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know exactly this shit works in regard to jury selection and bias of jurors, but tell me would you be okay with some who went to a protest dressed ins thin blue like or blue lives matter shirt on the jury?

So all you have is a lame-ass tu quoque.

[Shofercia]

Funny that the straw salesperson is now interested in proof.

I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know exactly this shit works in regard to jury selection and bias of jurors, but tell me would you be okay with some who went to a protest dressed ins thin blue like or blue lives matter shirt on the jury?

So all you have is a lame-ass tu quoque.

You're demanding proof that's not actually required for the appeal, you do know that, right Vass?

[Adamede]

Funny that the straw salesperson is now interested in proof.

I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know exactly this shit works in regard to jury selection and bias of jurors, but tell me would you be okay with some who went to a protest dressed ins thin blue like or blue lives matter shirt on the jury?

So all you have is a lame-ass tu quoque.

Better than misrepresenting the arguments of literally everyone I disagree with on near every single post.

[San Lumen]

So all you have is a lame-ass tu quoque.

You're demanding proof that's not actually required for the appeal, you do know that, right Vass?

I doubt the court of appeals overturns the verdict.

[Vassenor]

So all you have is a lame-ass tu quoque.

Better than misrepresenting the arguments of literally everyone I disagree with on near every single post.

Tu quoque and ad hominem.

[Shofercia]

You're demanding proof that's not actually required for the appeal, you do know that, right Vass?

I doubt the court of appeals overturns the verdict.

You also doubted that Chauvin would be convicted.

Better than misrepresenting the arguments of literally everyone I disagree with on near every single post.

Tu quoque and ad hominem.

You mean like when you implied that I wanted to let Chauvin go free, when I repeatedly stated that he should be convicted for Manslaughter by an impartial jury?

[San Lumen]

I doubt the court of appeals overturns the verdict.

You also doubted that Chauvin would be convicted.

Tu quoque and ad hominem.

You mean like when you implied that I wanted to let Chauvin go free, when I repeatedly stated that he should be convicted for Manslaughter by an impartial jury?

That's because I have so little faith in the justice system at this point.

[The Black Forrest]

It’s not enough to overturn the result.

Expecting a completely impartial jury is rather silly in the age of high speed communications. This was a extremely publicized event and then add in the public pressure.

People can be biased and still evaluate.

An impartial jury is a Constitutional guarantee and I doubt that every single person watches the news. Also, the 11 other jurors have, thus far, passed the impartiality test, so it's not as impossible as you're suggesting.

You are also excluding social media. News appear there as evidence in social debate issues. Hell even here there have been people who jokingly said they get their news here.

If you have Net access; the aspect of complete impartiality decreases.

Question: have the other 11 jurists been measured on impartiality?

BLM for the large part is a “boogeyman” organization so the news will focus on that. I am sure they are digging around on the other 11 to see. Even then; did this guy sway the jury?

I was almost seated on a jury. I saw a guy who went on a “fucking police” tirade get seated. The judge interviewed him and the guy admitted he could have an open mind on the case in question (was a murder case). I was challenged and even heard others say “really????”. A lawyer friend later explained it was probably because you have a habit of stroking your chin when you ponder things. Not always a positive thing for many lawyers. So what left this guy without being challenged? Defense used up their challenges?

[The Black Forrest]

Sure you can. As a jurist you are given what to evaluate even then bias is not really a rule of measure. We all biased on just about everything. We still have the capacity to evaluate as per rules even when we have issues with them. People who can’t “usually” get eliminated through the interview process.

We have this guy with his bias for blm. What about the other 11? Nobody biased towards the police?

Once again, you only need one partial juror for a mistrial.

Indeed. That needs to be proven. Wearing a tshirt and attending a rally does suggest it. Still it needs to be proved he went in with his mind set.

[Shofercia]

You also doubted that Chauvin would be convicted.




You mean like when you implied that I wanted to let Chauvin go free, when I repeatedly stated that he should be convicted for Manslaughter by an impartial jury?

That's because I have so little faith in the justice system at this point.

And yet you totally trust a non-impartial jury because they reached a verdict that you like...

An impartial jury is a Constitutional guarantee and I doubt that every single person watches the news. Also, the 11 other jurors have, thus far, passed the impartiality test, so it's not as impossible as you're suggesting.

You are also excluding social media. News appear there as evidence in social debate issues. Hell even here there have been people who jokingly said they get their news here.

If you have Net access; the aspect of complete impartiality decreases.

Question: have the other 11 jurists been measured on impartiality?

BLM for the large part is a “boogeyman” organization so the news will focus on that. I am sure they are digging around on the other 11 to see. Even then; did this guy sway the jury?

I was almost seated on a jury. I saw a guy who went on a “fucking police” tirade get seated. The judge interviewed him and the guy admitted he could have an open mind on the case in question (was a murder case). I was challenged and even heard others say “really????”. A lawyer friend later explained it was probably because you have a habit of stroking your chin when you ponder things. Not always a positive thing for many lawyers. So what left this guy without being challenged? Defense used up their challenges?

Putting on a t-shirt is an affirmation, akin to liking a post, and shows bias. Viewing a t-shirt isn't. If a juror merely read BLM commentary, that's perfectly fine. If a juror went ahead and liked the BLM chant "cops... fry like bacon" that's not ok, that's heavily biased. Being bombarded by the media is one thing, while accepting said bombardment is another; one's biased and the other isn't.

I'm going to ignore the anecdotal story, and once again point out that he didn't need to sway the jury; all the defense needs to do is to prove that he's not impartial, that's it.

[The Nihilistic view]

It’s not enough to overturn the result.

Expecting a completely impartial jury is rather silly in the age of high speed communications. This was a extremely publicized event and then add in the public pressure.

People can be biased and still evaluate.

No, you can have foreknowledge and not be biased, you can't protest the event and then claim an honest evaluation of it.

As mentioned previously, I think the trial should have been moved. I dont think the result would be different. Whether I like him or not Chauvin is entitled to fair process, and I am not seeing him getting it

Short of a recently discovered Amazonian tribe you aren't finding a jurisdiction where people have any less knowledge of what happened.

[The Black Forrest]

[

You are also excluding social media. News appear there as evidence in social debate issues. Hell even here there have been people who jokingly said they get their news here.

If you have Net access; the aspect of complete impartiality decreases.

Question: have the other 11 jurists been measured on impartiality?

BLM for the large part is a “boogeyman” organization so the news will focus on that. I am sure they are digging around on the other 11 to see. Even then; did this guy sway the jury?

I was almost seated on a jury. I saw a guy who went on a “fucking police” tirade get seated. The judge interviewed him and the guy admitted he could have an open mind on the case in question (was a murder case). I was challenged and even heard others say “really????”. A lawyer friend later explained it was probably because you have a habit of stroking your chin when you ponder things. Not always a positive thing for many lawyers. So what left this guy without being challenged? Defense used up their challenges?

Putting on a t-shirt is an affirmation, akin to liking a post, and shows bias. Viewing a t-shirt isn't. If a juror merely read BLM commentary, that's perfectly fine. If a juror went ahead and liked the BLM chant "cops... fry like bacon" that's not ok, that's heavily biased. Being bombarded by the media is one thing, while accepting said bombardment is another; one's biased and the other isn't.

I'm going to ignore the anecdotal story, and once again point out that he didn't need to sway the jury; all the defense needs to do is to prove that he's not impartial, that's it.

Ahh anecdotal dismissal.

Still as you said the defense still has to prove he was.

Not sure they can.

[Ethel mermania]

No, you can have foreknowledge and not be biased, you can't protest the event and then claim an honest evaluation of it.

As mentioned previously, I think the trial should have been moved. I dont think the result would be different. Whether I like him or not Chauvin is entitled to fair process, and I am not seeing him getting it

Sure you can. As a jurist you are given what to evaluate even then bias is not really a rule of measure. We all biased on just about everything. We still have the capacity to evaluate as per rules even when we have issues with them. People who can’t “usually” get eliminated through the interview process.

We have this guy with his bias for blm. What about the other 11? Nobody biased towards the police?

If he had answered the questionnaire honestly he would have been excused. He didn't, the jury was tainted. It should be a mistrial

[San Lumen]

Sure you can. As a jurist you are given what to evaluate even then bias is not really a rule of measure. We all biased on just about everything. We still have the capacity to evaluate as per rules even when we have issues with them. People who can’t “usually” get eliminated through the interview process.

We have this guy with his bias for blm. What about the other 11? Nobody biased towards the police?

If he had answered the questionnaire honestly he would have been excused. He didn't, the jury was tainted. It should be a mistrial

I am failing to see how this shows he wasn't impartial.

[Ethel mermania]

No, you can have foreknowledge and not be biased, you can't protest the event and then claim an honest evaluation of it.

As mentioned previously, I think the trial should have been moved. I dont think the result would be different. Whether I like him or not Chauvin is entitled to fair process, and I am not seeing him getting it

Short of a recently discovered Amazonian tribe you aren't finding a jurisdiction where people have any less knowledge of what happened.

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

[Heloin]

Sure you can. As a jurist you are given what to evaluate even then bias is not really a rule of measure. We all biased on just about everything. We still have the capacity to evaluate as per rules even when we have issues with them. People who can’t “usually” get eliminated through the interview process.

We have this guy with his bias for blm. What about the other 11? Nobody biased towards the police?

If he had answered the questionnaire honestly he would have been excused. He didn't, the jury was tainted. It should be a mistrial

Maybe he did answer the questionnaire honestly and wasn't. Maybe the defence looked at this individual during the interview stage and decided yes, they can be impartial for a trial.

Has the defence pushed for a mistrial on account of this juror?

[Neutraligon]

If he had answered the questionnaire honestly he would have been excused. He didn't, the jury was tainted. It should be a mistrial

I am failing to see how this shows he wasn't impartial.

It suggests his mind was already made up before the trial. In court, the presumption is innocent until shown to be guilty, but if he did go to protest with that shirt on, it suggests he instead was going in with a presumption of guilt.

[Neutraligon]

If he had answered the questionnaire honestly he would have been excused. He didn't, the jury was tainted. It should be a mistrial

Maybe he did answer the questionnaire honestly and wasn't. Maybe the defence looked at this individual during the interview stage and decided yes, they can be impartial for a trial.

Has the defence pushed for a mistrial on account of this juror?

This is just coming out, so for all we know, they are just learning of this.

[The Black Forrest]

Sure you can. As a jurist you are given what to evaluate even then bias is not really a rule of measure. We all biased on just about everything. We still have the capacity to evaluate as per rules even when we have issues with them. People who can’t “usually” get eliminated through the interview process.

We have this guy with his bias for blm. What about the other 11? Nobody biased towards the police?

If he had answered the questionnaire honestly he would have been excused. He didn't, the jury was tainted. It should be a mistrial

Sure there is that possibility and that would depend on the questions asked. Even then they are not always a guaranteed dismisal. There is also the interview pre-emptive challenge phase (assuming it’s the same as I went through). The questionnaire was long and more then a few were the same question asked different ways. I guess as a way to get at your thinking…..

[San Lumen]

I am failing to see how this shows he wasn't impartial.

It suggests his mind was already made up before the trial. In court, the presumption is innocent until shown to be guilty, but if he did go to protest with that shirt on, it suggests he instead was going in with a presumption of guilt.

I don't think the court of appeals overturns the verdict.

[Ethel mermania]

If he had answered the questionnaire honestly he would have been excused. He didn't, the jury was tainted. It should be a mistrial

Maybe he did answer the questionnaire honestly and wasn't. Maybe the defence looked at this individual during the interview stage and decided yes, they can be impartial for a trial.

Has the defence pushed for a mistrial on account of this juror?

Dunno,

This is all fresh news to me