The Derek Chauvin Trial

garyt1957 said:
The fact that he lied about it will. He perjured himself. Do you really think he was impartial? I hope they hit him with the full consequences of the law. But they won't because of the times we live in.
Click to expand...

How do you know the juror lied? To whom did he lie? Exactly what did he lie about? About attending some event in commemoration of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech? About having knowledge of the case? Or are you making the assumption that because the juror is black, that he was incapable of not prejudging the guilt of Chauvin?

To not have any knowledge about the case, a person in the US would practically have had to be unconscious during the time between the death of Mr. Floyd and the trial. The test isn't whether a juror has heard anything about a case; the test is whether the juror is willing to put what he has heard aside and judge upon the facts presented in court.
 
I think if it was after the murder, the shirt would have had Floyd's or Chauvin's picture and one or both names. Why Dr. King concerning neck kneeling?
 
Brandon Mitchell said he answered "no" on his juror questionnaire form when asked whether he attended "protests about police use of force or police brutality."

Al Sharpton made a speech about police brutality at the MLK rally, as did family members of police shooting victims. The protest also sought to rally support for enacting the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. Plus Mitchell was wearing a t-shirt condemning police use of force.

It sure does seem like he lied on the questionnaire.
 
Mike said:
Derek Chauvin, he has applied for a re-trial.

Mike.
Click to expand...
They should give him a retrial, straight out the front door of the jail cell he's keeping warm, down on the ground as he did to George Floyd, and a knee placed on his neck for 9 minutes and 30 seconds.
 
Butterfly said:
To not have any knowledge about the case, a person in the US would practically have had to be unconscious during the time between the death of Mr. Floyd and the trial. The test isn't whether a juror has heard anything about a case; the test is whether the juror is willing to put what he has heard aside and judge upon the facts presented in court.
Click to expand...
The fact that he lied about being aware of the case not only disqualifies him but makes him guilty of perjury. He could have said he knew of the case but could be impartial. The defense would have disqualified him had they known of his activities or the picture before the trial, no doubt. Do you think someone who would lie to get on a jury doesn't have an agenda? Most people would lie to get OFF that jury. Chauvin was going to be convicted no matter what and this dipshit threw that conviction in doubt. He'll no doubt be convicted again but think of the money wasted because this idiot thought he'd lie to jury selection? He should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and have to pay court costs for the first trial if there is a mistrial.
If you ever find yourself in front of a jury do you want someone on there who lied about their impartiality due to some cause they believe in? Even if it's for the common good, the justice system falls apart if people start doing that.
 
In a photo from last August's "commitment" march that surfaced recently, the juror, Brandon Mitchell, who is Black, is seen wearing a T-shirt with an image of Martin Luther King Jr. and the phrase, "Get Your Knee Off Our Necks," the name of the march itself.

According to what I've read, the expression was first used by Al Sharpton at a MLK commemoration. It was probably used to refer to all police brutality against Blacks, not specifically the Floyd case. The t-shirt has a picture of MLK, not Floyd. I think Chauvin's lawyers have a pretty weak case.
 
I'm not an expert, that pic looks oddly photo shopped to me. The guy in the middle looks kind of inserted and there is that white line on the shoulder of the man wearing the shirt in question.

I know they have rights to appeal but who wants to go through this again. I think the evidence was solid.
 
Remy said:
I'm not an expert, that pic looks oddly photo shopped to me. The guy in the middle looks kind of inserted and there is that white line on the shoulder of the man wearing the shirt in question.

I know they have rights to appeal but who wants to go through this again. I think the evidence was solid.
Click to expand...
Its not fake the guy admits he was there
 
StarSong said:
A retrial will be unlikely to yield a different outcome. Those 9 minutes plus of video were absolutely damning as were the numerous condemnations of police personnel and chiefs.
Click to expand...
That's true, but since a juror lied on the questionnaire during jury selection, Chauvin could very well get a new trial.

That juror should face charges for lying. I don't know what that would be. Perjury? What a self-centered a$$hole. He must have known what would happen unless he's totally lacking in any common sense. At the very least, he should have to pay the cost of a new trial, if that's the outcome. He could wind up facing greater punishment than Chauvin.

The really sad thing about this is, the system seemed to work in this case. Chauvin was convicted on all counts, which is what you'd expect, considering the evidence. But now, all that is up in the air. Nothing in this world seems to work any more.
 
Irwin said:
That's true, but since a juror lied on the questionnaire during jury selection, Chauvin could very well get a new trial.

That juror should face charges for lying. I don't know what that would be. Perjury? What a self-centered a$$hole. He must have known what would happen unless he's totally lacking in any common sense. At the very least, he should have to pay the cost of a new trial, if that's the outcome. He could wind up facing greater punishment than Chauvin.

The really sad thing about this is, the system seemed to work in this case. Chauvin was convicted on all counts, which is what you'd expect, considering the evidence. But now, all that is up in the air. Nothing in this world seems to work any more.
Click to expand...
Yes, lying during jury selection is perjury. And the only reason you would lie to get on a jury is because you already made up your mind and want to ensure your point of view. It could just as easy have been a pro cop guy who wanted Chauvin exonerated. We just can't allow people to decide for themselves how a trial should go. He should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law as an example.
 
I saw on Youtube a Court TV segment called "closing arguments" (and saw a picture of the questionnaire) that the question asked to the potential jurors was whether they had attended any protests, etc., in Minnesota, regarding the death of Mr. Floyd. The juror in question answered "no," because the thing he had attended had been in Washington, D.C., not Minnesota, and had been commemoration of Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream" speech in Washington. So the juror did not lie on the questionnaire. Based on a clip purportedly showing the defense's questioning of that juror during voire dire, the defense counsel did not follow up during voire dire by asking about anywhere else.
 
Butterfly said:
I saw on Youtube a Court TV segment called "closing arguments" (and saw a picture of the questionnaire) that the question asked to the potential jurors was whether they had attended any protests, etc., in Minnesota, regarding the death of Mr. Floyd. The juror in question answered "no," because the thing he had attended had been in Washington, D.C., not Minnesota, and had been commemoration of Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream" speech in Washington. So the juror did not lie on the questionnaire. Based on a clip purportedly showing the defense's questioning of that juror during voire dire, the defense counsel did not follow up during voire dire by asking about anywhere else.
Click to expand...
The wording of that question will be scrutinized during a review, and then the review board will decide whether or not the have to call the original trial a "Mistrial". If they do, Chauvin has to be tried again.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
I'm not an attorney, but you need a lot more than just a minute infractions to overturn a conviction. It has to be something that would have caused the jury to alter its verdict. You just don't have to assert that it might, you have to prove that it did. That is a steep hill to climb, that's why the vast majority of appeals fail.
Click to expand...
It's not about overturning a conviction, it's about whether or not there was a Mistrial. With a mistrial, the whole trial is ignored and Chauvin gets tried again.
 


Back
Top