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

[Apollo]

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.

We also rely on all of the jurors to be truthful and straightforward during voir dire. If they're not, it defeats the purpose of having voir dire when selecting jurors. They might as well just ask potential jurors only one question: ''Can you set aside any pre-formed inclinations?'', and take the first 12 people who answer 'yes'.

There are now two public images of him wearing a shirt that he claims he doesn't recall wearing or owning. How many do there need to be before it's determined he wasn't truthful during voir dire?

 

[SouthAussie]

We also rely on all of the jurors to be truthful and straightforward during voir dire. If they're not, it defeats the purpose of having voir dire when selecting jurors. They might as well just ask potential jurors only one question: ''Can you set aside any pre-formed inclinations?'', and take the first 12 people who answer 'yes'.

There are now two public images of him wearing a shirt that he claims he doesn't recall wearing or owning. How many do there need to be before it's determined he wasn't truthful during voir dire?

There were 11 other jurors. They all voted to convict. We can harp on about this shirt matter, it isn't going to change a thing. imo

In time, Chauvin's attorneys will put together an appeal, regardless. After he has been sentenced. From what I have read, the appeal will contain as many items as they can find that can be debated.

 

[RANCH]

We also rely on all of the jurors to be truthful and straightforward during voir dire. If they're not, it defeats the purpose of having voir dire when selecting jurors. They might as well just ask potential jurors only one question: ''Can you set aside any pre-formed inclinations?'', and take the first 12 people who answer 'yes'.

There are now two public images of him wearing a shirt that he claims he doesn't recall wearing or owning. How many do there need to be before it's determined he wasn't truthful during voir dire?

You make some good points. I'd like to add that the Sixth Amendment applies to all criminal trials in the US. It's not just for trials where the defendant has numerous pieces of evidence pointing to being not guilty and it certainly does apply to a case where the State has overwhelming evidence showing the defendants guilt.

The idea that this doesn't matter because Chauvin is guilty and any possible jury would have voted that way is just not right in my opinion. All is JMO.

 

[Apollo]

There were 11 other jurors. They all voted to convict. We can harp on about this shirt matter, it isn't going to change a thing. imo

No, it wont change a thing. Even a new trial won't change a thing. But he should be called out for what he did since he's making the rounds and seeking attention for himself.

 

[SouthAussie]

No, it wont change a thing. Even a new trial won't change a thing. But he should be called out for what he did since he's making the rounds and seeking attention for himself.

From what I read and posted earlier, a jury consultant said that it is probable that Mr Mitchell will be called in by the judge and have to answer some questions. I don't know if we will even hear about that? I imagine it will be a private (but recorded) meeting in judges chambers.

 

[missy1974]

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

Sixth Amendment

Yep, I really didn't think much of this but the more I hear, the more I look for myself, his "story" just isn't checking out. And, right, this is just 1 of the 12 jurors, the other 11 are smarter than this guy apparently, his 15 minutes was more important IMO We don't know if the others have spoken to the defense too, cases I have followed in the past, they are given the opportunity, but they have no obligation to speak to them. Hoping that Nelson will file a more detailed motion soon (the judge has not granted or denied that request for more time yet I don't think).

Derek Chauvin Juror Brandon Mitchell's Participation In D.C. March Could Help Appeal, Legal Experts Say

From the above article (which includes video)

A photo is making the rounds on social media of Brandon Mitchell attending the March on Washington back in August, which commemorated the 57th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. giving his historic “I Have a Dream” speech.

....

Floyd’s family spoke briefly at that march. Mitchell told WCCO he was there to take part in a voter registration rally, not to protest — and that he was an unbiased juror.

“It was huge to get people geared for voter turnout, so being a part of that, being able to attend, you know, the same location where Martin Luther King gave his speech was a historic moment,” Mitchell said. “Either way, I was going to D.C. for this event, even if George Floyd was still alive.”


They did have a voter registration thing going on during the event... but that was planned well after the rally itself and was planned because of it!

NAACP | NAACP Announces Virtual March on Washington to Channel Momentum for Police Accountability and Voter Mobilization

Dated July 20/2020, and IMO this 'annoucement' and voter drive was linked 100% to the National Action Networks Get off our Necks march.

BALTIMORE — Today, the NAACP announced that it will lead a “2020 Virtual March on Washington” alongside civil rights leaders, activists, and families of those who died at the hands of law enforcement, to call for police accountability reform and mobilize voters ahead of the November elections.

All the news stories I could find about this for yesterday said they reached out to Mitchell for comment ... and he had not returned their call. My guess.... he got a lawyer

 

[missy1974]

There were 11 other jurors. They all voted to convict. We can harp on about this shirt matter, it isn't going to change a thing. imo

In time, Chauvin's attorneys will put together an appeal, regardless. After he has been sentenced. From what I have read, the appeal will contain as many items as they can find that can be debated.

It's not about the outcome necessarily, it's about the process. The process needs to be fair across the board. It needs to be fair to people of color, LE, socioeconomic status, etc.

The judge may not grant a mis-trial on this issue, but there are legal experts opining that it should, and those same legal experts also believe that he was guilty. IMO this judge also doesn't want to deal with the consequences of now declaring a mis-trial, and he's not going to overturn his previous rulings, so it may have to go to an appeal after sentencing. I do not believe that is right, regardless of whether the majority of people think he's guilty.

All JMO

 

[SouthAussie]

Federal prosecutors may be waiting to move forward until Chauvin’s sentencing in the murder trial, and if the time he is committed seems sufficient, they’ll back off from the federal case, McQuade said.

Prosecutors could also be seeking a secondary conviction so Chauvin won’t be able to walk free if he successfully appeals down the road.

“By having a second conviction in place, there is a sort of a belt-and-suspenders approach to a case that is of substantial interest to both the state and federal government,” McQuade said.

Former federal prosecutors explain how bringing civil rights charges against Derek Chauvin would work

 

[kittythehare]

From Mary Moriarty. Article.
It is common for the defense to file a motion for a new trial after a conviction. By rule, the motion must be filed within 15 days of the guilty verdict. The defense motion was clearly rushed because it lacks specific examples of allegations such as, “pervasive, prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct.” Chauvin’s lawyer did ask for more time to “thoroughly brief“ the issues, but the judge will have to decide whether to grant that request. The prosecution will have the opportunity to respond.

Because Judge Cahill already ruled against the defense on these motions, the request for a new trial would require him to acknowledge that he was mistaken. As I mentioned before, that is not going to happen.

Lawyers and judges are not allowed to intrude into the thought processes of jurors when they deliberated. In fact, a juror cannot be asked to testify as to any statement made during the deliberations, or the reasoning behind the juror’s decision. Exploration into the juror’s deliberations are off-limits with very few exceptions.

It’s understandable that Mitchell did not view his presence at a march in D.C., where he had never been, as a protest against police brutality, because it was about so much more.

It also clear that his answer was not intended to “conceal his prejudice or bias” toward a party. The very next question on the questionnaire asked how favorable the juror’s views were about “Black Lives Matter.” Mitchell checked “Very Favorable.” So, it should come as no surprise that he is wearing a BLM baseball cap in the picture at the march in Washington D.C.

A new trial for Chauvin is not likely to be granted—Here's why

 

[kittythehare]

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…refer to it in speeches about systemic racism.

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

 

[RANCH]

It's not about the outcome necessarily, it's about the process. The process needs to be fair across the board. It needs to be fair to people of color, LE, socioeconomic status, etc.

The judge may not grant a mis-trial on this issue, but there are legal experts opining that it should, and those same legal experts also believe that he was guilty. IMO this judge also doesn't want to deal with the consequences of now declaring a mis-trial, and he's not going to overturn his previous rulings, so it may have to go to an appeal after sentencing. I do not believe that is right, regardless of whether the majority of people think he's guilty.

All JMO

I doubt the trial judge will call a mistrial because of this new information showing that a juror had bias towards the defendant and didn't acknowledge it during voir dire.

Will this be enough to overturn the conviction on appeal and cause a retrial? Probably not. Combined with other issues like lack of jury sequestration perhaps so. JMO

 

[wary]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

There’s a serious problem when you have a bias about a case, AND are willing to lie to get onto the jury of that case.

Can anyone point me to cases where something that looks this bad came up, and the court system just shrugged and said it didn’t matter? I imagine it’s happened, but I can’t think of anything, offhand.

(Novels and TV shows don’t count. )

 

[kittythehare]

There’s a serious problem when you have a bias about a case, AND are willing to lie to get onto the jury of that case.

Can anyone point me to cases where something that looks this bad came up, and the court system just shrugged and said it didn’t matter? I imagine it’s happened, but I can’t think of anything, offhand.

(Novels and TV shows don’t count. )

Where's the bias?
A new trial for Chauvin is not likely to be granted—Here's why

 

[Apollo]

I doubt the trial judge will call a mistrial because of this new information showing that a juror had bias towards the defendant and didn't acknowledge it during voir dire.

Will this be enough to overturn the conviction on appeal and cause a retrial? Probably not. Combined with other issues like lack of jury sequestration perhaps so. JMO

You're probably right.

If the conviction is overturned though and there has to be another trial, I wonder if that will affect the upcoming trial of the other three officers.

The prosecution in that trial won't be able to say 'There were 4 officers involved in the death of GF and one has already been convicted of murder' ---- or however they would word that.

I think it's a good thing for Chavin that an appeal won't be filed until after the sentencing. As we know, he has asked the judge to determine his sentence instead of the jury. Perhaps this particular judge sentences people on the lower end of the scale. If there is another trial, I don't think there's much doubt he'd be found guilty again but he might receive a harsher sentence. Or would the same judge preside over a new trial?

 

[Dotta]

I dont think the same judge can preside over the new trial. Mistrial incriminates the judge as he is the ultimate "boss".

 

[Apollo]

I dont think the same judge can preside over the new trial. Mistrial incriminates the judge as he is the ultimate "boss".

Dalia Dippolito had the same judge in her second and third trials. I don't know about the first trial.

 

[Dotta]

Dalia Dippolito had the same judge in her second and third trials. I don't know about the first trial.

I googled this Dalia D person as I have never heard about her. Im really lost for words which doesnt happen often to me haha. I mean, just how evil a person can be? Shaking my head.

 

[turaj]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

There’s a serious problem when you have a bias about a case, AND are willing to lie to get onto the jury of that case.

Can anyone point me to cases where something that looks this bad came up, and the court system just shrugged and said it didn’t matter? I imagine it’s happened, but I can’t think of anything, offhand.

(Novels and TV shows don’t count. )

in any voir dire that I have watched this guy with the answers he game would not have gotten on. My only thought is that he was a black man and up to that point not one had been picked...'An attorney can strike a juror using a peremptory challenge based on a hunch or a sense that the prospective juror might favor the opposing side. Because attorneys don’t generally have to give a reason when they use a peremptory challenges, there is a risk that they will be used to strike prospective jurors based on sex, race, ethnicity or religion. "
Nelson certainly was not excited about this guy and his wanting to be part of an "historic" trial but I think he feared the Batson challenge from the state...I think there was at least one such challenge that failed.

 

[turaj]

I dont think the same judge can preside over the new trial. Mistrial incriminates the judge as he is the ultimate "boss".

same judge presides over mistrial often but I am wondering in this one given most of the elements of the motion are in reference to the way he ran the trial and his decisions (not a hung jury etc.) why would he grant a new trial? This would have to be an upper court decision.

 

[sds71]

@ZekeJMiller

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Federal grand jury indicts 4 former Minneapolis police officers on charges they violated George Floyd's civil rights.