Posted on 05/04/2021 8:01:02 AM PDT by MarvinStinson
Corrupted jury; mistrial.
“evidence that Chauvin can point to in order to establish that his right to an impartial jury was denied.”
Absolutely!
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.)
“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.
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?
With lefties, anything that advances the politics is fair game.
LOOOOOOK at me black america....I’m your new hero
Want to bet others were just like this guy and they just haven’t got caught yet?
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.
Their lack of objection was based upon his now proven lie.
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.
“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.
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.
He’s not Black. He’s black.
If you’re a white person and see that on a jury, for anything, kiss your ass goodbye.
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.
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.