GUILTY MN - George Floyd, 46, died in custody, Minneapolis, 25 May 2020 #19 - Chauvin Jury Deliberations #2

Status
Not open for further replies.
No. the Judge may take a poll with each juror so they can't leave until they are dismissed by him.
If Chauvin agreed to have the jury decide whether or not they would decide on the aggravating factors, they would not be dismissed until they did so, but the Judge will do that.
they are right there in court during the reading of the verdict. in fact usually the judge will ask to meet with them in chambers after the verdict...to personally thank them etc. I assume same will happen here.
 
All the testimony, technical info, back round, and medical info was informative. But how can anyone get passed:

Chauvin kept his knee on Floyd’s neck even after being told by Kueng that Floyd no longer had a pulse.

How can any juror inclined to vote not guilty justify that?
 
All the testimony, technical info, back round, and medical info was informative. But how can anyone get passed:

Chauvin kept his knee on Floyd’s neck even after being told by Kueng that Floyd no longer had a pulse.

How can any juror inclined to vote not guilty justify that?

Exactly... there is no justification.
 
Every time there's an update on CNN, my heart stands still. But it's only been 8 hours. They have a lot to go through. My hope though is that they've come to a decision on the manslaughter and 3rd degree charges, and are deliberating on the 2nd degree. Is that too much to hope after 8 hours?
 
Every time there's an update on CNN, my heart stands still. But it's only been 8 hours. They have a lot to go through. My hope though is that they've come to a decision on the manslaughter and 3rd degree charges, and are deliberating on the 2nd degree. Is that too much to hope after 8 hours?
That's where I am with thinking too, but then I remember the judge saying it would take awhile to get answers to them if they ask questions - so if any questions are happening, the process could be slow. I think the 2nd degree charge is what will be the topic of most the debate.

jmo
 
Sure, but didn't he basically slap them with the headline of the newspaper on Court, that could easily have been a mistrial. Easily, but it wasn't.
That was my point, the Defendant brought to Court that newspaper, showed it to all and made a point that there could be no fair trial, and I would have believed it to be a compelling argument, but it wasn't enough.
That's my recollection of what happened from seeing it on Youtube and whatnot, that was far before my time, FWIW.
They went through a lot of work during that trial to make sure the sequestered jury didn't get any outside influence. The jury was able to read newspapers in their hotel rooms, but the newspapers had anything that may have influenced them cut out. The bus that took them to the courtroom had the windows whited out and avoided the bookstands along the way.
Then Manson grabbed the newspaper inside the courtroom and held it up for the jury to read.
 
His words."Don't talk to anyone and don't watch the news."

Timestamp@ 6.34.58


I still find myself a bit surprised that the Judge denies don't really admonish the jury about watching any media more each day & even before deliberation began his comments about it were short and pretty vague IMO.

In smaller trials I've watched the judge(s) reminded juries of this on an almost nearly daily basis, some even said it every time the jurors left for the day. I don't know, I *really* don't want to go down the total-speculation rabbit hole here but thinking about the Judge's comments about Defense maybe having something for an appeal with his very generalized comments about avoidng media are interesting to say the very least.

I don't think a reasonable juror would now think "I cannot talk to anyone except my fellow jurors during our deliberation process" and "I can't talk to people during breakfast at our hotel about anything unrelated to the case, I can't talk to anyone else...." But the anyone" line was left pretty vague and I just don't know why the Judge may not have been more specific about viewing media during this but as we've seen these things can vary widely from courtroom to courtroom and from judge to judge.

I remember other judges sometimes saying things to the effect of "don't go on Twitter, don't use social media like Facevook during this, try to avoid it. When you're at home if you turn on the TV and the news comes on, turn it off, switch the channel, don't go researching anything about this case, don't talk to your family or friends about this case or get their views or talk to any media either inside or outside this courtroom. And if any of this happens, accidentally or otherwise, please advise the Court of the situation".
 
That's where I am with thinking too, but then I remember the judge saying it would take awhile to get answers to them if they ask questions - so if any questions are happening, the process could be slow. I think the 2nd degree charge is what will be the topic of most the debate.

jmo
Let’s say they agree unanimously that he’s guilty of manslaughter and 3rd degree but can’t come to an agreement on 2nd degree.. is he still found guilty at that point or do they have to find him guilty of all 3 charges?
 
Let’s say they agree unanimously that he’s guilty of manslaughter and 3rd degree but can’t come to an agreement on 2nd degree.. is he still found guilty at that point or do they have to find him guilty of all 3 charges?
I would imagine they need a reasonable amount of time to come to a decision on 2nd though, even if the other charges are decided unanimously
 
We haven’t been on verdict watch in a long time...and this is a highly anticipated verdict. Trials are just starting again after a long break due to covid.

Hang on, this could takes days.

LOL Court TV has a jury deliberation clock going...down to the second!!
 
Let’s say they agree unanimously that he’s guilty of manslaughter and 3rd degree but can’t come to an agreement on 2nd degree.. is he still found guilty at that point or do they have to find him guilty of all 3 charges?


It’s possible the jury could find Chauvin guilty of all charges, guilty of some and not guilty of others or could acquit him of all charges. If the jury acquits him of all charges, Chauvin could be charged in federal court.

The jury could end up unable to reach a verdict on any charge, which would lead to a mistrial and would give the prosecution the opportunity to re-try the case before a new jury. It’s also possible, although unlikely, the jury reaches a partial verdict where they agree on some charges but not all.


Guilty, acquittal, mistrials all possible from Chauvin trial | king5.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
89
Guests online
2,827
Total visitors
2,916

Forum statistics

Threads
592,182
Messages
17,964,744
Members
228,714
Latest member
hannahdunnam
Back
Top