NATION

PASSWORD

Trial of Derek Chauvin: A Juror Supported What?!

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

Is Derek Chauvin Guilty?

Yes, he was completely responsible.
593
62%
I don’t know. I need more information first.
78
8%
No, Floyd had a heart attack.
71
7%
No, Floyd had a drug overdose.
180
19%
Other
35
4%
 
Total votes : 957

User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 113914
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Father Knows Best State

Postby Ethel mermania » Tue May 04, 2021 4:36 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Shofercia wrote:
You're very welcome, even though you quoted Kowani :P

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?

If its manslaughter v murder on the retrial
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.

http://www.salientpartners.com/epsilont ... ilizations

User avatar
Atheris
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5821
Founded: Oct 05, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Atheris » Tue May 04, 2021 4:39 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Shofercia wrote:
You're very welcome, even though you quoted Kowani :P

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?

Because it's not about his conviction. His conviction is being upheld; the charges aren't.
Kannap wrote:It is I, the stranger in the night who cuts the power lines with hedge clippers
Valentine Z wrote:**a m b i e n c e**
Kick cancer's ass for me, Owlograd!
hmm, today i will let 'er rip
The self-proclaimed Resident Shitposter of NSG.
Proudly sex-repulsed ace and bisensual aro. Cis he/him. Trans ally. ADHD.
"To comment is human, to preview, divine." - Godot
Orthodox Preterist non-denominational Christian Universalist.
I write fanfiction. Fuck you if you judge me. (Currently writing: untitled - What if Jessie survived Platefall?)
Pirate Politics are fucking awesome.

User avatar
Neutraligon
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 36627
Founded: Oct 01, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Neutraligon » Tue May 04, 2021 5:07 pm

The Rich Port wrote:
North Washington Republic wrote:
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.


Considering that info just came out, this filing might have been in the works for a bit and they need some time to get the new filing out.
If you want to call me by a nickname, call me Gon...or NS Batman.
Mod stuff: One Stop Rules Shop | Reppy's Sig Workshop | Getting Help Request
Just A Little though

User avatar
Postauthoritarian America
Diplomat
 
Posts: 811
Founded: Nov 07, 2020
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Postauthoritarian America » Tue May 04, 2021 5:14 pm

Shofercia wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
How? Chauvin shouldn’t get a new trial were he could possibly get acquitted. I see no evidence of how this juror tainted the verdict.


You don't need to see that. All Chauvin's attorney has to prove is that the single juror went to a rally wearing a BLM t-shirt, and that BLM is heavily anti-cop, in order to show heavy bias on said juror's part, and there's the photo of him actually doing that:

Image


San Lumen wrote:
A new trial is a waste of time and money and what’s to say the new jury wouldn’t acquit after a mistrial.

What evidence is there he was heavily biased?


See above. Also, everyone's owed a fair trial, even if they're as guilty as sin, or as guilty as Chauvin, irrespective of whether it's a waste of money or not. The government wastes plenty of money, rather heroically, on things like an upgrade of public transportation in San Francisco as workers are fleeing the city, and I'd be happy to discuss how to save money with you in another thread.


Um no. The defense's lift is a lot heavier than that. tl;dr it ain't happening.

First the defense has to move that the jury's verdict be vacated, which local media reports they did today.

Then, assuming the judge allows one, there has to be what in Minnesota is called a Schwartz hearing. That gets its name from a state supreme court case, Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co. from 1960 where the court found that even though a juror concealed the fact that his daughter had been injured in a similar accident during voir dire, the jury verdict must stand because an investigator for the defense had contacted the juror directly.

During the Schwartz hearing the juror(s) are placed under oath and examined by counsel for both sides and the judge. Per Minnesota Rule of Evidence 606(b) the only testimony that is admissible is "whether a juror gave false answers on voir dire that concealed prejudice or bias toward one of the parties."

So the defense would have to prove a) that the juror's answers were false and b) that the juror's false answers concealed prejudice or bias toward the defendant.

If I had the vanishingly small amount of self-respect needed to be the defendant's lawyer, I would probably file exactly such a motion.

But if I were a prosecutor I would argue:

a) The juror's answers were not false. He answered that he did not attend any BLM rallies in Minneapolis and that he did not attend any other rallies opposing police violence or misconduct. The rally he attended in DC was neither a BLM rally or opposing police violence; it was a commemoration of an earlier rally.

b) The juror did not conceal prejudice or bias toward the defendant. He likewise answered truthfully about his attitudes toward BLM, "Blue Lives Matter" and every other matter raised during voir dire. It was up to the defense to dismiss him if it felt he would be prejudicial toward the defendant; it was up to the defense to raise questions to elicit that information.

Bottom line: possibly the defense didn't do a good job with this one juror. Too bad, so sad for them. Voir dire is not a confession; jurors are not required to volunteer information about their backgrounds to either the defense or the prosecution. Courts, including courts of appeal, give great weight to jury verdicts: just look how hard it is to get one overturned even when there is incontrovertible evidence of jury bias, prosecutorial and/or law enforcement misconduct, etc., etc., etc.

What is different about the Chauvin case is that a white defendant -- a white cop defendant -- is being treated similarly to how Black defendants have been treated in US courts, North and South, East and West, blue and red for the last several centuries. No one held hearings to look into the biases of all-white juries or police departments full of Klan members when the murderers of civil rights activists were on trial. Today the shoe is on the other foot. And for white supremacists, it's pinching.

Even if Chauvin gets another trial -- which he most likely won't -- he'll just be convicted again. If I were him I'd take what I got from the first one rather than risk a still-worse outcome from the second.

"And further deponent sayeth not."
8:46 | "There are but two parties now: traitors and patriots. And I want hereafter to be ranked with the latter and, I trust, the stronger party." -- Ulysses S. Grant, 1861 | "You don't get mulligans in insurrection." | "Today's Republican Party is America's and the world's largest white supremacist organization." | "I didn't vote to overturn an election, and I will not be lectured by people who did about partisanship." -- Rep. Gerry Connolly

User avatar
Immortan Khan
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 393
Founded: Mar 17, 2021
Corporate Police State

Postby Immortan Khan » Tue May 04, 2021 5:22 pm

The march that he attended was actually in part about anti-police violence and was literally named "Get Your Knee Off Our Necks". IMO Chauvin should probably receive a new trial because of this recent revelation, then we can watch him get convicted again.
Anti-Australia. Anti-America. Anti-Ireland. Anti-Germany. Anti-Kurdistan. Anti-left and anti-right. Anti-"trads". Pro-shitposting. Christianity is incomplete without a King.

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 69045
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Tue May 04, 2021 5:22 pm

San Lumen wrote:

Try a better source then daily mail. It’s rated as a questionable source on media bias fact check.

How about The Hill?

Rated as very balanced, mostly factual by media bias fact check.

https://thehill.com/changing-america/re ... test-could

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-hill/
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
The Black Forrest
Post Czar
 
Posts: 44910
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Black Forrest » Tue May 04, 2021 5:23 pm

Immortan Khan wrote:The march that he attended was actually in part about anti-police violence and was literally named "Get Your Knee Off Our Necks". IMO Chauvin should probably receive a new trial because of this recent revelation, then we can watch him get convicted again.


Do you promise his eyes will be moving around the room looking for escape points like before?
Last edited by The Black Forrest on Wed May 05, 2021 12:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
*I am a master proofreader after I click Submit.
* There is actually a War on Christmas. But Christmas started it, with it's unparalleled aggression against the Thanksgiving Holiday, and now Christmas has seized much Lebensraum in November, and are pushing into October. The rest of us seek to repel these invaders, and push them back to the status quo ante bellum Black Friday border. -Trotskylvania
* Silence Is Golden But Duct Tape Is Silver.
* I felt like Ayn Rand cornered me at a party, and three minutes in I found my first objection to what she was saying, but she kept talking without interruption for ten more days. - Max Barry talking about Atlas Shrugged

User avatar
Postauthoritarian America
Diplomat
 
Posts: 811
Founded: Nov 07, 2020
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Postauthoritarian America » Tue May 04, 2021 5:24 pm

Immortan Khan wrote:The march that he attended was actually in part about anti-police violence and was literally named "Get Your Knee Off Our Necks". IMO Chauvin should probably receive a new trial because of this recent revelation, then we can watch him get convicted again.


Tell it to the judge.
8:46 | "There are but two parties now: traitors and patriots. And I want hereafter to be ranked with the latter and, I trust, the stronger party." -- Ulysses S. Grant, 1861 | "You don't get mulligans in insurrection." | "Today's Republican Party is America's and the world's largest white supremacist organization." | "I didn't vote to overturn an election, and I will not be lectured by people who did about partisanship." -- Rep. Gerry Connolly

User avatar
The Reformed American Republic
Senator
 
Posts: 3941
Founded: May 23, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Reformed American Republic » Tue May 04, 2021 5:24 pm

Galloism wrote:
San Lumen wrote:Try a better source then daily mail. It’s rated as a questionable source on media bias fact check.

How about The Hill?

Rated as very balanced, mostly factual by media bias fact check.

https://thehill.com/changing-america/re ... test-could

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-hill/

Technicality that can throw out conviction.
If you oppose fascism supposedly because it violates rights and destroys democracy, all while expressing solidarity with North Korea, you are no defender of democracy or rights, but rather simply do not like the competition with others who seek to violate rights.

User avatar
Immortan Khan
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 393
Founded: Mar 17, 2021
Corporate Police State

Postby Immortan Khan » Tue May 04, 2021 5:25 pm

The Black Forrest wrote:
Immortan Khan wrote:The march that he attended was actually in part about anti-police violence and was literally named "Get Your Knee Off Our Necks". IMO Chauvin should probably receive a new trial because of this recent revelation, then we can watch him get convicted again.


Do you promise his eyes will be moving around the room look for escape points like before?

Yes.
Postauthoritarian America wrote:
Immortan Khan wrote:The march that he attended was actually in part about anti-police violence and was literally named "Get Your Knee Off Our Necks". IMO Chauvin should probably receive a new trial because of this recent revelation, then we can watch him get convicted again.


Tell it to the judge.
I'm not his lawyer.
Anti-Australia. Anti-America. Anti-Ireland. Anti-Germany. Anti-Kurdistan. Anti-left and anti-right. Anti-"trads". Pro-shitposting. Christianity is incomplete without a King.

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 69045
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Tue May 04, 2021 5:26 pm

The Reformed American Republic wrote:
Galloism wrote:How about The Hill?

Rated as very balanced, mostly factual by media bias fact check.

https://thehill.com/changing-america/re ... test-could

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-hill/

Technicality that can throw out conviction.

Possibly, but I hope not. I don't really want to go through all this again.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 113914
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Father Knows Best State

Postby Ethel mermania » Tue May 04, 2021 5:50 pm

Galloism wrote:
The Reformed American Republic wrote:Technicality that can throw out conviction.

Possibly, but I hope not. I don't really want to go through all this again.

The problem is then its not a fair trial. If Chauvin were eligible for the death penalty, I would be happy to give it to him. But without a retrial justice is not being served and in fact is being sacraficed for expediency
Last edited by Ethel mermania on Tue May 04, 2021 5:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.

http://www.salientpartners.com/epsilont ... ilizations

User avatar
Shofercia
Post Czar
 
Posts: 30643
Founded: Feb 22, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Shofercia » Tue May 04, 2021 6:12 pm

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


Stating a fact in context is now character assassination according to Vass.


The Rich Port wrote: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".


Here's the thing: ya only need one for a motion on appeal that could grant a new trial. Those are the rules, I don't make 'em, I just read 'em.


Heaven Hieghts wrote:
The Rich Port wrote: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.


The extreme majority of NSGers agree that Chauvin is guilty. That ain't divisive. It's just that most of us also want a fair jury trial, because, as the Democrats learned the hard way with Merrick Garland, Republicans are quite good an amplifying any shenanigans. If you say that an impartial jury is no longer required in obvious cases like this one, then the other side might redefine what an obvious case is, and America's jails are going to be even more of a fuckfest than they are today.


Kowani wrote: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.


That's a dumb move. The only way the appeal can be granted, is by arguing for the totality of the circumstances, not throwing out motions piecemeal.
Stonk Power! No Period of Self-Reflection needed!
Come, learn about Russian Culture! Bring Vodka and Ushanka. Interested in Slavic Culture? Fill this out.
If we tell the radical Republicans that there's proof that Global Warming doesn't exist in Death Valley, and the radical Democrats that there's proof of Russian Collusion there, would we have a better America?

(North) Kosovo is (a de facto part of) Serbia and Crimea is (a de facto part of) Russia! DonBass is De Facto Independent! Let's have a Referendum for NovoRossiya!
Tecumseh was a Real American

User avatar
Shofercia
Post Czar
 
Posts: 30643
Founded: Feb 22, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Shofercia » Tue May 04, 2021 6:17 pm

The Rich Port wrote:
North Washington Republic wrote:
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.


Or he made a mistake and failed to realize it's value. Or someone on his team didn't yet point out the value. Even capable attorneys make mistakes, we're all human.


San Lumen wrote:
Shofercia wrote:
You're very welcome, even though you quoted Kowani :P

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?


Because he's still under arrest, pending trial and/or appeal, while bail's denied. A tainted jury doesn't mean that he's innocent. A tainted jury means just that - the jury was tainted. Arrest warrant's still valid. No bail ruling's still valid. Just because the jury was tainted, doesn't mean that those two thingies I mentioned suddenly disappear.


Immortan Khan wrote:The march that he attended was actually in part about anti-police violence and was literally named "Get Your Knee Off Our Necks". IMO Chauvin should probably receive a new trial because of this recent revelation, then we can watch him get convicted again.


But muh character assassination! /sarcasm


Galloism wrote:
San Lumen wrote:Try a better source then daily mail. It’s rated as a questionable source on media bias fact check.

How about The Hill?

Rated as very balanced, mostly factual by media bias fact check.

https://thehill.com/changing-america/re ... test-could

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-hill/


The Hill's a good source.


The Black Forrest wrote:
Immortan Khan wrote:The march that he attended was actually in part about anti-police violence and was literally named "Get Your Knee Off Our Necks". IMO Chauvin should probably receive a new trial because of this recent revelation, then we can watch him get convicted again.


Do you promise his eyes will be moving around the room look for escape points like before?


Considering that it looks like that he's still in denial about getting Manslaughter, I'd say so.
Last edited by Shofercia on Tue May 04, 2021 6:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Stonk Power! No Period of Self-Reflection needed!
Come, learn about Russian Culture! Bring Vodka and Ushanka. Interested in Slavic Culture? Fill this out.
If we tell the radical Republicans that there's proof that Global Warming doesn't exist in Death Valley, and the radical Democrats that there's proof of Russian Collusion there, would we have a better America?

(North) Kosovo is (a de facto part of) Serbia and Crimea is (a de facto part of) Russia! DonBass is De Facto Independent! Let's have a Referendum for NovoRossiya!
Tecumseh was a Real American

User avatar
Shofercia
Post Czar
 
Posts: 30643
Founded: Feb 22, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Shofercia » Tue May 04, 2021 6:30 pm

Postauthoritarian America wrote:
Shofercia wrote:
You don't need to see that. All Chauvin's attorney has to prove is that the single juror went to a rally wearing a BLM t-shirt, and that BLM is heavily anti-cop, in order to show heavy bias on said juror's part, and there's the photo of him actually doing that:

(Image)




See above. Also, everyone's owed a fair trial, even if they're as guilty as sin, or as guilty as Chauvin, irrespective of whether it's a waste of money or not. The government wastes plenty of money, rather heroically, on things like an upgrade of public transportation in San Francisco as workers are fleeing the city, and I'd be happy to discuss how to save money with you in another thread.


Um no. The defense's lift is a lot heavier than that. tl;dr it ain't happening.

First the defense has to move that the jury's verdict be vacated, which local media reports they did today.

Then, assuming the judge allows one, there has to be what in Minnesota is called a Schwartz hearing. That gets its name from a state supreme court case, Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co. from 1960 where the court found that even though a juror concealed the fact that his daughter had been injured in a similar accident during voir dire, the jury verdict must stand because an investigator for the defense had contacted the juror directly.

During the Schwartz hearing the juror(s) are placed under oath and examined by counsel for both sides and the judge. Per Minnesota Rule of Evidence 606(b) the only testimony that is admissible is "whether a juror gave false answers on voir dire that concealed prejudice or bias toward one of the parties."

So the defense would have to prove a) that the juror's answers were false and b) that the juror's false answers concealed prejudice or bias toward the defendant.

If I had the vanishingly small amount of self-respect needed to be the defendant's lawyer, I would probably file exactly such a motion.

But if I were a prosecutor I would argue:

a) The juror's answers were not false. He answered that he did not attend any BLM rallies in Minneapolis and that he did not attend any other rallies opposing police violence or misconduct. The rally he attended in DC was neither a BLM rally or opposing police violence; it was a commemoration of an earlier rally.

b) The juror did not conceal prejudice or bias toward the defendant. He likewise answered truthfully about his attitudes toward BLM, "Blue Lives Matter" and every other matter raised during voir dire. It was up to the defense to dismiss him if it felt he would be prejudicial toward the defendant; it was up to the defense to raise questions to elicit that information.

Bottom line: possibly the defense didn't do a good job with this one juror. Too bad, so sad for them. Voir dire is not a confession; jurors are not required to volunteer information about their backgrounds to either the defense or the prosecution. Courts, including courts of appeal, give great weight to jury verdicts: just look how hard it is to get one overturned even when there is incontrovertible evidence of jury bias, prosecutorial and/or law enforcement misconduct, etc., etc., etc.

What is different about the Chauvin case is that a white defendant -- a white cop defendant -- is being treated similarly to how Black defendants have been treated in US courts, North and South, East and West, blue and red for the last several centuries. No one held hearings to look into the biases of all-white juries or police departments full of Klan members when the murderers of civil rights activists were on trial. Today the shoe is on the other foot. And for white supremacists, it's pinching.

Even if Chauvin gets another trial -- which he most likely won't -- he'll just be convicted again. If I were him I'd take what I got from the first one rather than risk a still-worse outcome from the second.

"And further deponent sayeth not."


First, he cannot get a worst outcome. He's been convicted of Murder Two. That's as bad as it can get for him. He literally, physically, figuratively, and even metaphysically cannot get a worst outcome.

Second, you quote a ruling that says that the only testimony that is admissible is "whether a juror gave false answers on voir dire that concealed prejudice or bias toward one of the parties and that's exactly what happened. The juror lied on the jury questionnaire. I've explained this:

Shofercia wrote: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/


Third, this point:

The juror's answers were not false. He answered that he did not attend any BLM rallies in Minneapolis and that he did not attend any other rallies opposing police violence or misconduct. The rally he attended in DC was neither a BLM rally or opposing police violence; it was a commemoration of an earlier rally.


is utter bullshit, because Floyd's brother and sister, Philonise and Bridgett Floyd, and family members of others who have been shot by police addressed the crowd

In what World is this not opposing police violence? That's the very definition of opposing police violence.

Fourth, this isn't about overturning a verdict. This is about a case where the jury was tainted. That's a lower standard of proof, as it only requires to prove that one juror lied on the jury questionnaire, rather than proving that the verdict needs to be overturned.

Fifth, the way that black defendants are treated is also fucked up, and I'll be happy to vote for reforms to the system. Always have been. Always will be, as long as the taint remains.
Stonk Power! No Period of Self-Reflection needed!
Come, learn about Russian Culture! Bring Vodka and Ushanka. Interested in Slavic Culture? Fill this out.
If we tell the radical Republicans that there's proof that Global Warming doesn't exist in Death Valley, and the radical Democrats that there's proof of Russian Collusion there, would we have a better America?

(North) Kosovo is (a de facto part of) Serbia and Crimea is (a de facto part of) Russia! DonBass is De Facto Independent! Let's have a Referendum for NovoRossiya!
Tecumseh was a Real American

User avatar
The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp
Post Czar
 
Posts: 34825
Founded: Dec 18, 2013
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp » Tue May 04, 2021 7:23 pm

Well shit. That one juror is now opening up a hole because he couldn't be honest with his answers.

I don't know if he will get a mistrial but this was still an error. Hopefuly he won't and will stay locked up but man this sucks.

Is he going to get a mistrial?
Last edited by The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp on Tue May 04, 2021 7:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Postauthoritarian America
Diplomat
 
Posts: 811
Founded: Nov 07, 2020
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Postauthoritarian America » Tue May 04, 2021 8:20 pm

Shofercia wrote:
Postauthoritarian America wrote:
Um no. The defense's lift is a lot heavier than that. tl;dr it ain't happening.

First the defense has to move that the jury's verdict be vacated, which local media reports they did today.

Then, assuming the judge allows one, there has to be what in Minnesota is called a Schwartz hearing. That gets its name from a state supreme court case, Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co. from 1960 where the court found that even though a juror concealed the fact that his daughter had been injured in a similar accident during voir dire, the jury verdict must stand because an investigator for the defense had contacted the juror directly.

During the Schwartz hearing the juror(s) are placed under oath and examined by counsel for both sides and the judge. Per Minnesota Rule of Evidence 606(b) the only testimony that is admissible is "whether a juror gave false answers on voir dire that concealed prejudice or bias toward one of the parties."

So the defense would have to prove a) that the juror's answers were false and b) that the juror's false answers concealed prejudice or bias toward the defendant.

If I had the vanishingly small amount of self-respect needed to be the defendant's lawyer, I would probably file exactly such a motion.

But if I were a prosecutor I would argue:

a) The juror's answers were not false. He answered that he did not attend any BLM rallies in Minneapolis and that he did not attend any other rallies opposing police violence or misconduct. The rally he attended in DC was neither a BLM rally or opposing police violence; it was a commemoration of an earlier rally.

b) The juror did not conceal prejudice or bias toward the defendant. He likewise answered truthfully about his attitudes toward BLM, "Blue Lives Matter" and every other matter raised during voir dire. It was up to the defense to dismiss him if it felt he would be prejudicial toward the defendant; it was up to the defense to raise questions to elicit that information.

Bottom line: possibly the defense didn't do a good job with this one juror. Too bad, so sad for them. Voir dire is not a confession; jurors are not required to volunteer information about their backgrounds to either the defense or the prosecution. Courts, including courts of appeal, give great weight to jury verdicts: just look how hard it is to get one overturned even when there is incontrovertible evidence of jury bias, prosecutorial and/or law enforcement misconduct, etc., etc., etc.

What is different about the Chauvin case is that a white defendant -- a white cop defendant -- is being treated similarly to how Black defendants have been treated in US courts, North and South, East and West, blue and red for the last several centuries. No one held hearings to look into the biases of all-white juries or police departments full of Klan members when the murderers of civil rights activists were on trial. Today the shoe is on the other foot. And for white supremacists, it's pinching.

Even if Chauvin gets another trial -- which he most likely won't -- he'll just be convicted again. If I were him I'd take what I got from the first one rather than risk a still-worse outcome from the second.

"And further deponent sayeth not."


First, he cannot get a worst outcome. He's been convicted of Murder Two. That's as bad as it can get for him. He literally, physically, figuratively, and even metaphysically cannot get a worst outcome.

Second, you quote a ruling that says that the only testimony that is admissible is "whether a juror gave false answers on voir dire that concealed prejudice or bias toward one of the parties and that's exactly what happened. The juror lied on the jury questionnaire. I've explained this:

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



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:



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



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/


Third, this point:

The juror's answers were not false. He answered that he did not attend any BLM rallies in Minneapolis and that he did not attend any other rallies opposing police violence or misconduct. The rally he attended in DC was neither a BLM rally or opposing police violence; it was a commemoration of an earlier rally.


is utter bullshit, because Floyd's brother and sister, Philonise and Bridgett Floyd, and family members of others who have been shot by police addressed the crowd

In what World is this not opposing police violence? That's the very definition of opposing police violence.

Fourth, this isn't about overturning a verdict. This is about a case where the jury was tainted. That's a lower standard of proof, as it only requires to prove that one juror lied on the jury questionnaire, rather than proving that the verdict needs to be overturned.

Fifth, the way that black defendants are treated is also fucked up, and I'll be happy to vote for reforms to the system. Always have been. Always will be, as long as the taint remains.


Chauvin will probably get a hearing; it was pretty clear the defense was laying the grounds for such an appeal. He won't get a new trial. No one asked the juror whether or not he took place in a march commemorating Martin Luther King jr. or ever wore a shirt with "Keep your knee off our neck" or "BLM" on it. You can think what you like about the answers he gave but the judge will find they were patently not untruthful. He was under no obligation to do anything but respond to the questions he was asked. There's no way to grant Chauvin a new trial without vacating the original jury's verdict tho; as I've pointed out the criminal legal system is most unwilling to take that step even in cases where the "bias," nonexistent in this case, is much more blatant.

One possible worse outcome for the defense would be that the prosecution could introduce the postmortem blood work that showed George Floyd could not have died from being held too close to the tailpipe of a car that was not running for ten minutes while three cops crushed the life from his body and another one stood lookout.

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Well shit. That one juror is now opening up a hole because he couldn't be honest with his answers.

I don't know if he will get a mistrial but this was still an error. Hopefuly he won't and will stay locked up but man this sucks.

Is he going to get a mistrial?


It's too late for a mistrial. The judge would have to vacate the jury verdict and order a new trial.
Last edited by Postauthoritarian America on Tue May 04, 2021 8:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
8:46 | "There are but two parties now: traitors and patriots. And I want hereafter to be ranked with the latter and, I trust, the stronger party." -- Ulysses S. Grant, 1861 | "You don't get mulligans in insurrection." | "Today's Republican Party is America's and the world's largest white supremacist organization." | "I didn't vote to overturn an election, and I will not be lectured by people who did about partisanship." -- Rep. Gerry Connolly

User avatar
Coicantrost Terbi
Secretary
 
Posts: 38
Founded: May 04, 2021
Democratic Socialists

Postby Coicantrost Terbi » Tue May 04, 2021 8:23 pm

George Floyd was a shitty human being with an extensive criminal record that included holding a woman at gunpoint while his fellow gang members robbed her house. I am not at all sad that he is dead and think that the world is better off without him.

That said, Derek Chauvin was hardly any better. He was a violent psychopath and a racist that should never have been allowed to become a police officer. I really hope that the judge decides to set an example by giving him the maximum sentence.

User avatar
Postauthoritarian America
Diplomat
 
Posts: 811
Founded: Nov 07, 2020
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Postauthoritarian America » Tue May 04, 2021 8:32 pm

Coicantrost Terbi wrote:George Floyd was a shitty human being with an extensive criminal record that included holding a woman at gunpoint while his fellow gang members robbed her house. I am not at all sad that he is dead and think that the world is better off without him.

That said, Derek Chauvin was hardly any better. He was a violent psychopath and a racist that should never have been allowed to become a police officer. I really hope that the judge decides to set an example by giving him the maximum sentence.


You might be interested in reading "George Floyd's America." It is better to be knowledgable than to be ignorant.
8:46 | "There are but two parties now: traitors and patriots. And I want hereafter to be ranked with the latter and, I trust, the stronger party." -- Ulysses S. Grant, 1861 | "You don't get mulligans in insurrection." | "Today's Republican Party is America's and the world's largest white supremacist organization." | "I didn't vote to overturn an election, and I will not be lectured by people who did about partisanship." -- Rep. Gerry Connolly

User avatar
San Lumen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 59134
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby San Lumen » Tue May 04, 2021 8:36 pm

Postauthoritarian America wrote:
Shofercia wrote:
First, he cannot get a worst outcome. He's been convicted of Murder Two. That's as bad as it can get for him. He literally, physically, figuratively, and even metaphysically cannot get a worst outcome.

Second, you quote a ruling that says that the only testimony that is admissible is "whether a juror gave false answers on voir dire that concealed prejudice or bias toward one of the parties and that's exactly what happened. The juror lied on the jury questionnaire. I've explained this:



Third, this point:



is utter bullshit, because Floyd's brother and sister, Philonise and Bridgett Floyd, and family members of others who have been shot by police addressed the crowd

In what World is this not opposing police violence? That's the very definition of opposing police violence.

Fourth, this isn't about overturning a verdict. This is about a case where the jury was tainted. That's a lower standard of proof, as it only requires to prove that one juror lied on the jury questionnaire, rather than proving that the verdict needs to be overturned.

Fifth, the way that black defendants are treated is also fucked up, and I'll be happy to vote for reforms to the system. Always have been. Always will be, as long as the taint remains.


Chauvin will probably get a hearing; it was pretty clear the defense was laying the grounds for such an appeal. He won't get a new trial. No one asked the juror whether or not he took place in a march commemorating Martin Luther King jr. or ever wore a shirt with "Keep your knee off our neck" or "BLM" on it. You can think what you like about the answers he gave but the judge will find they were patently not untruthful. He was under no obligation to do anything but respond to the questions he was asked. There's no way to grant Chauvin a new trial without vacating the original jury's verdict tho; as I've pointed out the criminal legal system is most unwilling to take that step even in cases where the "bias," nonexistent in this case, is much more blatant.

One possible worse outcome for the defense would be that the prosecution could introduce the postmortem blood work that showed George Floyd could not have died from being held too close to the tailpipe of a car that was not running for ten minutes while three cops crushed the life from his body and another one stood lookout.

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Well shit. That one juror is now opening up a hole because he couldn't be honest with his answers.

I don't know if he will get a mistrial but this was still an error. Hopefuly he won't and will stay locked up but man this sucks.

Is he going to get a mistrial?


It's too late for a mistrial. The judge would have to vacate the jury verdict and order a new trial.

I don’t think the judge is likely to do that but my faith in the justice system isn’t great.

User avatar
Coicantrost Terbi
Secretary
 
Posts: 38
Founded: May 04, 2021
Democratic Socialists

Postby Coicantrost Terbi » Tue May 04, 2021 8:39 pm

Postauthoritarian America wrote:
Coicantrost Terbi wrote:George Floyd was a shitty human being with an extensive criminal record that included holding a woman at gunpoint while his fellow gang members robbed her house. I am not at all sad that he is dead and think that the world is better off without him.

That said, Derek Chauvin was hardly any better. He was a violent psychopath and a racist that should never have been allowed to become a police officer. I really hope that the judge decides to set an example by giving him the maximum sentence.


It is better to be knowledgable than to be ignorant.


I can say the same of you.

User avatar
Uzbekstaland
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 103
Founded: Jan 26, 2021
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Uzbekstaland » Tue May 04, 2021 8:42 pm

I can already see this becoming controversial, But here is my opinion.

Floyd was killed by the excessive force on his airways PLUS the fentawhatchamacallitin his system, which neither are usually good anyways. In which Chauvin was right to be given manslaughter and the two officers with him should be charged with being an accessory.

With that said Chauvin probably will be given leeway because he is white, Which should be no big surprise.


The world isnt exactly better off without Floyd as you can see how much more powerful he is now that he is gone but in the wrong way. For his death alone sparked a huge divide and caused the anger and hatred of a 40 million strong group of people treated like dogshit to erupt into the emotional violence we see today. The sentencing is a victory by far but there is still much more work to be done in order to actually see positive change. With police being defunded these people who have been forced into a criminal mindset are going to be taking advantage of the weakening of law and order. To fix this it requires a reformation of the American system and we all know that its too late for something like that now. All we can do now is wait for the anger and Emotion to calm down.

The American powder keg seems to have been lit again and this may be the second time it explodes...
Last edited by Uzbekstaland on Tue May 04, 2021 8:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
American, Conservative, Looking to learn the view of the world.
The Media's evil dont eat what they feedin you their liars, deceitful and half of them probably evil

User avatar
Kowani
Post Czar
 
Posts: 37914
Founded: Apr 01, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kowani » Tue May 04, 2021 8:43 pm

Coicantrost Terbi wrote:George Floyd was a shitty human being with an extensive criminal record that included holding a woman at gunpoint while his fellow gang members robbed her house. I am not at all sad that he is dead and think that the world is better off without him.

yeah this literally never happened
Sex is great. But have you tried data visualizations of partisan spatial segregation?
The National Debt is not debt, but merely the sum total, to the penny, of every untaxed dollar in existence since the start of the nation.
Updating Trackers! How Congress votes, what Americans believe,world leader approvals, and police violence/misconduct!
Headline of the day: Chile votes on Assembly to rewrite Constitution from Pinochet's dictatorship
“Dale limona, mujer, que no hay en la vida ná, como la pena de ser, ciego en Graná”
the white man still cries when you cut down the lynching trees

User avatar
Coicantrost Terbi
Secretary
 
Posts: 38
Founded: May 04, 2021
Democratic Socialists

Postby Coicantrost Terbi » Tue May 04, 2021 8:46 pm

Kowani wrote:
Coicantrost Terbi wrote:George Floyd was a shitty human being with an extensive criminal record that included holding a woman at gunpoint while his fellow gang members robbed her house. I am not at all sad that he is dead and think that the world is better off without him.

yeah this literally never happened


Yeah, this literally did happen.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/06/12/ ... al-record/

User avatar
Immortan Khan
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 393
Founded: Mar 17, 2021
Corporate Police State

Postby Immortan Khan » Tue May 04, 2021 8:51 pm


After he left prison he started working with various charities to steer people away from crime. While he had a flawed past he was working to change himself and move past it.
Anti-Australia. Anti-America. Anti-Ireland. Anti-Germany. Anti-Kurdistan. Anti-left and anti-right. Anti-"trads". Pro-shitposting. Christianity is incomplete without a King.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Albrenia, G-Tech Corporation, GuessTheAltAccount, Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum, Kowani

Advertisement

Remove ads