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.