In the unlikely event there is a a new trial, it will be the same result. Dude shouldn't have been a juror based on what I've read. It's unfortunate this came out afterward. Had it come to light earlier, he could have been removed during the trial, and we'd have already moved on from discussing juror selection processes and how hard it would be to find unbiased folks in high profile cases.
I imagine nearly every big trial has people like this on the jury. It is a shame, but no one, NO ONE, is going to go into a big trial unbiased. Hopefully they can put aside their bias long enough to treat the facts as they come up. I honestly think that had this juror been replaced, the outcome would have been identical. We are humans, not robots. But the dude should not have lied, and if he did, he should be punished for it.
If the juror answered the pretrial questions truthfully, the defense can't claim a re-trial because they wish they would have asked different questions during the screening process.
Yes, I agree, which is why I'm fine with using mistrial. It's a "retrial," but still, I think jeopardy has attached, since the trial has completed. Which isn't true of a mistrial. And since that's a Federal thing, it gives two avenues to appeal to completely remove all charges. Which is injustice. And therefore should not be considered.
the juror mentions after the fact, the "need to get in these rooms and spark change". Imo, some of his statements could cause a problem and restart this junk back up again
What is problematic about that statement? People performing civic duty should be there to advocate for their views. That's why juries should be diverse. Nothing about that statement strikes me as problematic or biased.
I disagree. It shows he could have been focused on change for the black community regarding police issues vs being involved in a fair trial, which is the right of every defendant. Finding the defendant innocent wouldn't exactly be helping change now would it
Fair enough. Then maybe it wouldn't be called a "mistrial." Bottom line is, there's at least a decent chance we see some sort of a retrial, based on a number of different factors. He's definitely not walking free on some double jeopardy nonsense.
We should be doing everything we can to get as unbiased of a jury as possible. That's why the defense is calling for a retrial, not just based on this juror, but on a number of things, such as the judge not sequestering the jury and refusing to allow the case to be tried in a different location.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/derek-chauvins-legal-team-requests-trial-alleging-jury/story?id=77493595 Why would his lawyers be asking for a retrial if there was a path for him to walk without it?
If he was a lone holdout on a not guilty hung jury, or greatly influenced several jurors and caused the jury to hang, I would be more inclined to look at this guy like he was out there with a focus on change and not a fair trial. But that is not what happened. It looks like he got in the room, with all the jurors, to decide the guilt, and didn't have to do much work at all to get the verdict, even if biased, that he wanted. It isn't enough to say someone is biased. They need to be biased, and made an impact. That jury didn't deliberate long enough for anyone to have made an impact, because it wasn't necessary. They all thought he was guilty, quickly. So unless they are all biased, that's a fair trial.
Jesus, are you just seeing how far you can push with this? You should not be coming into a jury with a mission to spark change. That's bias. You should come into a jury wishing to hear the evidence and make a determination based on that evidence. If that evidence/determination leads to sparking some sort of change, then so be it. But you shouldn't be coming into the process with that goal. The dude compared jury duty to voting, ffs.
I'm not following you here. Even if they requested to have all charges dropped, why on earth would that ever be granted? I've not read a single article that suggests there is any realistic path for Chauvin to not only be relieved of his current conviction but also avoid a retrial and walk free as a result.
Hes guilty, but it opens up for issues. If you are on trial float, and a juror has marched against programming geeks and mentions his focus is to address some misdoings by computer guys, you won't want him on the jury, and he shouldn't be.
If they request to the state for a re-trial, and are granted their motion. They can then go to the Federal system and request that the re-trial, that they just asked for, be set aside due to 5th amendment protections. It's in their interest to ask for this. And be granted this. Because they can then petition to have the re-trial scrapped due to double jeopardy.
