Trial of Derek Chauvin: A Juror Supported What?!

[Odreria]

Btw, the insurance thing is a myth. Most insurance won't pay for damages that take place due to public unrest. It's one of the exceptions - like war or terrorism.

No, this is what’s a myth.
https://www.webce.com/news/2020/09/15/d ... nd-looting
https://www.iii.org/article/civil-disor ... 0insurance

Almost all commercial property insurance covers unrest.

[Galloism]

Btw, the insurance thing is a myth. Most insurance won't pay for damages that take place due to public unrest. It's one of the exceptions - like war or terrorism.

No, this is what’s a myth.
https://www.webce.com/news/2020/09/15/d ... nd-looting
https://www.iii.org/article/civil-disor ... 0insurance

Almost all commercial property insurance covers unrest.

Again, it's a lot more complicated than that.

As law 360 explains:

Vacancy

Policies providing coverage for property damage typically contain a vacancy provision, which limits coverage when buildings have been vacant for a designated period of time — 60 days is a common period. Such exclusions may apply to only some enumerated covered causes of loss.

Because the cause of any specific loss may be unclear or subject to dispute — i.e., did the loss result from vandalism or from arson — the specific terms of the policy must be closely analyzed. Some policies also may restrict coverage in the event of an unoccupied building. In light of the widespread issuance of COVID-19 business shutdown orders, these policy provisions, as well as any vacancy permit endorsements, may be particularly relevant when considering coverage for riot claims.

...

Terrorism

Terrorism exclusions may bar coverage for the acts of violence against property by rioters. Although the language of the exclusion may vary from policy-to-policy, those exclusions typically bar coverage for the use or threatened use of force or violence against persons or property undertaken to intimidate or coerce a government or the civilian population.[5]

There is some evidence that recent acts of violence connected to the riots may qualify as terrorism. For example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Joint Terrorism Task Force was responsible for the investigation and arrest of two lawyers who threw a Molotov cocktail at a New York City Police Department vehicle.

Insurers should examine closely the facts of each claim to consider whether the acts of violence fall within the scope of terrorism exclusions, but avoid denying coverage absent confidence an adequate factual basis exists to support denial based upon a terrorism exclusion.

So if the building has been empty for 60 days - which is a lot of them due to covid - coverage may be very limited.

The language is important. If it says it doesn't cover "acts of terrorism", you're probably ok. No one declared these things to be terrorism. But if it says "acts of violence against persons or property undertaken to intimidate or coerce a government or the civilian population" likely no coverage will be provided, as this would likely fall under that category and meet the contractual exception.

Life isn't simple, and there's a lot of small businesses screwed by the circumstances.

[Gravlen]

Oooooo...
That’s one heck of a lie. A huuuge lie.

More specifically it's perjury, which afaik is a felony in every state. Oops.

Remember though that the question isn't what's objectively true, but what the juror subjectively thought. The relevant statute for perjury requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the juror made the statement "not believing it to be true". The juror can claim that he believed the statement was the truth, which is the claim he seems to be making now.

Mitchell said the event was commemorating the 57th anniversary of King's famous speech, which advocated for civil and economic rights for Blacks, and is credited with helping to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The event was "100 percent not" a march for Floyd, Mitchell said, adding, "It was directly related to MLK's March on Washington from the '60s … The date of the March on Washington is the date."

Based on the available evidence, I have a hard time seeing him being convicted of perjury. (Though you never know, he might go on Oprah and say "Yes, I lied" before the week is over...)

[San Lumen]

More specifically it's perjury, which afaik is a felony in every state. Oops.

Remember though that the question isn't what's objectively true, but what the juror subjectively thought. The relevant statute for perjury requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the juror made the statement "not believing it to be true". The juror can claim that he believed the statement was the truth, which is the claim he seems to be making now.

Mitchell said the event was commemorating the 57th anniversary of King's famous speech, which advocated for civil and economic rights for Blacks, and is credited with helping to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The event was "100 percent not" a march for Floyd, Mitchell said, adding, "It was directly related to MLK's March on Washington from the '60s … The date of the March on Washington is the date."

Based on the available evidence, I have a hard time seeing him being convicted of perjury. (Though you never know, he might go on Oprah and say "Yes, I lied" before the week is over...)

would you say the odds of the verdict being overturned on appeal are low? You said a mistrial isn't possible at this point correct?

[Gravlen]

Remember though that the question isn't what's objectively true, but what the juror subjectively thought. The relevant statute for perjury requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the juror made the statement "not believing it to be true". The juror can claim that he believed the statement was the truth, which is the claim he seems to be making now.

Mitchell said the event was commemorating the 57th anniversary of King's famous speech, which advocated for civil and economic rights for Blacks, and is credited with helping to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The event was "100 percent not" a march for Floyd, Mitchell said, adding, "It was directly related to MLK's March on Washington from the '60s … The date of the March on Washington is the date."

Based on the available evidence, I have a hard time seeing him being convicted of perjury. (Though you never know, he might go on Oprah and say "Yes, I lied" before the week is over...)

would you say the odds of the verdict being overturned on appeal are low? You said a mistrial isn't possible at this point correct?

Correct, a mistrial is not possible at this stage. So what might happen now could either be that the court grants the motion for a new trial, or that it could be overturned on appeal.

For the former, I think the chances are very low - though not zero, due in part to the ongoing revalations about the juror. Since things are happening, and it's impossible to tell what will happen next, there's always a chance that something persuasive might come up. Still, on the balance, I think it's more likely that the motion will be rejected than granted.

For the latter, I would wait until an appeal is actually filed before I would speculate on the likelihood of a successful appeal. Based on what I know of the case I don't see a reason why an appeal should lead to the case being reversed, so currently I'd say the probability is low. However, we have to recognize that we don't have all the information, so it's impossible right now to know if they will write a persuasive appeal.

[The Black Forrest]

Remember though that the question isn't what's objectively true, but what the juror subjectively thought. The relevant statute for perjury requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the juror made the statement "not believing it to be true". The juror can claim that he believed the statement was the truth, which is the claim he seems to be making now.

Mitchell said the event was commemorating the 57th anniversary of King's famous speech, which advocated for civil and economic rights for Blacks, and is credited with helping to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The event was "100 percent not" a march for Floyd, Mitchell said, adding, "It was directly related to MLK's March on Washington from the '60s … The date of the March on Washington is the date."

Based on the available evidence, I have a hard time seeing him being convicted of perjury. (Though you never know, he might go on Oprah and say "Yes, I lied" before the week is over...)

would you say the odds of the verdict being overturned on appeal are low? You said a mistrial isn't possible at this point correct?

It’s not a “get out of jail” card. Though the second trial will probably get him a lessor sentence.

[Fahran]

Americans spend a combined billion dollars on toothbrushes every year, but if I went around breaking every toothbrush in the country people wouldn’t be saying that I am some terroristic threat to democracy. These protests have been flashy, but saying ‘billions of dollars of property damage’ just distracts from the actual damage done. Most of which was insured, so the idea of whole communities going bankrupt because of the protests, which were largely peaceful, is just a bad faith obfuscation.

Given a lot of the damage is concentrated in minority neighborhoods, there's a strong likelihood that these businesses are in the 75% of small businesses that are not adequately insured. On average, these businesses are underinsured by 40%. 40% of small business owners have no insurance at all. It's not just chains getting smashed up and looted after all. In such instances, people, often non-white people, are losing their livelihoods and dreams, stuff they worked twenty to forty years to accomplish. Maybe you should condemn violence and criminality as antithetical to peaceful protests?

Source

Also, if you break my toothbrush, you should go to prison for fifty years. Dental hygiene is important.

[Fahran]

But as for the rest, no, I 100% refuse to condemn it.

One could argue that destroying or stealing other people's property for reasons wholly unrelated to police brutality is a categorical moral wrong. It's not one I think you would otherwise support given how chaotic of a society you would have to accept if it became a norm, though perhaps I'm mistaken.

That said, if BLM and its supporters are going to support nonsense like this or, worse, make it the hill they die on, it makes my own position on the movement a lot clearer.

[Republic of Bruh Moments]

If falsely believing that Chauvin actually kneeled on Floyd's back instead of his neck is what convinced you that he's innocent of Floyd's death, I'm sorry to tell you that you are wrong. And that also doesn't account for the fact that you originally made it quite clear that your opinion on the matter was largely guided by spite towards rioters and BLM protestors which, as The New California Republic has repeatedly pointed out, casts a lot of doubt on the sincerity of your belief in evidence in general.

Exactly. And his entire argument from that point onwards has been tainted. He showed us far too much of his hand at the opening stages, as it casts serious doubt on how much stock he is willing to put in the evidence presented when you start from a position of "he should have the book thrown at him, but I want him to be acquitted to spite people". The fact that he has been distorting and disregarding evidence lends even more doubt.

Bro STFU lmao who cares

[South Americanastan]

Exactly. And his entire argument from that point onwards has been tainted. He showed us far too much of his hand at the opening stages, as it casts serious doubt on how much stock he is willing to put in the evidence presented when you start from a position of "he should have the book thrown at him, but I want him to be acquitted to spite people". The fact that he has been distorting and disregarding evidence lends even more doubt.

Bro STFU lmao who cares

What an amazing counterargument

[Farnhamia]

Exactly. And his entire argument from that point onwards has been tainted. He showed us far too much of his hand at the opening stages, as it casts serious doubt on how much stock he is willing to put in the evidence presented when you start from a position of "he should have the book thrown at him, but I want him to be acquitted to spite people". The fact that he has been distorting and disregarding evidence lends even more doubt.

Bro STFU lmao who cares

*looms ominously* Knock it off.

[Odreria]

But as for the rest, no, I 100% refuse to condemn it.

One could argue that destroying or stealing other people's property for reasons wholly unrelated to police brutality is a categorical moral wrong. It's not one I think you would otherwise support given how chaotic of a society you would have to accept if it became a norm, though perhaps I'm mistaken.

That said, if BLM and its supporters are going to support nonsense like this or, worse, make it the hill they die on, it makes my own position on the movement a lot clearer.

Threatening to change your opinion is v. cringe

[Postauthoritarian America]

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.

Once again, here's the result of the trial:

Manslaughter: Guilty
Murder Three: Guilty
Murder Two: Guilty

This is the worst possible outcome for Derek Chauvin, and you claimed that you'd accept it if you were him. The evidence is there to change an outcome - but there's no change of outcome that would make it worse for Derek Chauvin. The question is one of whether or not he's innocent or guilty; as long as he's guilty, it doesn't matter if he's guilty, guiltier, or guiltiest. And yet, you keep on insisting that he could get a worse outcome, which simply bullshit, the kind of bullshit that Mitchell probably specializes in.

Speaking of Mitchell, one of the questions was, and I quote: "have you, or anyone close to you, participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality?"

Considering that numerous people, including Floyd's immediate family, spoke about police brutality and police use of force or misuse of force, the event was clearly about the police use of force. You're saying that it wasn't a protest, but rather a commemoration, because it was called a commemoration, but here's the thing: we look to actual events, not their names. If you call a drunken collegiate orgy a "networking event" guess what? It's still a drunken collegiate orgy.

The event served as a rallying point for the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, a federal police reform bill which was the result of a protest. A protest is a statement or action expressing disapproval of or objection to something and a t-shirt saying GET YOUR KNEE OFF OUR NECKS is mostly definitely there to protest something, since I doubt it's a move for a yoga workout.

Mitchell knew damn well that he was biased going on. He lied on the jury questionnaire to be admitted, and now he's playing a wannabe lawyer - fuck that shit. It's also incredibly simple common sense to comprehend that you're biased in a trial about the brutal killing of George Floyd, when you go and hear his immediate family speak.

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?

He might get a new trial, but he's staying in jail. Even in the best case scenario for him, Chauvin's looking at five years, and he's still under arrest and not receiving bail. The question is whether or not he'll serve five years in jail, up to forty years in jail, any time in between, or die in jail.

All that is as may be. The fact remains, and will be borne out in any hearing, that the juror answered all the questions he was asked truthfully and had no obligation to disclose anything else in his background. That he may have been on the jury despite a certain animus against the defendant is therefore the fault of the defense. They can't get another bite at the apple because they failed to do their job during voir dire.

The Minnesota case that resulted in the precendent for "Schwartz hearings" revolved precisely around a situation where an investigator for the defense discovered something in the background of one juror after the verdict was delivered that might have been prejudicial to the defendant. That is not voir dire; that is juror harassment, something courts look very, very darkly upon.

That these days similar "investigation"-cum-harassment can be carried out via social media changes nothing. Chauvin will probably get a hearing. He will not get a new trial.

[South Welford]

One could argue that destroying or stealing other people's property for reasons wholly unrelated to police brutality is a categorical moral wrong. It's not one I think you would otherwise support given how chaotic of a society you would have to accept if it became a norm, though perhaps I'm mistaken.

That said, if BLM and its supporters are going to support nonsense like this or, worse, make it the hill they die on, it makes my own position on the movement a lot clearer.

Threatening to change your opinion is v. cringe

Changing opinions, if I understand correctly, isn’t exactly deemed hazardous by most people to one’s wellbeing - let alone utilized in the context of a threat. Not that the subject poster is wholly perceptive to the broad moniker of a movement’s “supporters” anyway.

Beware my confirmation bias ye of little faith, for only the most adamant shall persevere!

[Kowani]

Threatening to change your opinion is v. cringe

Changing opinions, if I understand correctly, isn’t exactly deemed hazardous by most people to one’s wellbeing - let alone utilized in the context of a threat. Not that the subject poster is wholly perceptive to the broad moniker of a movement’s “supporters” anyway.

Beware my confirmation bias ye of little faith, for only the most adamant shall persevere!

he's joking
whether or not it is actually humourous is up to you

[South Welford]

Changing opinions, if I understand correctly, isn’t exactly deemed hazardous by most people to one’s wellbeing - let alone utilized in the context of a threat. Not that the subject poster is wholly perceptive to the broad moniker of a movement’s “supporters” anyway.

Beware my confirmation bias ye of little faith, for only the most adamant shall persevere!

he's joking
whether or not it is actually humourous is up to you

It has plenty of material if anything, so props on that.

[Jamtland Federation]

He is in now, there isnt much we can do but be happy.

[Odreria]

Threatening to change your opinion is v. cringe

Changing opinions, if I understand correctly, isn’t exactly deemed hazardous by most people to one’s wellbeing

u seem a lil weird but yeah no duh that’s why it’s cringe

[Page]

But as for the rest, no, I 100% refuse to condemn it.

One could argue that destroying or stealing other people's property for reasons wholly unrelated to police brutality is a categorical moral wrong. It's not one I think you would otherwise support given how chaotic of a society you would have to accept if it became a norm, though perhaps I'm mistaken.

That said, if BLM and its supporters are going to support nonsense like this or, worse, make it the hill they die on, it makes my own position on the movement a lot clearer.

I believe that possession of extreme excess wealth while others can't afford to eat or get health care is categorically wrong. I consider expropriation to be both morally acceptable and a valid revolutionary tactic.

And while such tactics do necessarily cause chaos, it is no one's goal to perpetually loot an eternal capitalist system, the goal is the dissolution of the system.

Furthermore, I do not believe private property can be stolen because I do not believe it was ever owned in the first place. Only personal property can be stolen.

[The Rich Port]

One could argue that destroying or stealing other people's property for reasons wholly unrelated to police brutality is a categorical moral wrong. It's not one I think you would otherwise support given how chaotic of a society you would have to accept if it became a norm, though perhaps I'm mistaken.

That said, if BLM and its supporters are going to support nonsense like this or, worse, make it the hill they die on, it makes my own position on the movement a lot clearer.

I believe that possession of extreme excess wealth while others can't afford to eat or get health care is categorically wrong. I consider expropriation to be both morally acceptable and a valid revolutionary tactic.

And while such tactics do necessarily cause chaos, it is no one's goal to perpetually loot an eternal capitalist system, the goal is the dissolution of the system.

Imagine complaining about poor people looting when white collar criminals loot billions right out of the pockets of the poor, amirite.

[Phenix Springs]

I love that ridiculously smug title; "a juror supported what?!"


A juror supported something that represents obvious bias and also something that he was specifically asked to disclose beforehand.

[Gravlen]

I love that ridiculously smug title; "a juror supported what?!"

A juror supported something that represents obvious bias and also something that he was specifically asked to disclose beforehand.

He also said that he had a favorable view of Black Lives Matter, which he said he interprets as a statement as opposed to a movement or an organization.

His support for BLM was out in the open.

[Phenix Springs]

I love that ridiculously smug title; "a juror supported what?!"

A juror supported something that represents obvious bias and also something that he was specifically asked to disclose beforehand.

He also said that he had a favorable view of Black Lives Matter, which he said he interprets as a statement as opposed to a movement or an organization.

His support for BLM was out in the open.

And yet he still lied in the selection process.

[Gravlen]

He also said that he had a favorable view of Black Lives Matter, which he said he interprets as a statement as opposed to a movement or an organization.

His support for BLM was out in the open.

And yet he still lied in the selection process.

He may or may not have lied. I don't know what he subjectively thought was the truth about the rally he attended.

[Gravlen]

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:






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."

I think you make good points here, and since you were the first to mention the Schwartz hearing, I'll quote you and add this:

Some have speculated that Mitchell's participation in the march could be grounds for an appeal, but legal experts said it was unlikely that it alone would be enough to overturn Chauvin's conviction.

"It's certainly possible that this will be used to support various post-conviction efforts, of which one is an appeal," said Dmitriy Shakhnevich, a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. "At the end of the day, irrespective of his specific comments, there would have to be a showing that, had he not served on the jury or disclosed this information, the verdict would have been different."

"And that's a very high standard to meet," added Shakhnevich, who closely followed the trial.

However, it is possible Mitchell and other jurors could be questioned during what is called a Schwartz hearing to determine whether an outside influence prejudiced the jury.

Mary Moriarty, a defense lawyer in Minneapolis, said the ultimate question is: Did Mitchell misrepresent who he was or who he is? She said she does not see how, even if there is a Schwartz hearing, that the trial judge could find Mitchell untruthful based on what is now known.

"The phrase, 'Get Your Knee Off Our Necks,' has become a rallying cry for many of the systemic injustices that are directed at Black people," Moriarty said, adding that she has heard the Rev. Al Sharpton, host of MSNBC's "Politics Nation," refer to it in speeches about systemic racism.

Sharpton's National Action Network promoted the "Get Your Knee Off Our Necks" Commitment March last summer.

Mark Osler, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minnesota, said that if Nelson is going to appeal over Mitchell, he would have to prove that he was fooled somehow or that Mitchell was dishonest in his answers.

Osler said he believes Mitchell was forthcoming during the jury selection process.

"The thing is, he was honest about his underlying belief, which is that he felt very favorably about Black Lives Matter," Osler said. "The attorneys knew that. And they also knew that that attitude based off lived experience is not a reason to bar jury service."

Osler said it is important to note that Nelson ended with peremptory strikes to burn. Peremptory strikes are used when an attorney believes a potential juror cannot be impartial.

"We can't expect that we can form a truly diverse jury without a truly diverse range of lived experiences," Osler said. "Part of what comes to the surface is that if we want a jury of our peers, we find out what our peers had gone through."

"We can't write off Black jurors because they have lived their lives as Black people," Osler said.

A Chauvin juror participated in the 2020 March on Washington. Is it grounds for appeal?