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 ...
People assume the appellate courts follow the law.
They do when they want to.
When they don’t want to, they don’t.
Regardless of the District Attorney, this juror opened himself up to a civil suit the moment he lied to get on that jury.
The fact that he supports BLM is irrelevant.
When your life and freedom are on the line, you pick the best available lawyer to take your case. In this matter, Chauvin did not chose the best representation.
Chauvin did not have incompetent counsel or inadequate counsel, he simply did not have the greatest counsel.
Why allow a person on the jury to be seated who states he supports BLM?
The rally he attended was a march to commentate the MLK March on Washington.
He was not asked if he attended an MLK March.
I already explained why an attorney may not strike a defendant (lesser of two evils) and regardless of what the rally started out as, the focus change to a protest about George Floyd.
The juror lied on his questionnaire. This is grounds for an appeal. Will it be successful, I don't know. But grounds, very strong grounds, exist.
Tainted jury, fraud.
The issue with Mitchell is the shirt and I don’t think jurors were asked about shirts that they wore.
As for the MLK March, it was not a march or rally about George Floyd and that rally would have taken place at the same time and same place had the events in Minneapolis not taken place. Perhaps, Mitchell would have attended the MLK March even if those events had not occurred.
Chauvin’s lawyers did not do a great job a trial.
Stop it. You have shown you do not understand jury selection and don’t understand the difference between lying on a jury questionnaire and support for an organization or group. As to the rally/protest; it doesn’t matter what its purpose or focus was at its inception or whether the juror would have attended or not considering the events in Minnesota. It matters he attended and lied about it.
“Regardless of the District Attorney, this juror opened himself up to a civil suit the moment he lied to get on that jury.”
Who is going to file a civil suit? Will a liberal judge simply rule whoever filed the suit has no “standing”? Such rulings are very common today.
It’s not all that hard to get into or through law school. There are clearly brilliant attorneys, and also ‘not so good’ attorneys (many of these in Congress). Just like physicians and other professionals. Further, you have people like Hillary who didn’t pass the DC bar after going to Yale law school. My point is that you don’t always know who is a good attorney and who isn’t. Add to that being absolutely distraught about your life, and your judgment is probably very compromised. Also, the amount of money you have to pay an attorney defines what kind of representation you get.
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.