George Floyd

[Laughing]

BLM predated Floyd, so not sure why simply being there would prejudice I mean lets be honest the concept of the trial was to ensure that black people have equal rights that are already written in law. Of course the screwed up american system won't see it that way and the defence won't be happy until their are 12 angry white men in hoods on the bench.

It's not really whether BLM predates George Floyds assault and death. It raises questions about the jurors honesty on all other standard voir dire questions. If he lies in one response you can't trust his other responses. One of the standard questions is around judging the case only on the evidence presented in court and putting aside everything that you have seen on the news or read in newspapers..

This is entirely the fault of one juror.

 

[Liamo]

The jurors were asked about attending any George Floyd rallies or BLM rallies. One of the jurors answered no but had attended a BLM rally where one of George Floyd's family spoke. The juror claimed he was there to listen to a speaker talk about Luther King.

Had he answered truthfully he would have been excused without cause.

The appeal will ultimately be successful I think and a new trial will be arranged. Hopefully chauvin will be remanded in custody waiting for the retrial.

I can't see how a new trial won't be forthcoming.

I think you may be overstating the legal significance of this.

Also, unless it's a different juror you're talking about, you may have some of the details wrong.

According to the article below, the mere fact that this juror attended the march on Washington would probably not be enough on its own, for an appeal

A Chauvin juror participated in the 2020 March on Washington. Is it grounds for appeal?

"It's certainly possible that this will be used to support various post-conviction efforts, of which one is an appeal," said Dmitriy Shakhnevich, a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. "At the end of the day, irrespective of his specific comments, there would have to be a showing that, had he not served on the jury or disclosed this information, the verdict would have been different."

"And that's a very high standard to meet," added Shakhnevich, who closely followed the trial.

 

[FatCat]

The jurors were asked about attending any George Floyd rallies or BLM rallies. One of the jurors answered no but had attended a BLM rally where one of George Floyd's family spoke. The juror claimed he was there to listen to a speaker talk about Luther King.

Had he answered truthfully he would have been excused without cause.

The appeal will ultimately be successful I think and a new trial will be arranged. Hopefully chauvin will be remanded in custody waiting for the retrial.

I can't see how a new trial won't be forthcoming.

But who will pay for the new trial - who pays for his defence now is it the police force - will they have to cover the costs again. Feels like it would be throwing money down the drain?

 

[Laughing]

I think you may be overstating the legal significance of this.

Also, unless it's a different juror you're talking about, you may have some of the details wrong.

According to the article below, the mere fact that this juror attended the march on Washington would probably not be enough on its own, for an appeal

A Chauvin juror participated in the 2020 March on Washington. Is it grounds for appeal?

That it's the juror I was referring to liamo. I may be overstating but I don't think so.

The issue is he lied during voir dire. He couldn't really claim, as he did, after the fact that it had nothing to do with George Floyd. At the time every march and gathering had something to do with George Floyd.

The problem in stopping a new trial on appeal is due to several facts.

Firstly what happens in the jury room is private. Non of the jurors can be forced to reveal how deliberations went. This makes it difficult for a prosecuter to claim anything about the influence of a single juror.

Had the juror told the truth he would have been excused. If the judge claims he wouldn't have excused him the defence will say they would have used a challenge to remove him.

I am not familiar with "how high" the bar is for an appeal, but I will be very surprised if a new trial is not forthcoming.

I can't remember the facts around the juror, Brandon Mitchel as I recall so not sure what I got wrong, I would have to go back and look.

 

[Laughing]

But who will pay for the new trial - who pays for his defence now is it the police force - will they have to cover the costs again. Feels like it would be throwing money down the drain?

I seem to recall at the time FC that the threat of an appeal may make the judge go lighter on sentencing to avoid an appeal. If you remember chauvin was set to plea for 10 years for third degree manslaughter until that was taken off the table.

Had the judge gone for 12 years I don't think chauvins would have appealed.

In terms of paying for it. If the police federation don't stump up then chauvins may well go with the public defender because at 22 years its not likely to get worse for him.

Unfortunately the tax payer will have to pay for the prosecution again.

Hopefully the judge refuses appeal then it goes to the supreme Court. That all takes time.

 

[BoroMart]

According to the article below, the mere fact that this juror attended the march on Washington would probably not be enough on its own, for an appeal

exactly my point. IF the argument is that supporting BLM precludes someone from being a juror, then in such a divided world it is effectively saying anti-BLM people must form the jury. That isn't a way to create justice, considering the very reason for BLMs existence is historical injustice.

Like I said BLM predates GF and shouldn't be a precluding factor on its own. This is one of those technicality not merit based appeals

 

[Liamo]

The issue is he lied during voir dire. He couldn't really claim, as he did, after the fact that it had nothing to do with George Floyd. At the time every march and gathering had something to do with George Floyd.

Well firstly, I'm not sure that he did. If you read the entire article I linked to earlier, he answered on a questionnaire that he had not taken part in protests against police violence. Attending the march on Washington which was meant to rekindle the spirit of Dr Martin Luther King Jr's 1963 march, may or may not meet that description.

But secondly and more importantly, (if the legal expert quoted below is right) that's not the main issue anyway.

Mary Moriarty, a defense lawyer in Minneapolis, said the ultimate question is: Did Mitchell misrepresent who he was or who he is? She said she does not see how, even if there is a Schwartz hearing, that the trial judge could find Mitchell untruthful based on what is now known.

 

[Laughing]

exactly my point. IF the argument is that supporting BLM precludes someone from being a juror, then in such a divided world it is effectively saying anti-BLM people must form the jury. That isn't a way to create justice, considering the very reason for BLMs existence is historical injustice.

Like I said BLM predates GF and shouldn't be a precluding factor on its own. This is one of those technicality not merit based appeals

Whilst I agree with your sentiment BM it's not attending the event that's the issue it's failing to reveal it. I don't know whether the judge would have excused the juror. I expect he would have to maintain the appearance of an unbiased jury. The point being, even if he hadn't of excused the juror, the defence would surely have used a challenge to excuse the juror.

The defence will, quite rightly, claim that they were denied that opportunity.

 

[Laughing]

Well firstly, I'm not sure that he did. If you read the entire article I linked to earlier, he answered on a questionnaire that he had not taken part in protests against police violence. Attending the march on Washington which was meant to rekindle the spirit of Dr Martin Luther King Jr's 1963 march, may or may not meet that description.

But secondly and more importantly, (if the legal expert quoted below is right) that's not the main issue anyway.

The legal expert you are linking to may well be right and would clearly know more than I do.

The problem I have with soundbites and quotes like that is there is a wider context that we often don't see.

As with anything legal there will be conflicting opinions across legal experts. I would imagine the prosecution frat will claim no grounds whilst defenders will cry the opposite.

The only people who's opinion matters is the presiding judge, court of appeals and the supreme Court.

I hope I am wrong but I just don't see how the conviction can stand.

On the subject of the juror lying, not revealing anything of substance would be frowned on. Rules for voir dire is very different to direct and cross examination. Jurors are expected to reveal anything that might impact their impartiality or risk others questioning their impartiality.

Well see.

 

[indeedido]

Surely, even if there is a retrial he will be found guilty and will get the same penalty at least?
His guilt is not in doubt.
The sentence was not harsh. The legal case may rumble on but in reality won’t change how long he spends(rightly) inside.

 

[VladKinder]

I can't see Chauvin lasting long in prison. Not saying that's right, but he's going to be a marked Man.

 

[Laughing]

Surely, even if there is a retrial he will be found guilty and will get the same penalty at least?
His guilt is not in doubt.
The sentence was not harsh. The legal case may rumble on but in reality won’t change how long he spends(rightly) inside.

No I agree, he may even get a longer sentence, or indeed shorter, I suppose.

 

[Laughing]

I can't see Chauvin lasting long in prison. Not saying that's right, but he's going to be a marked Man.

The orthogonal deal was taken off the table because as part of the deal chauvin wanted to do time in a federal prison to take him out of the normal day to day criminal system as it were.

I would think an ex cop in any prison in the USA will have problems though.