Posted on 04/28/2021 8:28:34 PM PDT by yesthatjallen
Brandon Mitchell, juror 52 in the trial of Derek Chauvin, has said that the jury deliberated for four hours as one juror was holding out and needed to be convinced of the former officer’s guilt.
“It was just dark. It felt like every day was a funeral and watching someone die every day,” Mr Mitchell told CNN, adding that the jury was shown the video of George Floyd’s death five to six times a day during the three-week trial.
“I felt like it should have been 20 minutes,” Mr Mitchell said about the four-hour deliberation. He said only one juror, whom he didn’t identify, was not certain that Chauvin was guilty.
The jury eventually found Chauvin guilty of second-degree murder, second-degree manslaughter, and third-degree murder. He faces up to 40 years in prison.
“The deliberation room was straight forward. There [were] a few hiccups with terminology ... there wasn’t too much back and forth,” he told ABC’s Good Morning America.
He said one juror wanted further clarifications to understand the terminology in relation to the charges.
He said: “We deliberated for four hours. We were going over the terminology so we understood exactly what was being asked.
“The one juror that was, I wouldn’t say slowing us down, was being delicate with the process more so ... hung up on a few words.”
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
He killed him 3 times. Had he only killed him once, he'd be facing far fewer years.
Sounds like everyone had their mind made up from the get go. There is not a better argument for reversing this verdict upon appeal.
If I were that lone juror, I would love to have taken on the other 11.
I would have convinced them to change their minds, not the other way around.
In other words there was one person on the jury that wasn’t completely terrified that he/she was going to be targeted for extermination by #BLM...
Until the others convinced her / him that they would all be burned out and killed if they didn’t railroad Chauvin.
Here’s the argument to the unconvinced juror. Do you want your house burned down, your child kidnapped, or your faced smashed in.
Convincing.
April 28, 2021, 11:35pm ET
Philonise Floyd refused to criticize Tim Scott, despite being pushed to on CNN, then his lawyer Brn Crump cut him off as bd preached about “systematic racism” and began listing the few blacks killed by police...
“Sounds like everyone had their mind made up from the get go.”
That is no likely grounds for appeal, and impossible to prove.
Guilty until proven innocent...
It’s a simple fact that if you have three or so people who’ve made their minds up in a jury, they can browbeat the rest of the box into consensus most of the time. It takes an equally stubborn person to resist.
The judge should have called a mistrial because of mouthy Maxine trying to incite a bunch of vicious demon-straters.
There are a couple of grounds for appeal....There should have been a change of venue and the judge did not interview the jurors.
Racial intimidation by black jurors was the key to the verdict. Does anyone really think that a juror or jurors were going to hold out for a not guilty, if they happened to be white? They would have been labeled racists, names would have been revealed, their lives never the same, especially when their homes were burned to the ground.
Many people think he got what he deserves.
Depending on who is paying, and how much money there is Yes there are grounds for appeal, but I think it is a lost cause on a lost cause.
If you don’t vote guilty, the mob will know where we all live by sundown.
Advice to the next Chauvin - request a bench trial. A random selection of 12 people in most urban areas would be a disaster, but jury selection is not a random selection, and the impact of numerous factors (e.g., working people will find a way to get eliminated in voir dire) makes it a very bad group on average. Take the Judge.
Exactly!
Why is any white cop still working for any urban LEO unit. This is the prime example. Jury pool of the bottom of the gene pool.
Chauvin had zero chance of ever getting a fair trial in any city in America. Lots of law enforcement alternatives. Stay away from urban PD. Is there a way for whites in national guard to avoid urban areas as well?
I believe that in today’s environment of ever-present CCTV, near-ubiquitous (and high-quality) cellphone video, always-on body cameras, and then 24/7 media coverage that has (both sides) spewing forth near-constant one-sided ‘perspectives’ ...that it is always impossible to find jurors who will walk into a case totally neutral.
I just don’t see how that is possible at all.
By the time a jury is selected the members are so inundated with both fact and fiction that having an unbiased juror will be difficult. Especially considering the heavy saturation of ‘information’ that makes people believe they are subject matter experts when they are not.
And that is before the propaganda and talking heads start yapping.
Neutrality will be difficult. Just some hours back I saw it. I posted a link to a FReeper from India who was in the midst of the storm going on in that country. He posted saying that 1) real numbers of covid infections were 10x what was being reported by the government; 2) real deaths were 2-3x what was being reported by the government and 3) that while the horror was real in some areas, it was NOT as bad as the MEDIA were making it and were trying to hit Modi when he appeared vulnerable.
Quite simple and straightforward.
Well, even in FR the propaganda machine one sees in MSNBC and FOX (yes, both sides spew crap) came into play!
Some posters focused on the 10x infected and 2-3x dead, to show the horror is real (which it is).
Other posters focused on the media using it to hit at Modi, which is also real, but using that to make it seem there is nothing of concern happening in India.
And that is on FR.
In the future, high profile cases with tons of video footage from all angles (often including voice) will mean that within a matter of days there will be so much media, online and offline discussion that it will be impossible to get a jury pool that is WILLING to listen.
Everyone will have made up their minds within a week of the footage being released, and then the media/online discussions will cement whatever conclusions were hurriedly distilled.
Which is why I think if Chauvin was retried the conclusion would almost 100% be the same. Unless maybe he was retired elsewhere?
Dark side of the moon comes to mind.
Seriously though, justice will be turned to commentary and feelings, and no matter where one stands on the Floyd/Chauvin spectrum, it is a sad day when deliberation and evidence are not as important as what one feels and what one fears.
Correct.
Convicting on all 3 is lunacy.
And the last juror was not ‘uncertain’, he was the only one doing his job.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.