Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chauvin juror defends participation in Washington protest
aol ^ | May 4, 2021

Posted on 05/04/2021 8:01:02 AM PDT by MarvinStinson

One of the jurors who convicted Derek Chauvin in the murder of George Floyd defended his participation in a protest last summer in Washington, D.C., following online speculation about his motives for serving on the jury and whether it might be grounds for appeal.

A photo shows Brandon Mitchell, who is Black, attending the Aug. 28 event to commemorate Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech . Floyd’s brother and sister and relatives of others who have been shot by police addressed the crowd.

That photo shows Mitchell standing with two cousins and wearing a T-shirt with a picture of King and the words, “GET YOUR KNEE OFF OUR NECKS” and “BLM,” for Black Lives Matter.

Mitchell, 31, acknowledged being at the event , but said he doesn’t recall wearing or owning the shirt.

Mitchell, the first juror to go public, spoke to several media outlets last week .

“I’d never been to D.C.,” Mitchell said . “The opportunity to go to D.C., the opportunity to be around thousands and thousands of Black people; I just thought it was a good opportunity to be a part of something.”

Mike Brandt, Minneapolis defense attorney not involved in the case, said the revelation alone wasn’t nearly enough to overturn Chauvin's conviction, but it could be combined with other issues — the announcement of a massive civil settlement to Floyd’s family during jury selection, the shooting of Daunte Wright, the judge’s refusal to move the trial — in an appeal to say Chauvin was denied a fair trial.

Ted Sampsell-Jones, a professor at the Mitchell Hamline School of Law, said the photo of Mitchell was “evidence that Chauvin can point to in order to establish that his right to an impartial jury was denied.”

(Excerpt) Read more at aol.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: chauvin; juror; searchmarv
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last

1 posted on 05/04/2021 8:01:02 AM PDT by MarvinStinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MarvinStinson

Corrupted jury; mistrial.


2 posted on 05/04/2021 8:02:29 AM PDT by carriage_hill (A society grows great when old men plant trees, in whose shade they know they will never sit..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarvinStinson

“evidence that Chauvin can point to in order to establish that his right to an impartial jury was denied.”

Absolutely!


3 posted on 05/04/2021 8:03:18 AM PDT by Bell Bouy II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarvinStinson

4 posted on 05/04/2021 8:04:11 AM PDT by MarvinStinson ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarvinStinson
1st Amendment...freedom of speech...I get it. It's having lied about during jury selection that's the felony.
5 posted on 05/04/2021 8:06:58 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Trump: "They're After You. I'm Just In The Way")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarvinStinson

The issue isn’t that he wore a T-Shirt or went to a rally. (I’ve done that! Attended Rolling Thunder 9 times in a row, and still have the T-Shirts!)

The issue is that he lied to be on the jury for this particular case. (I have NEVER done THAT.)


6 posted on 05/04/2021 8:07:25 AM PDT by left that other site (If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all. (Isaiah 7:9))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarvinStinson

“Mitchell told Nelson during jury selection that he had a “very favorable” opinion of Black Lives Matter, that he knew some police officers at his gym who are “great guys,” and that he felt neutral about Blue Lives Matter, a pro-police group.”

The defense asked their questions during voir dire, got their answers and did not object to Mitchell being seated.


7 posted on 05/04/2021 8:10:02 AM PDT by Meatspace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarvinStinson

Lying about participation ... not the participation ... is the issue.

Why would he lie unless he knew he could be excluded from the jury by telling the truth? So it’s easy to infer his intention ... he had already made up his mind and wanted to be a vote to convict.

We can assume that he did not remain silent in jury deliberations, so it seems also safe to assert he was working on others to get the result he already personally wanted.

Anyone else recall people expressing disbelief that they could find a local jury that didn’t know about it?

Want to bet others were just like this guy and they just haven’t got caught yet?


8 posted on 05/04/2021 8:10:19 AM PDT by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarvinStinson

With lefties, anything that advances the politics is fair game.


9 posted on 05/04/2021 8:11:22 AM PDT by Fido969 ( Sc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne

LOOOOOOK at me black america....I’m your new hero


10 posted on 05/04/2021 8:12:59 AM PDT by Hambone 1934 (When will the dems turn the US into Venezuela????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne

Want to bet others were just like this guy and they just haven’t got caught yet?


11 posted on 05/04/2021 8:14:22 AM PDT by MarvinStinson ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MarvinStinson

Ted Sampsell-Jones, a professor at the Mitchell Hamline School of Law, said the photo of Mitchell was “evidence that Chauvin can point to in order to establish that his right to an impartial jury was denied.”

Of course it’s evidence of jury bias. Clearly. Is it enough? Will the appellate court cave, too? We don’t know. This, plus the implied threats of a couple of demented weirdos from the federal government? Verdicts have been set aside for less.


12 posted on 05/04/2021 8:16:42 AM PDT by cdcdawg (You can point out the Left's hypocrisy without accepting their moral premises. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Meatspace

Their lack of objection was based upon his now proven lie.


13 posted on 05/04/2021 8:17:12 AM PDT by DesertRhino (Dog is man's best friend, and moslems hate dogs. Add that up. .... )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MarvinStinson

For more commentary on this:

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3956189/posts

😄🙌


14 posted on 05/04/2021 8:17:14 AM PDT by rktman (Destroy America from within? Check! WTH? Enlisted USN 1967 to end up with this?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Meatspace
“The defense asked their questions during voir dire, got their answers and did not object to Mitchell being seated.”

The defense did not know at the time the prospective juror was lying.

In my opinion, prospective jurors should not lie to the court under oath.

15 posted on 05/04/2021 8:18:52 AM PDT by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

“It’s having lied about during jury selection that’s the felony.”

Exactly. Lying under oath is not protected under the 1’st Amendment. Yet I won’t hold my breath waiting for anything to happen to this guy.


16 posted on 05/04/2021 8:19:10 AM PDT by throwthebumsout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

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.


17 posted on 05/04/2021 8:20:39 AM PDT by Meatspace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MarvinStinson

He’s not Black. He’s black.


18 posted on 05/04/2021 8:22:57 AM PDT by bwest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarvinStinson

If you’re a white person and see that on a jury, for anything, kiss your ass goodbye.


19 posted on 05/04/2021 8:24:16 AM PDT by Shadylake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jeffersondem

Many years ago, the ONLY time I ever got called for jury duty, they were asking their questions to see who they wanted to exclude.

The defense asked us what we thought of punishment.

I had a few moments to compose my thoughts and said, IIRC: for justice to be honorable punishment is the alternative to exoneration.

The judge and prosecutor both nodded appreciatively while the defense looked like he was in shock.

The lady sitting next to me said: “Oh, that’s good!” and he didn’t even let her complete her answer before going on to the next juror.


20 posted on 05/04/2021 8:28:19 AM PDT by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson