Wrestling Forum banner

321 - 337 of 337 Posts

·
Is a Snit Head
Joined
·
22,269 Posts
I'm no expert on US courtrooms or laws but wouldn't one of the jurors being involved with BLM and Anquifa be grounds for a miss trial?
Maybe. Being involved with BLM I don't think is an automatic disqualification. A lot depends on how he answered questions. Now if he outright lied about being involved then that would be grounds for a mistrial. If he was up front, said he takes part in BLM, protested in DC, but he can set any prejudices aside and be fair an impartial then he might have been allowed to stay. Now if he was taking part in BLM protests as a result of this case I think it's a different story. It's impossible to find jurors that didn't know about the case but you need jurors that haven't formed an opinion about the case. If prior to the jury trial he was out protesting because of this case then I think he formed an opinion about the case already.

I would love to be able to give you a simple answer about this. But to give you that answer I would probably need to see a full transcript of this juror's answers to questions and his jury questionnaire.
 

·
Is a Snit Head
Joined
·
22,269 Posts
Well yeah that seems like mistrial, and in theory some criminal charges for the juror.
 

·
The Fastest of the Fastest of Jamaican Sprinters
Joined
·
5,597 Posts
I'm no expert on US courtrooms or laws but wouldn't one of the jurors being involved with BLM and Anquifa be grounds for a miss trial?
Mistrial, 100%. Absolute miscarriage of justice. My ex-wife is a high-powered attorney and she told me it's almost certain this verdict will be thrown out. Even if Chauvin is 100% guilty on all counts, looks like we'll have to repeat this debacle all over again.
 

·
Hardcore Casual
Joined
·
1,233 Posts
Mistrial, 100%. Absolute miscarriage of justice. My ex-wife is a high-powered attorney and she told me it's almost certain this verdict will be thrown out. Even if Chauvin is 100% guilty on all counts, looks like we'll have to repeat this debacle all over again.
Can you expound on what she thought specifically occurred that undermined the verdict's legitimacy?

I didn't really follow the case, American politics depresses me. But I do remember someone mentioning the judge did not order a media blackout, which is odd for such a high profile case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,070 Posts
Mistrial, 100%. Absolute miscarriage of justice. My ex-wife is a high-powered attorney and she told me it's almost certain this verdict will be thrown out. Even if Chauvin is 100% guilty on all counts, looks like we'll have to repeat this debacle all over again.
I thought judges loathe to overturn a jury verdict? The juror can say he answered the questions honestly to his understanding of the question. It is up to the defense to prove their case to the judge and they seem kinda bad at their job judging by their performance during trial.
 

·
The Fastest of the Fastest of Jamaican Sprinters
Joined
·
5,597 Posts
Can you expound on what she thought specifically occurred that undermined the verdict's legitimacy?

I didn't really follow the case, American politics depresses me. But I do remember someone mentioning the judge did not order a media blackout, which is odd for such a high profile case.
When a juror lies about their background and beliefs if they are material to the case, there's grounds and precedent for a mistrial. Here's just one example:


I thought judges loathe to overturn a jury verdict? The juror can say he answered the questions honestly to his understanding of the question. It is up to the defense to prove their case to the judge and they seem kinda bad at their job judging by their performance during trial.
This is an open-and-shut case, however. The juror obviously lied.

Again, I want to be clear here: I do NOT want a mistrial. I believed the evidence proved him guilty, he was found guilty, and I'd prefer he serve his time and we all move on. I don't need to see this whole thing repeated. That said, from a legal standpoint...could be very hairy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,102 Posts
imagine the rage that will ensue once he gets dismissed of charges or a much lighter sentence.
That's exactly what they want.


This whole Chauvin kangaroo court theater on the MSM is meant to manipulate more racial division/chaos so they can move along their agenda of killing Capitalism and justify putting the military on our streets.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,070 Posts
When a juror lies about their background and beliefs if they are material to the case, there's grounds and precedent for a mistrial. Here's just one example:



This is an open-and-shut case, however. The juror obviously lied.

Again, I want to be clear here: I do NOT want a mistrial. I believed the evidence proved him guilty, he was found guilty, and I'd prefer he serve his time and we all move on. I don't need to see this whole thing repeated. That said, from a legal standpoint...could be very hairy.
I can't imagine being this guy if a mistrial is the result all because he tried to game the system. He is claiming the march he joined was to commemorate MLK's speech and he did not view it as a protest against police brutality. Not sure if that is enough to legally cover his ass. Your country don't need another trial for this easy open and shut case and a waste of public resources.
 

·
The Fastest of the Fastest of Jamaican Sprinters
Joined
·
5,597 Posts
I can't imagine being this guy if a mistrial is the result all because he tried to game the system.
He really does have my sympathy if a mistrial occurs. Whether he was intentionally misleading during jury selection, we'll never know.

He is claiming the march he joined was to commemorate MLK's speech and he did not view it as a protest against police brutality. Not sure if that is enough to legally cover his ass.
It's not, because most (if not all) jury selection questionnaires include space for the person to expand or extrapolate on an answer that requires more nuance than a simple "yes" or "no". Even if this rally was indeed an MLK rally unrelated to Black Lives Matter, he clearly supported the movement and was legally required to clarify his position.

Your country don't need another trial for this easy open and shut case and a waste of public resources.
Tell me about it. I don't even want to think about the riots we'll have to endure if a mistrial is handed down. Sweet Jesus on a pteranodon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,070 Posts
It's not, because most (if not all) jury selection questionnaires include space for the person to expand or extrapolate on an answer that requires more nuance than a simple "yes" or "no". Even if this rally was indeed an MLK rally unrelated to Black Lives Matter, he clearly supported the movement and was legally required to clarify his position.
The thing is he claimed he did disclose to the defense lawyer he had very favorable opinion on the BLM movement during jury selection so I don't think his opinion on BLM is a case for mistrial. I am more curious if his flimsy interpretation of the Washington protest/march is enough to cover his ass and prevent a mistrial. All this seem to point to the incompetence of the defense unless their whole gambit is to cause a mistrial. :/
 

·
The Fastest of the Fastest of Jamaican Sprinters
Joined
·
5,597 Posts
The thing is he claimed he did disclose to the defense lawyer he had very favorable opinion on the BLM movement during jury selection so I don't think his opinion on BLM is a case for mistrial. I am more curious if his flimsy interpretation of the Washington protest/march is enough to cover his ass and prevent a mistrial. All this seem to point to the incompetence of the defense unless their whole gambit is to cause a mistrial. :/
Crucially, him disclosing positive feelings about BLM doesn't matter if a judge believes his answer to the original question was dishonest or misleading. Differentiating between a BLM and MLK rally in mid-2020 is a hazy line to try to draw.

Also, while it's clear in a vacuum that the defense should have kept him off the jury, we simply don't know how many peremptory challenges the defense may have already used before they got to this guy.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,070 Posts
Crucially, him disclosing positive feelings about BLM doesn't matter if a judge believes his answer to the original question was dishonest or misleading. Differentiating between a BLM and MLK rally in mid-2020 is a hazy line to try to draw.

Also, while it's clear in a vacuum that the defense should have kept him off the jury, we simply don't know how many peremptory challenges the defense may have already used before they got to this guy.

Which brings us back full circle to my original point that this is likely going to be up to the judge and whether the defense can convince the judge the defendant was denied his right to having 12 impartial jurors.

Maybe you are right and I am too harsh to the defense. He might be the only black person that answered no to those two questions honestly based on a technicality.
 

·
The Fastest of the Fastest of Jamaican Sprinters
Joined
·
5,597 Posts
Which brings us back full circle to my original point that this is likely going to be up to the judge and whether the defense can convince the judge the defendant was denied his right to having 12 impartial jurors.

Maybe you are right and I am too harsh to the defense. He might be the only black person that answered no to those two questions honestly based on a technicality.
Well, yeah, of course it was always up to convincing the judge. Much to my chagrin, it seems the defense has a fairly strong gripe here.

And yeah, there's really no way to pierce through the jury selection process. It's entirely possible that the defense had to use all their peremptory challenges on more outwardly pro-BLM potential jurors and that this guy was what they had left.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,402 Posts
Juror admits to fear of retaliation relating to the verdict :




"I didn't want to go through this whole rioting and destruction again, and you know, a little concerned about people outside my house if they weren't happy with the verdict."
100769
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
12,916 Posts
Why am I not surprised? Bet he gets his pension back and a promotion to chief of police. And the cycle of police misconduct will continue because no political party has the balls to do something about the amount of power they have.
 
321 - 337 of 337 Posts
Top