1. So you agree that it's wrong? 2. The first sentence makes no sense. If the juror lied during jury selection, that would suggest Chauvin did not get a fair trial. The evidence is irrelevant to whether he got a fair trial, if the juror lied during selection. Chauvin very well could and probably should get convicted again in a retrial.
You're delusional and/or naive (well, definitely naive). They're searching for jurors that align more closely with the odds of winning their case. There isn't some noble fact-finding mission on the part of the attorneys.
The answer to this question doesn't matter, because that's not what we are talking about. I'm not saying that the juror was unable to listen to evidence and make an informed decision. It doesn't matter whether he was or wasn't. The only thing that matters is whether he lied or mislead during jury selection. Because if the defense wasn't given an opportunity to remove him from the jury as a result, then it wasn't a fair trial.
There's no naivety. You're not really saying anything different from what I've said. Bottom line: I don't give a [uck fay] "why" they do jury selection. The fact of the matter is that jury selection is a thing, and if you, as a juror, lie or mislead during jury selection, it threatens the validity of the verdict.
You really know how to emphasize the "oblivious" part, too. Is clearly different than Further, you're making the stupid case that there's implied bias that's irreconcilable in a court of law on the side of the juror because he wore a BLM shirt. That's your own bias toward the movement being shown.
GMA? Really? This is weak, VD. You're smarter than this. You know how lying works - you can make 100 statements, and if 99 are true and one is a lie, you're a liar. The dude telling the truth about his opinion of BLM is not evidence that he told the truth throughout the rest of the selection process. And you know that, so I'm not sure why you're posting this as if it's evidence that he never lied. The only thing evident from this video is that he told the truth when answering the specific question about whether he supported BLM. I haven't read a ton into it other than when it first came out, but if I remember correctly, the bigger focus is on what he said he knew about the Chauvin trial - that he gave the impression he hadn't been paying super close attention to it or wasn't overly familiar with it. I believe he also claimed that he didn't know if Chauvin was guilty or not, or something along those lines. That he spent time at a March where GF's family spoke, wearing a shirt that tied directly back to what happened to GF, seems to fly in the face of that statement. That's where the bigger problem lies, if memory serves. And if it's found that he didn't lie or mislead, great. Nothing to worry about at all. The defense should have done a better job with their questions during jury selection. This whole thing is only a problem if he lied or mislead.
Christ almighty. They don't need to be mirror image statements to be saying the exact same basic thing: If you are "searching for jurors that align more closely with the odds of winning [your] case," then you probably want to "weed out jurors who might have strong beliefs about specific topics that could cause them to apply their bias to their decision about the verdict, rather than basing that decision on the actual evidence of the case," if doing so would make them less likely to give you the verdict you want. See how easily your statement meshes with mine? It's because they're the same god damn thing. If my point was illegitimate, you wouldn't have to dumb it down to just "wore a BLM shirt. It wasn't just that he wore a BLM shirt. It was that he wore a BLM shirt, referencing the exact case on which he later served as a juror, during a march at which the family of the alleged victim spoke. And then *potentially* lied or mislead during jury selection.
Weak?!? Dan Abrahms - BA cum laude Political Science from Duke and Doctor of Law from Columbia Law School. Now do you. We are not talking Liar Liar Pants on Fire!! We are talking about proving in a Court of Law.
No, I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking you to state why you think it isn't possible. All you have to do is show that jeopardy doesn't attach. Because if jeopardy does attach, there are case after case after case after case of people not being able to be tried a second time, because of double jeopardy.
What did Dan Abrahms - BA cum laude Political Science from Duke and Doctor of Law from Columbia Law School say that lead to this below statement from VolDad - Super Moderator from 8thmaxim.com?:
He did not lie, based on what has been presented, and nor did he mislead. That was stated very early. The questions regarding bias, that were there to "weed out jurors" were specific to George Floyd, and marches in Minnesota. BLM is not specific to George Floyd. Marches in DC aren't Minnesota. So bias questions truthfully answered.
How are you this oblivious? Attorneys don't weed out all biases-- only biases that hurt their case. How on earth can you not see this distinction?
BLM and white supremacy aren't the same thing. But if you want to say "a juror had bias." We know that jurors have bias. If you want to say a juror had ties to white supremacy, that doesn't speak on the other eleven, that also voted not guilty, in order to arrive at the not guilty verdict.
You watched the video where he laid out the Prosecutors legal argument that he was telling the truth. Now pretend that you are standing in front of the Appeal Judges. Lay out your legal case that he lied.
Who on earth said they weed out all biases? You're right. Can't have any jurors who strongly oppose rock and roll music. And if a juror prefers soccer to American football, he's got to go! Christ. It's understood that they would weed out jurors whose biases hurt their case. That's why I'm able to add the last piece "if doing so would make [the juror] less likely to give [the defense] the verdict [the defense] wants," and the sentence still flows 100%, without issue. Because it should have been understood from the beginning.
Question from the questionnaire: "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?" Juror: "No." His justification for the answer is that the march in DC was a celebration of Dr. King, and not a protest over police violence. Yet he was wearing a shirt that specifically referenced an alleged case of police violence (get your knee off our neck), and members of GF's family, along with other family members of people who were killed by police, spoke at the event. It is incredibly easy to see how one would classify that event as a protest about police use of force and police brutality. It's possible to see how one might not classify it that way. But if that person was wearing a shirt protesting police brutality at the event? It's incredibly easy to see how one might think that opinion is dishonest. And from my understanding, none of these individual problems the defense has cited during its request for a retrial, alone, have to justify it. They can combine together to justify the retrial, in the mind of the judge. So this part isn't an all or nothing thing. It just has to make up a part of the justification.
All 12 have to vote a specific way to get a verdict. I'm not arguing that any of this will or should change the outcome. I'm simply stating that if a juror lied or mislead during jury selection, it's grounds for a retrial.
