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 ...
(Music sting)
The greatest American hero, Liar Juror was there!
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.
The judge said to us "if any of you feel you shouldn't be seated on this jury raise your hand". Several of us,including me,raised their hand. I was eventually summoned to approach the bench where the judge and several lawyers were gathered. I explained that I had seen many drunk driving fatalities in my work in a hospital ER *and* that my niece was killed by a drunk driver (both claims were true). In unison the judge and all the lawyers assembled said "nope,he shouldn't serve".
However...strangely enough...I was allowed to stay in the gallery as the trial began and given the evidence I saw presented I probably would have voted "not guilty".
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.
I was in a similar situation — being questioned as juror on a drunk driving case.
Q: Do you think there’s any excuse for someone to drive drunk?
A: No.
This continued for a couple minutes as they tried to determine if I was serious or just trying to ditch serving. Then I was able to tell them that my husband had been President of MADD for years in the state he used to live.
They couldn’t get rid of me fast enough.
Mitchell did attend the MLK March on Washington in August of 2020.
Was that march planned before Floyd’s death?
If so, how could it be a march against police brutality in Minnesota?
Mitchell told the court, which includes the defense lawyers that he was pro BLM and Chauvin’s and his lawyers seated him.
I read earlier that the Defense counsel gave Mitchell the ok in jury selection.
Perhaps the Defense Counsel already knew about Mitchell and his T-Shirt and left it to the Prosecutors to bounce him from the jury selection.
Whatever happened, this certainly looks like a cause for mistrial on appeal.
He [Chauvin] can do or say whatever he pleases. The “verdict” will stand. This trial was political, not legal. It was the same as Hitler putting a Jew on trial before a “People’s Court” Or Stalin putting someone on trial by a “Special Tribunal” The verdict and sentence of the defendants were foreseen and foreordained. Guilty and death.
“It’s having lied about during jury selection that’s the felony.”
In today’s world, no DA would prosecute this juror.
Membership in the Mob is a Virtue in Mob Rule America!
Mitchell said he answered “no” to two questions about demonstrations on the questionnaire sent out before jury selection.
The first question asked: “Did you, or someone close to you, participate in any of the demonstrations or marches against police brutality that took place in Minneapolis after George Floyd’s death?” The second asked: “Other than what you have already described above, have you, or anyone close to you, participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality?”
Regardless of when the damn rally was planned or it's original intent, it did become a rally about police use of force. He lied about his participation. If he hadn't lied, he would likely have been struck from the jury.
If you know and do not object, you can't protest after the fact (except in limited circumstance which this isn't one).
“the opportunity to be around thousands and thousands of Black people”
racist
You got it, Sport.
Chauvin’s lawyers should have struck Mitchell, but they elected to keep someone who stated they were BLM on the jury. That is the fault of the defense and not the court.
Chauvin selected his defense team and went to trial with lawyers who were not the best on the planet.
Chauvin had a doofus for a lawyer.
“If he hadn’t lied, he would likely have been struck from the jury.”
Mitchell told the court that he supported BLM.
The defense team knew he supported BLM and did not object to his being seated on the jury.
That was a mistake and the defense cannot go to an appeals court and say that they were unaware that Mitchell was BLM.
“ Chauvin had a doofus for a lawyer.”
Exactly, and whose fault is that?
“Exactly, and whose fault is that?”
As a doc I see lots of people who wind up getting treated incorrectly. Is it their fault? At some point everyone has to put their trust in the competency of some professional whose services they need - be that an attorney, a physician, a plumber, a mechanic, etc.. It’s really difficult for anyone to oversee and scrutinize all off the actions of the professionals they hire.
if he wants to be around thousands and thousands of black people, why doesn’t he leave Mpls and go to Detroit, Chicago, NY, etc., or Africa?
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.