The Derek Chauvin Trial

@Butterfly said: "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.

This is enough to make any claims against the juror not relevant. He was truthful in answering the question; it is not the juror's fault if the question was not sufficient.
 
Murrmurr said:
Not sure it's called a review board - I forget what they call it - but the defense attorney can call for a review to establish whether or not there was a mistrial. It's due process.
Click to expand...
Are you saying the Judge is bound by that then under MN law?
 

ohioboy said:
Are you saying the Judge is bound by that then under MN law?
Click to expand...
I believe the judge takes part in the review, but I could be wrong. But yes, judge and attorneys are bound by the decision. If it's decided there was a mistrial, it just means another trial with a new jury. All charges remain the same. In fact, I believe the prosecution can add new/additional charges before a new trial starts.
 
Murrmurr said:
I believe the judge takes part in the review, but I could be wrong. But yes, judge and attorneys are bound by the decision. If it's decided there was a mistrial, it just means another trial with a new jury. All charges remain the same. In fact, I believe the prosecution can add new/additional charges before a new trial starts.
Click to expand...
I don't see any indication of such in requesting a retrial under the Criminal Rules under Motion for new trial.
 
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...
Brandon Mitchell was asked two questions about police brutality:
  • “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?”
  • “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?”
It's the second one where he lied.
 
Murrmurr said:
Indication of what? Sorry, what do you mean by "of such"?

Look, all I'm certain of is that if the original trial is called a Mistrial because a juror is deemed unfit, then Chauvin has to be tried again.
Click to expand...

By 'such' I meant there is no mention of any review board determination to submit to the Court, but that's okay. The technicalities seem clear, one juror was not honest.
 
Irwin said:
Brandon Mitchell was asked two questions about police brutality:
  • “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?”
  • “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?”
It's the second one where he lied.
Click to expand...
- while



it was reported in the Twin Cities news that the meeting was a commemoration of Dr Martin Luther King - while there was some discussion of police brutality this was not the principle focus of the meeting --- thus, assuming this is an accurate report, he did not "lie"
 
ohioboy said:
They don't file a Motion for a new trial with the Appeals court, it's with the trial Judge.
Click to expand...
Ok, that's what I thought I remembered, but I wasn't sure. I just remember that the trial judge is involved in some capacity.
So it's up to the defense to take any action or not, yes? I'm guessing they'll let it go because everyone knows it won't matter, the outcome would be the same.
 
ohioboy said:
Remember, he still faces a Federal trial. That clown woke up that day playing big bad policeman, and that arrogance cost him everything. If you plant turnips like Chauvin did, expect to get blood out of them. :love:
Click to expand...
One thing I haven't figured out:
We know what some cops will do when they think no one is watching or taping.
Chauvin knew he was on video the whole time. What made him think he could get away with it? It's hard to believe he could be that stupid.
 
Last edited:
win231 said:
One thing I haven't figure out:
We know what some cops will do when they think no one is watching or taping.
Chauvin knew he was on video the whole time. What made him think he could get away with it? It's hard to believe he could be that stupid.
Click to expand...
I'd be willing to bet he used knee to neck restraint lots of times for several minutes (but probably not as long as 9 minutes) and no one died. I think he was stupid enough to believe the maneuver couldn't cause someone to die. Plus, while everyone was yelling for him to get off of Floyd, Chauvin adapted this puffed up posture like he was saying "Try and make me" or whatever, and he enjoyed looking all badass for the cameras. Basically, distracted by his big ego.
 
Murrmurr said:
Oh. I wonder if Chauvin could waive it? Might be remembered as the one decent thing he did.
Click to expand...
Seriously? You're going to jail for the rest of your life and you're going to waive your one chance of avoiding that. He'd literally have to be a saint, which we know he's not.
 
Murrmurr said:
I'd be willing to bet he used knee to neck restraint lots of times for several minutes (but probably not as long as 9 minutes) and no one died. I think he was stupid enough to believe the maneuver couldn't cause someone to die. Plus, while everyone was yelling for him to get off of Floyd, Chauvin adapted this puffed up posture like he was saying "Try and make me" or whatever, and he enjoyed looking all badass for the cameras. Basically, distracted by his big ego.
Click to expand...
So you're saying he should have only been convicted of manslaughter, then? And I agree.
 


Back
Top