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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
BUF said:
Nelson wants a hearing to impeach the verdict. That’s a new one for me.

Found this, but haven’t read it yet:
https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cg...e.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2774&context=wmlr
Click to expand...

From the motion:

2. An order for a hearing to impeach the verdict, pursuant to Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.03, subd. 20(6) and Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 104 N.W.2d 301 (Minn. 1960), on the grounds that the jury committed misconduct, felt threatened or intimidated, felt race27-CR-20-12646 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 5/4/2021 3:59 PM 4 based pressure during the proceedings, and/or failed to adhere to instructions during deliberations, in violation of Mr. Chauvin’s constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial. State v. Larson, 281 N.W.2d 481, 484 (Minn. 1979); State v. Kelley, 517 N.W.2d 905 (Minn. 1994); State v. Bowles, 530 N.W.2d 521 (Minn. 1995)


BBM above not sure if this helps, but it sounds like it is just a recorded hearing, where they question the jurors about the verdict?

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Rule 26.Trial
Rule 26.03Procedures During Trial
Subd. 20.Jury Deliberations and Verdict.
(6) Verdict Impeachment. A defendant may move the court for a hearing to impeach the verdict. Juror affidavits are not admissible to impeach a verdict. At an impeachment hearing, jurors must be examined under oath and their testimony recorded. Minn. R. Evid. 606(b) governs the admissibility of evidence at an impeachment hearing.
 
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.
 
SouthAussie said:
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/
Click to expand...

I think that newspaper article may have been poorly written. I was under the impression that he’s the one on the right wearing the shirt.

Is it possible that what you quote should be interpreted as: “standing next to two relatives [while] wearing a black T-shirt...” etc.?
 
Chauvin's defense team will investigate Brandon Mitchell, the same way Scott Peterson's team has and is investigating Richelle Nice, who was determined to be a "rogue juror" and caused the penalty phase of his trial to be thrown out. In the Scott P. case, she withheld info about being a victim of domestic abuse (which happened while she was pregnant) and in this case, Mitchell has denied any involvement in demonstrations.

It is interesting that both Richelle Nice and Brandon Mitchell were the first jurors to be outspoken and have their 15 minutes in the media spot light after the convictions. I can't begin to express my anger and dismay of what Nice has done, and what Mitchell may have done to corrupt the justice system of relying on fair jury verdicts, and the monumental result when a potential juror has not being honest.

People lie, and good liars get away with it and are accepted on jury duty. I have been concerned about this for many years, but realize that most jurys come to the right verdict. The tragedy is that the right verdict can be overturned because one juror lied. I think that prospective jurors should be warned that one simple lie can cause a mistrial.


April 27/21: Today the judge gave Peterson’s investigators more time (60 days) to look into domestic violence committed against Nice in the early 2000’s while she was pregnant. He is guaranteed a new trial for the penalty phase because his death penalty was thrown out by the California Supreme Court. But what he really wants is a new trial for the criminal phase, which if found not guilty, would mean he could one day walk free out of prison.
ron4.com/news/california/scott-peterson-trial/scott-peterson-trial-two-new-hearings-scheduled-for-june/
 
casesensitive said:
Chauvin's defense team will investigate Brandon Mitchell, the same way Scott Peterson's team has and is investigating Richelle Nice, who was determined to be a "rogue juror" and caused the penalty phase of his trial to be thrown out. In the Scott P. case, she withheld info about being a victim of domestic abuse (which happened while she was pregnant) and in this case, Mitchell has denied any involvement in demonstrations.

It is interesting that both Richelle Nice and Brandon Mitchell were the first jurors to be outspoken and have their 15 minutes in the media spot light after the convictions. I can't begin to express my anger and dismay of what Nice has done, and what Mitchell may have done to corrupt the justice system of relying on fair jury verdicts, and the monumental result when a potential juror has not being honest.

People lie, and good liars get away with it and are accepted on jury duty. I have been concerned about this for many years, but realize that most jurys come to the right verdict. The tragedy is that the right verdict can be overturned because one juror lied. I think that prospective jurors should be warned that one simple lie can cause a mistrial.


April 27/21: Today the judge gave Peterson’s investigators more time (60 days) to look into domestic violence committed against Nice in the early 2000’s while she was pregnant. He is guaranteed a new trial for the penalty phase because his death penalty was thrown out by the California Supreme Court. But what he really wants is a new trial for the criminal phase, which if found not guilty, would mean he could one day walk free out of prison.
ron4.com/news/california/scott-peterson-trial/scott-peterson-trial-two-new-hearings-scheduled-for-june/
Click to expand...

ahhh I popped into that thread last night, and was thinking about this today in light of everything I have found out. It is interesting that both were first out of the gate to talk.
 
RANCH said:
He sure was wearing a shirt that said "Get Your Knee Off Our Necks." That shirt is obviously a statement protesting the actions of Derek Chauvin in the death of George Floyd.

In my opinion Brandon Mitchell committed perjury during jury selection. Should be grounds for a retrial. JMO
Click to expand...

<modsnip>

In reference to the T-shirt worn by Mr. Mitchell - I should add that “get off our necks” has been a rallying cry for Black civil rights in general. It does not just refer to George Floyd.
https://twitter.com/MaryMoriarty/status/1389719128047382528?s=20
 
Chauvin seeks new trial, impeachment of verdict

During the jury selection process, Mitchell had said he hadn’t attended any Black Lives Matter or anti-police brutality protests.

In an interview, Mitchell said he answered the questions truthfully. He said the Washington, D.C., march was a commemoration of the 57th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s march and his “I Have a Dream” speech — not a Black Lives Matter protest.

Legal experts say Nelson will have to wait until after sentencing, which is set for June 25, before he can file an appeal.
 
JerseyGirl said:
Chauvin seeks new trial, impeachment of verdict

During the jury selection process, Mitchell had said he hadn’t attended any Black Lives Matter or anti-police brutality protests.

In an interview, Mitchell said he answered the questions truthfully. He said the Washington, D.C., march was a commemoration of the 57th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s march and his “I Have a Dream” speech — not a Black Lives Matter protest.

Legal experts say Nelson will have to wait until after sentencing, which is set for June 25, before he can file an appeal.
Click to expand...
On CNN last night one of the lawyers interviewed said the question he answered specifically asked if he had been to any anti police brutality protests in Minnesota. He had not, so he didn’t lie. Defense attorney Mark O’Mara said it’s on the defense because they had plenty of opportunities to question him about it and they didn’t strike him.
 
kittythehare said:
<modsnip>

In reference to the T-shirt worn by Mr. Mitchell - I should add that “get off our necks” has been a rallying cry for Black civil rights in general. It does not just refer to George Floyd.
https://twitter.com/MaryMoriarty/status/1389719128047382528?s=20
Click to expand...

Thanks for the education, as thanks to those others that have given on the threads.

Here is a visual of the shirt in question and link. BLM/MLK/rallying cry is on the shirt. As others have said, he may have answered the question in a targeted way as such. We shall see. I wonder if it will move to sentencing prior to resolving this all the way up the the appellate? Does anyone know how that works?

tshirt.JPG

Juror's 'BLM' T-shirt sparks concerns about Derek Chauvin trial

ETA: Jersey Girl had the answer to my question in an above post which states "Legal experts say Nelson will have to wait until after sentencing, which is set for June 25, before he can file an appeal."
 
happyday said:
On CNN last night one of the lawyers interviewed said the question he answered specifically asked if he had been to any anti police brutality protests in Minnesota. He had not, so he didn’t lie. Defense attorney Mark O’Mara said it’s on the defense because they had plenty of opportunities to question him about it and they didn’t strike him.
Click to expand...

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
 
dixiegirl1035 said:
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
Click to expand...
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!
 
kittythehare said:
<modsnip>

In reference to the T-shirt worn by Mr. Mitchell - I should add that “get off our necks” has been a rallying cry for Black civil rights in general. It does not just refer to George Floyd.
https://twitter.com/MaryMoriarty/status/1389719128047382528?s=20
Click to expand...
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.
 
happyday said:
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!
Click to expand...
Bar is VERY high so probably nothing going to happen. One thing that bother me in voir dire and might be a reason to NOT stream it to the public is he as well as some others seems to have answers all prepared for Mr. Nelson. I noted Mitchell almost started answering before Mr. Nelson got the question finished. I think he should have somehow changed it up from day to day but do realize he was trying to get an even comparison in answers. Long way of saying I think some potential jurors watched the process before they got into the courtroom.
 
turaj said:
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.
Click to expand...
He claims he doesn't remember owning the shirt or cap and doesn't remember wearing them. Strange.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 185 more.
Total: 3,180 (members: 186, guests: 2,994)

Online statistics

Members online
186
Guests online
2,995
Total visitors
3,181
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,590
Messages
17,971,459
Members
228,833
Latest member
ddph
Back
Top