Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

Real Donald Trump

This BLM lot are everywhere


https://twitter.com/hrkbenowen/status/1388996103757078531

Real Donald Trump

Real Donald Trump wrote: »

This BLM lot are everywhere


https://twitter.com/hrkbenowen/status/1388996103757078531

Yawn, the gateway pundit... Suspect this will have absolutely zero impact in an appeal.

Overheal

Real Donald Trump wrote: »

This BLM lot are everywhere


https://twitter.com/hrkbenowen/status/1388996103757078531

buried under the headline:

"Defense says he is an acceptable juror."

https://twitter.com/PaulBlume_FOX9/status/1371482361939001344?s=20

And I don't see anything different from the photo. The Gateway Pundit wants readers to act as though George Floyd, not Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., is on the shirt. The rally in question was on the 57th anniversary of MLK's DC Rally. All this shirt reveals is he had knowledge of the incident and understood the historic significance - something the court already confirmed at the time:

"Juror #52 wrote in his jury questionnaire that he wondered why other police officers at the scene did not intervene in #GeorgeFloyd deadly arrest. He recognizes the historic nature of the case. Defense says he is an acceptable juror."

Melanchthon

Overheal wrote: »

buried under the headline:

"Defense says he is an acceptable juror."

https://twitter.com/PaulBlume_FOX9/status/1371482361939001344?s=20

And I don't see anything different from the photo. The Gateway Pundit wants readers to act as though George Floyd, not Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., is on the shirt. The rally in question was on the 57th anniversary of MLK's DC Rally. All this shirt reveals is he had knowledge of the incident and understood the historic significance - something the court already confirmed at the time:

"Juror #52 wrote in his jury questionnaire that he wondered why other police officers at the scene did not intervene in #GeorgeFloyd deadly arrest. He recognizes the historic nature of the case. Defense says he is an acceptable juror."

Even the Washington Post raise the possibility of a retrial happening from this so it's not exactly just conservative sources. Also since your probably following the story way closer than people in Ireland your presumably aware that the defence thought he was an acceptable juror due to the answers he gave on the forms.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/05/03/chauvin-trial-juror/

Civil rights attorney Brian Dunn argued that while the photo is “undeniably suggestive of a possible bias in this juror,” the critical inquiry will be to determine whether the juror “lied about, or failed to provide complete answers on whether he has engaged in public activism, or whether he has any affiliations with BLM that go beyond the mere wearing of the shirt.”

Dunn said this will involve a careful review of this juror’s questionnaire, as well as the statements made in open court.

“If it is determined that the juror did not provide full disclosure to the defense, the question then becomes whether this lack of candor violated Mr. Chauvin’s right to a fair trial,” Dunn said, adding that this would require a much more detailed inquiry, typically addressed by an extensive evidentiary hearing.

Green Peter

It's not a safe conviction, has to be a retrial, even if it isn't it will surely impact sentencing

BattleCorp

Retrial applied for.

Green Peter

BattleCorp wrote: »

Retrial applied for.

Bidens comments won't help either in any retrial. The rush to convict him and appease BLM may ultimately set him free.

Green Peter

Green Peter wrote: »

Bidens comments won't help either in any retrial. The rush to convict him and appease BLM may ultimately set him free.

Shouldn't have any impact since the jury was sequestered at that point.

ELM327

Deleted User wrote: »

Shouldn't have any impact since the jury was sequestered at that point.

Not properly, they went home in the evenings

ELM327

ELM327 wrote: »

Not properly, they went home in the evenings

During the trial that's correct, on the conclusion they were fully sequestered in a hotel until a verdict was reached.

https://apnews.com/article/derek-chauvin-trial-jury-deliberations-sequestering-504dce0e97b2b6d3220e5ee9107ba896

ELM327

Yes, and they should have been sequestered from the beginning.
I think there will be a retrial and ultimately Officer Chauvin will not be found guilty of all 3 offenses.

Hobby farmer

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Shouldn't have any impact since the jury was sequestered at that point.

If there was to be a retrial what impact would Bidens comments have I wonder? Would it influence the jury?

Regardless of what Chauvin is guilty of the whole thing was a circus.

Penn

Hobby farmer wrote: »

If there was to be a retrial what impact would Bidens comments have I wonder? Would it influence the jury?

Regardless of what Chauvin is guilty of the whole thing was a circus.

Biden's comments to Floyd's family were about praying for the right verdict (but doesn't seem to have specified which verdict was the "right" verdict), and then after the verdict he called it murder and that justice was done, which is true at that point as that was the verdict.

I'd be willing to bet Biden chose his words carefully enough that, even if the defence did try to use it as part of an appeal or retrial, it wouldn't be deemed to have enough weight.

Fandymo

Deleted User wrote: »

During the trial that's correct, on the conclusion they were fully sequestered in a hotel until a verdict was reached.

https://apnews.com/article/derek-chauvin-trial-jury-deliberations-sequestering-504dce0e97b2b6d3220e5ee9107ba896

With their mobiles. They should have been fully sequestered

Penn

Fandymo wrote: »

With their mobiles. They should have been fully sequestered

They did not have their phones when they were sequestered while making their verdict. They were fully sequestered while making their verdict.

Hobby farmer

Penn wrote: »

Biden's comments to Floyd's family were about praying for the right verdict (but doesn't seem to have specified which verdict was the "right" verdict), and then after the verdict he called it murder and that justice was done, which is true at that point as that was the verdict.

I'd be willing to bet Biden chose his words carefully enough that, even if the defence did try to use it as part of an appeal or retrial, it wouldn't be deemed to have enough weight.

Yes you’re probably right. I did notice when he was saying it he did so rather clumsily and to me appeared to try and back track slightly by stating (correctly) the jury had been sequestered otherwise he wouldn’t comment.

Green Peter

[Deleted User] wrote: »

During the trial that's correct, on the conclusion they were fully sequestered in a hotel until a verdict was reached.

https://apnews.com/article/derek-chauvin-trial-jury-deliberations-sequestering-504dce0e97b2b6d3220e5ee9107ba896

What about the next jury?

charlie_says

Not a good look for the US justice system if jurors lying under oath in selection doesn't have an affect on the trial when brought to the attention of the court.

At this point I think this judge has no balls and wants this out of his court as fast as possible so he can have a quiet life.

ohnonotgmail

Green Peter wrote: »

What about the next jury?

what about them? what did Biden say that would influence a jury unduly?

charlie_says

charlie_says wrote: »

Not a good look for the US justice system if jurors lying under oath in selection doesn't have an affect on the trial when brought to the attention of the court.

At this point I think this judge has no balls and wants this out of his court as fast as possible so he can have a quiet life.

There's no indication of jurors lying...

charlie_says

Deleted User wrote: »

There's no indication of jurors lying...

Didn't tell the truth one at least one of the jury selection questions which is under oath could be construded as perjury perhaps. It remains to be seen with the appeal. At this point it's really up to the judge to decide that based on the appeal arguments and *maybe* questioning and evidentiary inquiry into that juror, and *maybe* others.

I doubt it though, the mob has spoken and they get "their justice" and "their truth" thesedays in 'murica

ohnonotgmail

charlie_says wrote: »

Didn't tell the truth one at least one of the jury selection questions which is under oath could be construded as perjury perhaps. It remains to be seen with the appeal. At this point it's really up to the judge to decide that based on the appeal arguments and *maybe* questioning and evidentiary inquiry into that juror, and *maybe* others.

I doubt it though, the mob has spoken and they get "their justice" and "their truth" thesedays in 'murica

i'm pretty sure it was the jury foreperson that spoke and said Chauvin was guilty of murder in the second degree. maybe I am misremembering.

Dempo1

Didn't take long for the request for re trial, I'd be shocked if not granted.

Notwithstanding the quite dreadful Defence Team of One, politicians shooting their mouths off, media coverage and now questions of Jury Bias. I'm not saying he'll be aquited but speaking objectively he has a pretty good chance from a legal stand point.

Penn

Dempo1 wrote: »

Didn't take long for the request for re trial, I'd be shocked if not granted.

Notwithstanding the quite dreadful Defence Team of One, politicians shooting their mouths off, media coverage and now questions of Jury Bias. I'm not saying he'll be aquited but speaking objectively he has a pretty good chance from a legal stand point.

None of that changes the evidence, which the majority of legal experts I saw commenting on the case said was overwhelming against Chauvin. There's very little else the defence could throw during a retrial that would change that, as they had almost no counter to the vast majority of the prosecutions' evidence or witnesses, whereas the prosecution could now show more evidence to eliminate some of the defence's arguments (such as the carbon monoxide poisoning claims).

I don't see a retrial going Chauvin's way at all.

AMKC

Dempo1 wrote: »

Didn't take long for the request for re trial, I'd be shocked if not granted.

Notwithstanding the quite dreadful Defence Team of One, politicians shooting their mouths off, media coverage and now questions of Jury Bias. I'm not saying he'll be aquited but speaking objectively he has a pretty good chance from a legal stand point.

It would turn your stomach to think someone would represent this horrible man. What about George Floyd? Did he get a chance or a fair trial. No he got no trial because this horrible man killed him slowly and painfully.
I hope it is the same jury or a least a jury that can see Chauvin was in the wrong if it goes ahead and that the politicians keep there mouths shut.

Hobby farmer

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i'm pretty sure it was the jury foreperson that spoke and said Chauvin was guilty of murder in the second degree. maybe I am misremembering.

Are you suggesting the foreperson is the only jury member under oath?

ohnonotgmail

Hobby farmer wrote: »

Are you suggesting the foreperson is the only jury member under oath?

I very clearly did not say that. try again.

Hobby farmer

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I very clearly did not say that. try again.

Hmm I must have missed something.

Hobby farmer

AMKC wrote: »

It would turn your stomach to think someone would represent this horrible man. What about George Floyd? Did he get a chance or a fair trial. No he got no trial because this horrible man killed him slowly and painfully.
I hope it is the same jury or a least a jury that can see Chauvin was in the wrong if it goes ahead and that the politicians keep there mouths shut.

What a daft comment. Anyone (in a civilised country) no matter how horrific the crime is entitled to due process and a legal defence.

Of course it won’t be the same jury if a retrial is ordered.

BattleCorp

AMKC wrote: »

It would turn your stomach to think someone would represent this horrible man.

It's the cornerstone of any legal system that everyone is entitled to legal representation. Are you suggesting that a defendant (in this case Chauvin) shouldn't have a lawyer?

I hope it is the same jury or a least a jury that can see Chauvin was in the wrong if it goes ahead and that the politicians keep there mouths shut.

So you want a jury that has already decided on Chauvin's guilt before the retrial (if one is granted)?

Again, an impartial jury is also another cornerstone of any legal system.

I do agree that the politicians keep their mouth shut.

biko

To have the trail locally with local jurors was never going to deliver a fair trail. Juror intimidation was a factor according to that alternate juror.

Derek Chauvin should get a new trial in a different state (if that's even possible), but I hope he is convicted in that too.

osarusan

Applying for a retrial is fairly common and not all that noteworthy in itself.

What are the grounds for actualy granting a new trial - what is the standard to be met?

I though this was interesting from the BBC:

In court documents Eric Nelson argues that the process was not impartial because of pre-trial publicity.

He writes that it was "so pervasive and so prejudicial" before and during the trial, that it amounted to a "structural defect in the proceedings".

The motion also alleges that errors were made by the judge and that there was prosecutorial misconduct and witness intimidation.

But they also say:

The New York Times quoted experts as saying it was unlikely that the jury's decision would be overturned because of the evidence in the case.

That seems like a weird argument to me - that the weight of evidence be considered when evaluating the grounds for a mistrial. It sounds like 'Maybe it was a bit prejudicial but the evidence is so strong that they'd always convict anyway'...which just sounds strange to me.

But then, if in some hypothetical trial, the prosecution provided clear video evidence of the accused shooting the victim in the head, should there be a retrial if it turned out that the judge made some errors. In that hypothetical, the same argument that 'it doesn't matter in terms of the verdict' seems to make more sense.

I guess it's a question of whether the errors/prejudice, if proven, actually cast doubt on the validity of the verdict.

Mellor

AMKC wrote: »

It would turn your stomach to think someone would represent this horrible man.

His lawyer is legally obliged to defend him. And that includes outing forward the best possibly defence.
Even the guilty deserve legal counsel.
Quite silly and pathetic to suggest otherwise.

I hope it is the same jury

It can’t be.

Penn

osarusan wrote: »

Applying for a retrial is fairly common and not all that noteworthy in itself.

What are the grounds for actualy granting a new trial - what is the standard to be met?

I though this was interesting from the BBC:



But they also say:

That seems like a weird argument to me - that the weight of evidence be considered when evaluating the grounds for a mistrial. It sounds like 'Maybe it was a bit prejudicial but the evidence is so strong that they'd always convict anyway'...which just sounds wrong to me.

But maybe that's not what it means.

I think they're just saying that the reasons for requesting a retrial are likely to be deemed to have little or no impact on the juror's decisions, and that even with all that removed and an alternate set of jurors, they most likely would have come to the same decision due to the overwhelming evidence.

Green Peter

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what about them? what did Biden say that would influence a jury unduly?

He said he hoped the jury would bring back the correct verdict and then welcomed the guilty verdict and said it was the right one and it was a good day for america. I think most people in America would know that by now. I suspect you do too.

ohnonotgmail

Green Peter wrote: »

He said he hoped the jury would bring back the correct verdict and then welcomed the guilty verdict and said it was the right one and it was a good day for america. I think most people in America would know that by now. I suspect you do too.

so he agreed with the jury. what a monster. how dare he do that.

Dempo1

AMKC wrote: »

It would turn your stomach to think someone would represent this horrible man. What about George Floyd? Did he get a chance or a fair trial. No he got no trial because this horrible man killed him slowly and painfully.
I hope it is the same jury or a least a jury that can see Chauvin was in the wrong if it goes ahead and that the politicians keep there mouths shut.

Sadly the greatest monsters in history we're entitled to a defence. No doubting what happened is appalling but equally important to point out, lack of control of emotions, interference and possible Bias has potentially opened the door to a successful appeal.

Dempo1

Penn wrote: »

None of that changes the evidence, which the majority of legal experts I saw commenting on the case said was overwhelming against Chauvin. There's very little else the defence could throw during a retrial that would change that, as they had almost no counter to the vast majority of the prosecutions' evidence or witnesses, whereas the prosecution could now show more evidence to eliminate some of the defence's arguments (such as the carbon monoxide poisoning claims).

I don't see a retrial going Chauvin's way at all.

Agree completely however its not the evidence that could cause a retrial

Biker79

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so he agreed with the jury. what a monster. how dare he do that.

The timing of his comments is hard to ignore. He made them right when the jury were making key deliberations, essentially telling them ' your president advises you to make the right decision here '.

If that was Trump, there would have been uproar/ social media bans etc.

Biker79

Biker79 wrote: »

The timing of his comments is hard to ignore. He made them right when the jury were making key deliberations, essentially telling them ' your president advises you to make the right decision here '.

If that was Trump, there would have been uproar/ social media bans etc.

The jury were sequestered so were not aware of his comments...

Biker79

Deleted User wrote: »

The jury were sequestered so were not aware of his comments...

I've been on jury duty. Although we were told to ignore them, we all had mobile phones and could see news headlines/ social media posts.

Politicians never make ambiguous mistakes with communications. The timing was deliberate.

Mellor

Biker79 wrote: »

The timing of his comments is hard to ignore. He made them right when the jury were making key deliberations, essentially telling them ' your president advises you to make the right decision here '.

That's not accurate.

Biker79 wrote: »

I've been on jury duty. Although we were told to ignore them, we all had mobile phones and could see news headlines/ social media posts.

Politicians never make ambiguous mistakes with communications. The timing was deliberate.

They didn't have their phones.
I agree the timing was deliberate. He waited until they were fully sequestered as that was the responsible thing to do.

Penn

Biker79 wrote: »

I've been on jury duty. Although we were told to ignore them, we all had mobile phones and could see news headlines/ social media posts.

Why did you look at your phone when told not to?

McCrack

Biker79 wrote: »

I've been on jury duty. Although we were told to ignore them, we all had mobile phones and could see news headlines/ social media posts.

Politicians never make ambiguous mistakes with communications. The timing was deliberate.

You weren't sequestered, ireland stopped doing that to jury's years ago, the jury in this trial were sequestered after the closing statements

MadYaker

Biker79 wrote: »

I've been on jury duty. Although we were told to ignore them, we all had mobile phones and could see news headlines/ social media posts.

Politicians never make ambiguous mistakes with communications. The timing was deliberate.

You did Jury duty in a incredibly high profile murder case in the USA? That must have been interesting. Jurys haven't been sequestered here for a long time, these people weren't browsing reddit while deliberating over the verdict, sequestered means no phones or anything. Also, politicians make mistakes with communications all the time, Trump put his foot in his mouth nearly every day and Biden isn't far behind him. The evidence seems to have been overwhelming anyway.

BattleCorp

Mellor wrote: »

I agree the timing was deliberate. He waited until they were fully sequestered as that was the responsible thing to do.

The responsible thing to do would have been either to not comment at all or to comment when the verdict was delivered and the trial was over.

But Biden didn't want to wait, he wanted to be seen to be sympathetic to Floyd's family.

Did Biden speaking when he did affect the outcome of the trial, I very much doubt it, but things like that do muddy the waters.

ohnonotgmail

Biker79 wrote: »

The timing of his comments is hard to ignore. He made them right when the jury were making key deliberations, essentially telling them ' your president advises you to make the right decision here '.

If that was Trump, there would have been uproar/ social media bans etc.

that is so wrong as to be almost a deliberate lie.

Dempo1

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that is so wrong as to be almost a deliberate lie.

Correct, extraordinary some on here determined to blame Biden, not at all sure what part of Biden Speaking AFTER the trial some are not getting, I'd normally say look at the tape but clearly cast iron proof never stopped Trump conspiracies

Biker79

Penn wrote: »

Why did you look at your phone when told not to?

Told not to look at the news, which we didn't, but information leaks through other sources, which is the point I'm making.

Is a sequestered Jury leak proof? Do they surrender their phones during the trial until a verdict is reached?

The point about Biden's timing stands.

Mellor

BattleCorp wrote: »

The responsible thing to do would have been either to not comment at all or to comment when the verdict was delivered and the trial was over.

It's pretty common in the US for state officials to comment on criminal proceedings. At time local

I don't he it makes a difference whether he says;

"He hopes the jury bring back the correct verdict" (while they are sequestered), or
"That they brought the right verdict" (after the verdict).

Did Biden speaking when he did affect the outcome of the trial, I very much doubt it, but things like that do muddy the waters.

I don't see what could have been muddied. Had the waited a few days and said the alternate line above, the net affect is the same.


It's also worth pointing out the Chauvin is the defendant, the prosecution is the government.
It's the court that is neutral one.