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

Status
Not open for further replies.
He said he had expected, before the trial, that he would struggle to come to the right decision in the case, but that after three weeks of testimony, he found the evidence overwhelming.

Mr. Mitchell said that for many of the jurors, including himself, the most powerful witness testimony had come from Dr. Martin J. Tobin, a lung expert who pinpointed what he said was the exact moment that Mr. Floyd took his final breath.

“He just had all of our attention 100 percent,” Mr. Mitchell said of Dr. Tobin, who testified for the prosecution. “I don’t know if there is any other witness that captured us like that.”

Inside the Chauvin Jury Room: 11 of 12 Jurors Were Ready to Convict Right Away
 
As I see it, a jury of peers is a jury of all types of people. Mr Mitchell obviously is a peer in that sense. There were 11 other people on that jury. Not one of them voted against convicting Chauvin on all counts. It wasn't all up to Mr Mitchell.
yes bottom line is most juries would have had same results...I believe it was the correct result but end does not always justify the means. I have mentioned before that the selection process was fast and more jurors that wanted to be on and actually said so than I ever remember. I do think Mr. Nelson had concerns about him but he absolutely had to have a black male on that jury...he probably looked at his upcoming prospects and decided based on questionnaires that Mitchell was his best bet. He could have used a strike...as it turned out he had many left.. I do not recall right this minute how far into jury selection #52 was questioned.
 
As I see it, a jury of peers is a jury of all types of people. Mr Mitchell obviously is a peer in that sense. There were 11 other people on that jury. Not one of them voted against convicting Chauvin on all counts. It wasn't all up to Mr Mitchell.
yes bottom line is most juries would have had same results...I believe it was the correct result but end does not always justify the means. I have mentioned before that the selection process was fast and more jurors that wanted to be on and actually said so than I ever remember. I do think Mr. Nelson had concerns about him but he absolutely had to have a black male on that jury...he probably looked at his upcoming prospects and decided based on questionnaires that Mitchell was his best bet. He could have used a strike...as it turned out he had many left.. I do not recall right this minute how far into jury selection #52 was questioned.
I think this is something important that a lot of the articles/tweeters/MSM is missing:

3. For an order granting the Defense additional time to thoroughly brief the above issues, in light of the time that was required for preparation of partial transcripts of the proceedings.

So what was filed is just the basics, he is asking for additional time to file more information.
agree just a notice and I bet Mr. Nelson has his staff working overtime to find other juror issues...they know the names...a deeper look at Mr. Mitchell is being done too. Stay tuned.
 
As I see it, a jury of peers is a jury of all types of people. Mr Mitchell obviously is a peer in that sense. There were 11 other people on that jury. Not one of them voted against convicting Chauvin on all counts. It wasn't all up to Mr Mitchell.
yes bottom line is most juries would have had same results...I believe it was the correct result but end does not always justify the means. I have mentioned before that the selection process was fast and more jurors that wanted to be on and actually said so than I ever remember. I do think Mr. Nelson had concerns about him but he absolutely had to have a black male on that jury...he probably looked at his upcoming prospects and decided based on questionnaires that Mitchell was his best bet. He could have used a strike...as it turned out he had many left.. I do not recall right this minute how far into jury selection #52 was questioned.
I think this is something important that a lot of the articles/tweeters/MSM is missing:

3. For an order granting the Defense additional time to thoroughly brief the above issues, in light of the time that was required for preparation of partial transcripts of the proceedings.

So what was filed is just the basics, he is asking for additional time to file more information.
agree just a notice and I bet Mr. Nelson has his staff working overtime to find other juror issues...they know the names...a deeper look at Mr. Mitchell is being done too. Stay tuned.
From the BBC: George Floyd killer Derek Chauvin asks for new trial

"...The motion also alleges that errors were made by the judge and that there was prosecutorial misconduct and witness intimidation..."
Mr. Nelson brought this stuff during the trial...often the judge did not let him do it in any timely manner but eventually he did bring up many of the things in the motion. At first I really like the judge but after some time watching it sure seemed like he just wanted the trial over and in fact at one point when it came to Maxine Waters statements said defense no doubt has appeal issues. I found that odd.
 
Oh ok—thanks. I think it will come down to whether the juror was being purposely untruthful since he went to the March on Washington. But it sounds to me like he was very truthful in the questions about how he felt about BLM (very favorable) so I think it would be really really tough for the defense to win a new trial over this. The bar is super high for that. We’ll see!

DBM quoted wrong post
 
I think the question that is being questioned by Nelson is the NEXT question on the jury form. It related to OUTSIDE Minnesota / anywhere. MOO. Not that one that is quoted in the post. MOO

The next question was about attending police brutality marches anywhere...the March on Washington was not marketed as a police brutality event
 
they will probably explain it all away but really that shirt...at that time and with the speakers...and bottom line all he would have had to do was mention it...not an event you forget easily...the fact that he did not mention it in the questionnaire indicates he knew he did not look good...first and foremost he wanted ON THE JURY.

https://twitter.com/MaryMoriarty/status/1389742149235740681?s=20

That would be the lawyer’s fault. This is one reason I was commenting on the lack of open-ended questions in jury selection. You want the jurors to talk so you can learn as much as you can about their beliefs. I do not think Mr. Mitchell mislead anyone about his beliefs, btw.
 
WASHINGTON – Thousands converged on the nation's capital Friday, demanding long-lasting change to end systemic racism as the country reels from police killings of Black people this year that have fueled nationwide protests.

Sharpton organized the Get Your Knee Off Our Necks Commitment March on Washington, along with the National Action Network, marking the 57th anniversary of the historic March on Washington where Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his "I Have A Dream" speech.

March on Washington 2020: Thousands gather for Sharpton, NAN rally
 
yes bottom line is most juries would have had same results...I believe it was the correct result but end does not always justify the means. I have mentioned before that the selection process was fast and more jurors that wanted to be on and actually said so than I ever remember. I do think Mr. Nelson had concerns about him but he absolutely had to have a black male on that jury...he probably looked at his upcoming prospects and decided based on questionnaires that Mitchell was his best bet. He could have used a strike...as it turned out he had many left.. I do not recall right this minute how far into jury selection #52 was questioned.

He was the sixth out of the 14

No. 2: White man, 20s
He described himself as a chemist and environmental studies scientist who said he typically views life through an analytical lens.

Defense attorney Eric Nelson asked him to expand on some of the answers he gave on his written questionnaire, particularly a question concerning Black Lives Matter.

“I support the message that every life should matter equally,” the juror said. “I don’t believe that the organization Black Lives Matter necessarily stands for that.”

The juror was also asked to expand on answers he gave about disparities in policing and about the criminal justice system. He said he doesn’t necessarily think Minneapolis police are more likely to use force against Black people than they would against others.

However, he said he believes the criminal justice system is biased against racial and ethnic minorities. He said there was a lot of evidence to support that opinion.

No. 9: Multi/mixed race woman, 20s
She describes herself as easygoing, and a mediator among her friends.

In her questionnaire, she said she had somewhat negative impressions of Chauvin, but that she could keep an open mind and be fair. She also said she believes the Black Lives Matter movement, along with Blue Lives Matter, has turned into a disingenuous marketing scheme for corporations.

She has an uncle who’s a police officer in central Minnesota, but said that wouldn't affect her opinion.

When the judge told her she was chosen, she said, "Awesome."

No. 19: White man, 30s
He said he’s in client services and has had to resolve conflicts before.

In his questionnaire, he indicated his view of Chauvin was “somewhat negative” because he didn’t resuscitate Floyd, and that he supports Black Lives Matter in a general context. He also said he has some unfavorable views of Blue Lives Matter.

He said he has a “friend of a friend” who is a Minneapolis K-9 officer but that he hasn’t spoken to him about the case or seen him since the pandemic.

He said he’s seen the bystander video about two or three times, not in full, as part of news articles.

No. 27: Black man, 30s
He told the court he came to the United States 14 years ago, speaks multiple languages, works in information technology and is married.

Nelson asked the juror about an answer he provided on the written questionnaire about the death of Floyd. “And you said, ‘It could have been me or anyone else.' Can you explain that a little?” asked Nelson.

“It could have been anybody. It could have been you,” replied the juror. “I also used to live not far from that area (38th Street and Chicago Avenue in south Minneapolis) when I first met my wife. So that is why I said it could have been me. It could have been anybody.”

Asked if he had any particular opinions about the Minneapolis Police Department or law enforcement in general, the man said he did not. The juror also said he felt somewhat supportive of both Black Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter.

“And you wrote that you believe ‘our cops need to be safe and feel and be safe to protect our community,’” Nelson read from the juror’s questionnaire. “Correct,” said the juror.

No. 44: White woman, 50s
The court held part of her questioning without audio while they discussed a sensitive matter with the juror. She later said in her work for a nonprofit advocacy group, she’s had contact with Attorney General Keith Ellison.

When asked if she felt that would jeopardize her ability to be an impartial juror, she said no.

Nelson asked the juror about her answers on the jury questionnaire pertaining to the treatment of people of color by the criminal justice system.

“I do believe there’s bias,” said the woman. “I’ve seen it in my work.”

The woman also said had formed a somewhat negative opinion of Chauvin. But she said she had sympathy and empathy, not only for Floyd, but for the officers involved.

“Everyone’s lives are changed by this incident and what happened. Everyone’s lives,” she said. “And it’s not easy. For anyone.”

No. 52: Black man, 30s
He said he works in the banking industry and is a youth sports coach.

In his questionnaire, he said he was neutral on Chauvin and Floyd. He said he had seen the video and has wondered why the other officers didn’t intervene.

Prosecutor Steve Schleicher questioned one of the juror's statements made during questioning by the defense. The man had said he didn’t think anyone had the intent to cause Floyd’s death.

Schleicher said Chauvin’s intentions will be contested during the trial and asked him if he’d have a problem setting aside his opinion.

“I don’t think it would be that difficult at all,” he said. “I think I can definitely look at it with an objective point of view.”

No. 55: White woman, 50s
She said she works in health care as an executive assistant.

The juror said she couldn’t watch the full video because she found it too disturbing.

She also said in her questionnaire she has a somewhat negative opinion of Chauvin but that he’s innocent until proven otherwise.

She said she has a somewhat unfavorable opinion of Black Lives Matter, acknowledging that she perceives it to possibly mean that other lives don’t matter. She wrote on her questionnaire, “I believe all lives matter,” according to notes from the pool reporter.

No. 79: Black man, 40s
He said he works in management capacity, and that he has not formed an opinion about who is responsible for Floyd’s death.

In his questionnaire, he said he had a neutral opinion of Chauvin and a “somewhat positive” impression of Floyd.

He said he strongly disagreed with defunding police, noting that his house was burglarized once and he had to call the police. The man said he immigrated to the United States.

No. 85: Multi/mixed race woman, 40s
She said she works in organizational management.

In responses to the court, she said was always taught to respect police but added that she wouldn't have trouble second-guessing their decisions if needed.

“Police officers are human,” she said. “They’re not robots that are programmed to all behave in the exact same way. So I feel like as humans, they can make mistakes as well.”

No. 89: White woman, 50s
She said she’s a cardiac care nurse who lives in the suburbs.

She was questioned in depth about her medical training and whether she would second-guess police on resuscitation efforts. She was also asked whether she would reference her nursing experience during deliberations. She said she could avoid it, and would not act as an expert during deliberations.

“I think I can be impartial and listen to instructions and go with what I’m given and ignore the outside stuff,” she said.

No. 91: Black woman, 60s
She said she’s retired from a job in marketing, and that she has a degree in psychology. She volunteers with underserved youth. She grew up in south Minneapolis near where Floyd died.

She said she watched a few minutes of the bystander video of Floyd’s arrest before shutting it off.

She has a relative who is a Minneapolis police officer but they are not close.

She said she believes Blacks and whites do not receive equal treatment, noting that a white U.S. Capitol riot suspect was allowed to go on vacation in Mexico after she was charged.

She said she doesn’t follow the news closely and does not know enough yet to judge the case one way or another.

No. 92: White woman, 40s
She said she works in communications, and has been with the same company for 15 years.

She disagrees with defunding the police but believes change is needed based on what she's seen in media coverage of racism.

She noted somewhat negative views of both Chauvin and Floyd, that she didn’t believe Floyd deserved to die, and that police used excessive force. But she also noted she didn’t think Floyd was innocent either, according to notes from a pool reporter.

She said she understands there are reasons people struggle with addiction.

No. 96: White woman, 50s
She described herself as an animal lover who is passionate about advocacy for affordable housing and homelessness. She told the court said she recently resigned from her customer service-related job. The juror noted she feels like she is good at de-escalating conflicts and getting both sides to come together for a resolution.

She said she had seen video clips of the bystander video a few times and is also aware of the $27 million settlement.

In her questionnaire, she wrote that the restraint used on Floyd was “ultimately responsible” for his death, but under questioning she acknowledged that was her assumption based on what she had seen. She acknowledged the video may not show the entirety of what happened.

No. 118: White woman, 20s
The juror is a social worker who has relatives who are nurses.

In her line of work, she's had to call the police to remove unruly people. When asked by the prosecution if she's ever seen someone not comply with the police, she said she has not. Schleicher, the prosecutor, wondered if she would blame a person who doesn't comply with police for injuries resulting from a police encounter. She said everyone needs to be treated with respect even if they are suspected of a crime.

She disagrees with defunding police, but under questioning about police reform said that “there are good things and things that should be changed.”

The juror said she’s discussed the case with family members, including one who said they thought Chauvin should not have kept his knee on Floyd's neck for that long.

She said her decision regarding a verdict would not affect her relationship with family and she wouldn't feel the need to justify it. She said she's curious to hear more about police training that may have influenced how the encounter unfolded.

No. 131: White man, 20s
He described himself as an accountant and a sports fan. When asked by Schleicher about his opinion on athletes who “take a knee” during the national anthem, the man said, “I would prefer if someone would express their beliefs in a different manner. But I understand what they are trying to do and raise the dialogue on certain issues.”

The man said that after watching the bystander video from May 25, 2020, he felt like Chauvin’s use of force lasted too long.

He said he generally believes racial minorities are treated unfairly by the criminal justice system.

He strongly disagrees with the notion of defunding the Minneapolis Police Department. “I believe the force is a necessary and integral part of our society,” he said.

The man will be dismissed if none of the other jurors drop out by Monday, when opening statements begin.
 
yes bottom line is most juries would have had same results...I believe it was the correct result but end does not always justify the means. I have mentioned before that the selection process was fast and more jurors that wanted to be on and actually said so than I ever remember. I do think Mr. Nelson had concerns about him but he absolutely had to have a black male on that jury...he probably looked at his upcoming prospects and decided based on questionnaires that Mitchell was his best bet. He could have used a strike...as it turned out he had many left.. I do not recall right this minute how far into jury selection #52 was questioned.

He was the sixth out of the 14

He was questioned on Day 5 of 10 according to Law and Crime's youtube description. So I can see your point @turaj. I didn't watch all of the jury selection, so I don't know who was questioned before or after him.
 
The next question was about attending police brutality marches anywhere...the March on Washington was not marketed as a police brutality event

I would disagree. I know that Mitchell has said it was an MLK march, but it was not. It was 100% created within days of GF's death, was announced by Sharpton at one of his funerals on June 4th, and was clearly stated by Sharpton it would be a march against police brutality. They chose to do it on MLK's anniversary speech day, but the main focus was on police and criminal justice.

Here is the description from Sharpton's organization:

Instigated from the protest movement that has risen up since the police killing of George Floyd, the ‘Get Off Our Necks’ Commitment March on Washington will be a day of action that will demonstrate our commitment to fighting for policing and criminal justice.

The Commitment March will take place on August 28th 2020 — the 57th anniversary of the historical March on Washington, where Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech.

» Register for NAN’s Commitment March: Get Your Knee Off Our Necks!

I mean... that is pretty clear to me what it was. JMO
 
I am sorry, but this latest stuff just reeks of 'lets get him off any way we can'. We saw him, we heard the evidence.
no way do I want Chauvin on the streets again but I also think lying to get on a jury needs to have some consequences....he will have some cleaver lawyer argue that was not the case and just did not "remember" or try to call the rally something other than what it was...but all he needed to do was mention it in passing and he may well have still been picked. I simply don't like his big mouth style now and his inability to talk when it mattered. He was smooth in selection but I bet after that day Nelson knew full well he had another one that he could never get on Chauvin's side.
 
no way do I want Chauvin on the streets again but I also think lying to get on a jury needs to have some consequences....he will have some cleaver lawyer argue that was not the case and just did not "remember" or try to call the rally something other than what it was...but all he needed to do was mention it in passing and he may well have still been picked. I simply don't like his big mouth style now and his inability to talk when it mattered. He was smooth in selection but I bet after that day Nelson knew full well he had another one that he could never get on Chauvin's side.
I fully agree. There must be some accountability for Mr. Mitchell.

I also agree that DC was culpable in GF’s death, but I most certainly do not think he had a fair trial. He was tried and convicted in the court of public and media opinion well before the trial even commenced. There was also an understanding that if a “ proper” verdict was not reached, a repeat of the 2020 violence was assured.
Nelson most definitely has strong grounds for an appeal.
 
I fully agree. There must be some accountability for Mr. Mitchell.

I also agree that DC was culpable in GF’s death, but I most certainly do not think he had a fair trial. He was tried and convicted in the court of public and media opinion well before the trial even commenced. There was also an understanding that if a “ proper” verdict was not reached, a repeat of the 2020 violence was assured.
Nelson most definitely has strong grounds for an appeal.
You could say that of Charles Manson too or any notorious crime which has much publicity and furthermore, a video showing it.
 
You could say that of Charles Manson too or any notorious crime which has much publicity and furthermore, a video showing it.
True to an extent. But, IMO, a cell phone video does not represent ALL of the evidence. I know, if I was ever in the position DC was in, I’d want all of the facts presented.... whatever decision was ultimately decided.
 
True to an extent. But, IMO, a cell phone video does not represent ALL of the evidence. I know, if I was ever in the position DC was in, I’d want all of the facts presented.... whatever decision was ultimately decided.

The 12 jurors did hear ALL of the evidence. Chauvin was not convicted by the court of public opinion. He was convicted after 3 weeks of testimony given in a court of law to 12 jurors. Testimony presented by both the prosecution and the defense.

There are many high profile cases that go to court. We can't have cases not go to court because they have a high profile.

We rely on all of the jurors to be able to set aside any pre-formed inclinations. There is nothing that says that Mr Mitchell was not able to do that, in the same way that the other 11 jurors were required to do that.

That trial could have been moved here to Australia and we still would not have found a jury that hadn't heard of George Floyd, what happened to him, or seen the video.
 
Last edited:
I would disagree. I know that Mitchell has said it was an MLK march, but it was not. It was 100% created within days of GF's death, was announced by Sharpton at one of his funerals on June 4th, and was clearly stated by Sharpton it would be a march against police brutality. They chose to do it on MLK's anniversary speech day, but the main focus was on police and criminal justice.

Here is the description from Sharpton's organization:

Instigated from the protest movement that has risen up since the police killing of George Floyd, the ‘Get Off Our Necks’ Commitment March on Washington will be a day of action that will demonstrate our commitment to fighting for policing and criminal justice.

The Commitment March will take place on August 28th 2020 — the 57th anniversary of the historical March on Washington, where Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech.

» Register for NAN’s Commitment March: Get Your Knee Off Our Necks!

I mean... that is pretty clear to me what it was. JMO
I think that this information truly brings into question whether this juror was impartial. If this information was brought forward during the trial I'm sure that he would have been replaced with an alternate because of the defendants Sixth Amendment rights. JMO
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Sixth Amendment
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
155
Guests online
3,464
Total visitors
3,619

Forum statistics

Threads
592,205
Messages
17,964,979
Members
228,714
Latest member
galesr
Back
Top