If those three don’t fry... especially the father & son duo.... I may actually loot a building myself.
https://nypost.com/2021/05/04/jurors-blm-t-shirt-sparks-concerns-about-derek-chauvin-trial/ Not good.
Possibly, possibly not. BLM is older than George Floyd, and the questions were related to both George Floyd and Minneapolis. Of course, Chauvin's attorney will pitch it at appeal. Like the 8 or 9 other pages of stuff that will also be thrown at the wall to see if anything sticks. Just like every appeal. I doubt that goes anywhere. The only that might stick is the 3rd degree murder charge due to the particular person precedent that you linked, which is a dumb reason, but a possible reason. Dumb, because the statutes dropped the particular person requirements a long time ago, but it keeps surviving court challenges. What's the point of updating law if the court just carries old language forward?
A number of publications seem to be suggesting that the juror wasn't forthright in answering questions during jury selection. Some even suggest he was downright dishonest. I don't have a problem with an activist being on the jury, but my guess is that if they knew he was an activist, he wouldn't have been on the jury. And my other guess is that they likely asked questions to find out if he was an activist. Maybe their questions sucked and allowed an activist to remain on the jury without having to engage in any sort of dishonesty or withhold information. Who knows. Just doesn't seem likely to me, especially for this high profile case. I've said a number of times, I believe, that I think we will ultimately see a mistrial, for any number of reasons. I also don't think there's any chance the murder 3 charge sticks in the end, for the reasons we've discussed.
We definitely will not see murder 3 fall off for any reason you discussed. Because you took it to mean "others," which is not the precedent. The precedent is "particular person," which is not the same. Throwing murder 3 will cause MN to rightfully riot. A jury returned a verdict, and appeal tossed that verdict, on not one, but two police officers accused of the action. That means that the will of the people is undone. And that will not be taken well. I doubt we see a mistrial on Chauvin. I doubt anything comes from this person, unless much more comes out, because being present at an event doesn't make one an activist. Wearing a shirt is protected speech. If the questions were answered truthfully, and it appears that they were, the person was properly vetted. The only way that would hold otherwise would be if they were purposefully not truthful. And that will be difficult to show.
Indy really took that trial result hard. Can't kneel on a man's throat for 9 minutes all because he ended up dying? But he used drugs. I thought this was America!
The jurors deliberated for about 20 minutes. But lets pretend this guy's shirt is the reason Chauvin was found guilty and not the murder part of all this.
The bolded part is scary. That's mob rule language, clear as day. The jury is not "the will of the people." The appeal doesn't toss the verdict, it tosses the charge because the charge doesn't apply. The verdict then disappears by default because you can't have a verdict without a charge. I'm not sure why you doubt we see a mistrial, but you're entitled to believe what you want. I agree that the only way it matters is if he purposefully answered untruthfully. I'm not sure it will be as difficult to show as you think. In the end, Chauvin still ends up convicted of at least one and possibly 2 of the charges, even if the first attempt is ruled a mistrial.
No, I didn't. I just don't think he should have been convicted guilty on all 3 charges. No need for you to make false statements.
I'm not sure why you think nothing will come of it. I'm not pretending this guys shirt is the reason Chauvin was found guilty. I'm just pointing out the fact that this guy opens the door further to a mistrial. Nothing more, nothing less. A mistrial isn't an acquittal. The guy almost certainly ends up convicted again of at least 1 and maybe multiple charges, should a mistrial occur and they have to retry him. What percentage of the jury has to agree on the verdict in a Minnesota criminal case? What is 11 divided by 12? You can act like it doesn't matter, but it's the sort of thing none of us should want to see in these situations. Leave no doubt.
Lordy, I hope that's not what any judge is thinking about when trying to decide if a case should be ruled a mistrial. That you are thinking and even saying that out loud probably helps speak to why there's at least a decent chance it will be a mistrial.
What have you observed that leads you to believe I've taken the Chauvin verdict hard? The fact that I'm talking about it on an internet message board? Is that the bar?
Oh, how specific. Look in the mirror, bud. You're making shit up. I disagree with certain parts of the charges and verdict. That doesn't mean I'm taking the "trial result hard." But it benefits your stance if you can claim I'm more invested in this that I actually am, so here we are.
The jury is the will of the people. They are the representatives of the people, in place of the state, in our judicial system. We may not always agree with their verdict, but they represent us at trial. If you consider that mob rule, I don't mind. You can call it whatever you want, MN will rightfully burn. In this particular case, there may be no impact. But in the other, the cop was found not guilty of the 2nd degree charge, and so throwing out the 3rd degree charge means the cop is declared not guilty of murder, after being found guilty of murder. Because the jury did not hang, and a result was reached, if double jeopardy applies, a mistrial would result in the inability to charge and convict. If that is so, Chauvin walks, and that is injustice.
