[Meatspace]

He stated that he had a very favorable option of BLM and the defense team elected to have him be seated on the jury.

That’s not a fault of the judge or the fault of the prosecution, that is the defense team’s fault.

[dpa5923]

Both the defense and prosecution get a specified number of peremptory strikes. In Minnesota the rules for criminal procedure states, "In cases punishable by life imprisonment the defendant has 15 peremptory challenges and the prosecutor has 9. For any other offense, the defendant has 5 peremptory challenges and the prosecutor has 3."

The defense does not get to strike everyone it wants to, nor can the prosecution. Very often, your picks are the least objectionable. In the present case, if the juror had been honest in responses to the voir dire questionnaire, he would have been deemed less desirable and most likely not picked. Because he lied, he wasn't struck and the defense has grounds for appeal.

[Regulator]

The defense may have let him be seated in this case on purpose.

Perjury or not, the notion of someone who’s a BLM protestor of any flavor being on that jury is absurd and they had to know that. It’s prima facie bias.

So this guy is too stupid to figure out that he was seated as a poison pill, and he was even more stupid not to realize that a high profile case like this would lead to microexamination of each juror.

The defense now has a fabulous case for appeal and re-trial. The judge should have granted a venue change at the outset: take it to Duluth. But they all wanted a conviction on the nastiest charge they could get.