GUILTY MN - George Floyd, 46, killed in police custody, Minneapolis, 25 May 2020 #20

Status
Not open for further replies.
esme murphy
@esmemurphy



Legal sources say Chauvin juror Brandon Mitchell will likely be questioned in Schwartz hearing about Aug 2020 DC rally he went to where Floyd family spoke.
In jury questionnaire he said he went to no police rallies
-Mitchell tells @wcco
he was at DC rally for voting rights.


A picture of a juror in the Derek Chauvin trial posted on social media has some legal experts saying it could help in an appeal.
A number of legal sources, including those familiar with the trial, told WCCO this juror at minimum will have to be questioned in what’s called a Schwartz hearing. And depending on his answers, a mistrial could be declared.
Derek Chauvin Juror Brandon Mitchell's Participation In D.C. March Could Help Appeal, Legal Experts Say

Chauvin juror defends participation in Washington protest

That seems problematic - especially the shirt he doesn’t recall owning/wearing.
 
Boy this is a classic example why jurors should just keep their mouths shut. This guy has been everywhere and in listening to him it is clear that at least one juror was extremely biased. I remember him well in questioning..mentioned he coached basketball and was asked if he could return to his team with a not guilty verdict...he was smooth and answered to get by but I knew he could not. I am not sure what this will mean but confirms my concerns about his coming forward so boldly. Can't remember if during voir dire he was asked again about demonstrations but the one he was at was obviously anti police. Question for anyone that might know...the defense knew the names of the jurors they were questioning...not sure how much googling it would take but this is from August 2020 so could they not have found that prior to putting the guy on the jury? I know that to strike him would have been challenged as it being based on race but in retrospect should have been done. I assume they scour as much as they can on the upcoming jurors each day. Just wondering.

Or maybe jurors should tell the truth during voir dire? This is the one who was at the protest wearing a shirt with BLM and “Get Your Knee Off Our Necks,” on it?
 
How can sb be SO irresponsible? Im afraid it all will turn into circus☹️ on the grave of GF. RIP poor man.
 
Boy this is a classic example why jurors should just keep their mouths shut. This guy has been everywhere and in listening to him it is clear that at least one juror was extremely biased. I remember him well in questioning..mentioned he coached basketball and was asked if he could return to his team with a not guilty verdict...he was smooth and answered to get by but I knew he could not. I am not sure what this will mean but confirms my concerns about his coming forward so boldly. Can't remember if during voir dire he was asked again about demonstrations but the one he was at was obviously anti police. Question for anyone that might know...the defense knew the names of the jurors they were questioning...not sure how much googling it would take but this is from August 2020 so could they not have found that prior to putting the guy on the jury? I know that to strike him would have been challenged as it being based on race but in retrospect should have been done. I assume they scour as much as they can on the upcoming jurors each day. Just wondering.

I went back and listened to his questioning last night.

here is his voir dire, should come up at the right time, but if not it's around the 20 minute mark:

At first, I didn't think much of him going to this. But after looking, its pretty clear that this was organized after the death of GF. It was announced at one of GF's funerals by Sharpton. A link can be found here with that info. GF's siblings were there, and the 'get your knee of our necks' is 100% linked to this and I don't know how it can be ignored and/or shrugged off.

IMO him even saying that this case was "historic" would have been enough to raise concern if I was the defense. I don't know why they didn't strike him. I didn't listen to all of the jury selection, but in hindsight listening to him, he sounds like he was trying to give the 'right' answers.

The social media thing... you would think that they would have taken the time to look, but not everyone posts everything online. The picture wasn't posted by him, he was tagged in it by a family member and it took 3 days for it to surface online (I first saw it on Saturday on twitter), which is shocking it took that long haha I'm guessing a quick search didn't show anything of concern. Companies do exist that do this though, they do it for lawyers, they do it for juries, they do it for insurance companies, etc.
 
Or maybe jurors should tell the truth during voir dire? This is the one who was at the protest wearing a shirt with BLM and “Get Your Knee Off Our Necks,” on it?
Yes, it's that juror, he's the only one that has come out on his own to talk.
Including this link because it actually shows all the questions that were sent out to the juror's, I had not read them all before.

Derek Chauvin juror could have risked the guilty verdict claim experts by attending BLM rally in DC | Daily Mail Online

here is the snip of the question that I believe would be in question... he answered no.

upload_2021-5-4_10-42-56.png
 
So both prosecutors and defence are at fault here, right? I mean this man should never have been chosen! I cant wrap my mind about retrial.
my guess is the others will not talk now for sure...he is not the only one that had an agenda and wanted on that jury....there were others. i think they will find out more about this one juror too.
 
my guess is the others will not talk now for sure...he is not the only one that had an agenda and wanted on that jury....there were others. i think they will find out more about this one juror too.

I agree, the others would be wise to just stay quiet as well. This guy just couldn't help himself.

I'm not really sure how I feel about this. I mean, on one hand, we should respect the jury's decision, but on the other hand, we should also be able to trust the system and be able to say he got a 'fair' trial. It may not happen quickly, but as all the small issues pile up, his chances of winning an appeal seem to be rising IMO
 
Silence is Golden! How true! Especially in delicate matters.
 
I went back and listened to his questioning last night.

here is his voir dire, should come up at the right time, but if not it's around the 20 minute mark:

At first, I didn't think much of him going to this. But after looking, its pretty clear that this was organized after the death of GF. It was announced at one of GF's funerals by Sharpton. A link can be found here with that info. GF's siblings were there, and the 'get your knee of our necks' is 100% linked to this and I don't know how it can be ignored and/or shrugged off.

IMO him even saying that this case was "historic" would have been enough to raise concern if I was the defense. I don't know why they didn't strike him. I didn't listen to all of the jury selection, but in hindsight listening to him, he sounds like he was trying to give the 'right' answers.

The social media thing... you would think that they would have taken the time to look, but not everyone posts everything online. The picture wasn't posted by him, he was tagged in it by a family member and it took 3 days for it to surface online (I first saw it on Saturday on twitter), which is shocking it took that long haha I'm guessing a quick search didn't show anything of concern. Companies do exist that do this though, they do it for lawyers, they do it for juries, they do it for insurance companies, etc.
Thank you so much for posting this....listened to his voir dire again and I somehow feel that Nelson was not exactly trusting his answers...as if he knew something more....the historic nature of the case comment too is concerning. I think Nelson did not move for a strike despite some answers that may have called for him to do so. He is a black male and they had to get one on...had he wanted to strike he would have been challenged. But now that we know much more about Mitchell he had an agenda but doubt he was alone. I think his 20 minutes of fame for media interviews is over and probably now has an attorney. Just not a smart guy.
 
I agree, the others would be wise to just stay quiet as well. This guy just couldn't help himself.

I'm not really sure how I feel about this. I mean, on one hand, we should respect the jury's decision, but on the other hand, we should also be able to trust the system and be able to say he got a 'fair' trial. It may not happen quickly, but as all the small issues pile up, his chances of winning an appeal seem to be rising IMO
I think Chauvin is guilty no question but I am not happy with what is happening. There was just too much going on in Minneapolis during that trial and leading up to it to get an unbiased jury. I also think about the alternate who lives a few blocks from the Brooklyn Center police dept. where she heard "flash bangs" each night as she drove around detours to get home. She did not deliberate but if she had do you think it likely she would not have a bias to render a verdict that would have the best chance for peace in the cities? Chauvin has a chance on appeal. I have watched a number of trials and some jury selection. This was the fastest one I have seen and as I recall some filter things out and bring them back for second round of questioning. I have never heard a juror say "awesome" when selected or indicated that they REALLY want to serve. Nope it felt strange.
 
How could there not have to be a new trial, if this information about the juror is true?
If they do declare a mistrial and they have to try him again, I wonder if he'll be released on bail again pending his new trial.

It would be awhile before a new trial could be held. I'm guessing the thought of him being free until the trial isn't going to sit well with a lot of people.

What a mess after all the planning, expense, and emotional toll on so many people to hold the trial.

Shame on that juror.
 
If they do declare a mistrial and they have to try him again, I wonder if he'll be released on bail again pending his new trial.

It would be awhile before a new trial could be held. I'm guessing the thought of him being free until the trial isn't going to sit well with a lot of people.

What a mess after all the planning, expense, and emotional toll on so many people to hold the trial.

Shame on that juror.
If , in fact, he perjured himself, there should be consequences. Justice goes both ways.
 
Chauvin’s attorney files for a new trial on a list of grounds including change of venue denial and request to sequester the jury, and prosecutorial misconduct, etc

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF MOTIONS AND POST-VERDICT MOTIONS:


https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgo...7-CR-20-12646/Notice-of-Motion-and-Motion.pdf

Derek Chauvin's Attorney Files Motion For New Trial
thanks for posting this....I sure think he has valid points...what is the process now? Who reviews this and rules on it?
 
Or maybe jurors should tell the truth during voir dire? This is the one who was at the protest wearing a shirt with BLM and “Get Your Knee Off Our Necks,” on it?


Apparently he was with people wearing those shirts, he was not wearing one himself. And it was not considered a protest, it was a commemoration of Martin Luther King Jr's speech. But others are interpreting it as otherwise.

A jury consultant thinks it is not enough to dismiss the conviction, just that Nelson will mention it in his inevitable appeal.

There was always going to be an appeal. imo


... standing next to two relatives wearing a black T-shirt with a picture of Martin Luther King Jr. with the words “Get your knee off our necks”
Some users took to social media and interpreted the photograph .... as sign of activism that tainted the juror’s ability to be “impartial” during Chauvin’s conviction process.

Jury consultant Alan Tuerkheimer said it is likely that Chauvin’s defense attorney Eric J. Nelson will use this information to push for an appeal but argued that the photo itself would not be enough to dismiss the conviction.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/05/03/chauvin-trial-juror/
 
If they do declare a mistrial and they have to try him again, I wonder if he'll be released on bail again pending his new trial.

It would be awhile before a new trial could be held. I'm guessing the thought of him being free until the trial isn't going to sit well with a lot of people.

What a mess after all the planning, expense, and emotional toll on so many people to hold the trial.

Shame on that juror.

And remember, the first time around the two prosecutors did it pro bono. Would they continue pro bono the second time?
 
Spokesman from MN Attorney General’s Office: “The court has already rejected many of these arguments and the State will vigorously oppose them." This comes after Derek Chauvin’s lawyer asks for new trial.
@KSTP
 
thanks for posting this....I sure think he has valid points...what is the process now? Who reviews this and rules on it?

Here is an article on a Schwartz hearing... it's mentioned in the motion, and I've read and heard a bit about it, it's basically a hearing so the judge/lawyers can ask a juror or juror's questions. It doesn't mean that the judge will grant that hearing, but if he does, this is what we can expect. Because we don't know anything about the other jurors, it doesn't mean the defense doesn't though, so who knows what else might come up. If I was Nelson, I'd be on their social media accounts. JMO

ETA: helps if I put the link lol
Investigating Juror Misconduct in Minnesota – Minnesota Law Review
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
159
Guests online
2,249
Total visitors
2,408

Forum statistics

Threads
590,041
Messages
17,929,270
Members
228,044
Latest member
Bosie
Back
Top