The Derek Chauvin Trial

@BillW,

BillW wrote:

Make, to take your comments one step further, the intent of voir dire is not to expose possible any bias but to insure a bias does not rule at the cost of truth!

This is incorrect. Under the law the rights of the accused are more important than the truth.

There are many cases where relevant evidence that would show the truth is excluded by the court to ensure the right to due process is protected.

If the police find illegal drugs at your house through a search without a warrant, the truth is that you are guilty of drug possession.

The court will prevent the evidence from being used anyway even if it means you get away with it.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

That has absolutely zero to do with voir dire.

The sky is blue, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the ocean is deep!

1 Reply

@BillW,

You are claiming that the purpose of voir dire is to 'insure [sic] that bias does not rule at the cost of the truth".

I am stating this is incorrect. Voir dire protects the right of the defendant to a fair trial. I am directly contradicting your statement because it is incorrect.

You knew the truth before thist trial even began. That is why you would have rightfully been excluded from the jury, An expert might be excluded if she has a bias that would prejudice her against the defendant even if she knows the truth.

In the American court system, the rights of the accused are protected even at the cost of the truth.

0 Replies

@Mame,

Quote:

No juror is going to be completely unbiased, whether s/ he had seen news reports, had a personal experience, had a family who experienced something similar. It's impossible to ask.

And if those are the grounds for a mistrial, it's ridiculous. Any thinking, cognitive person (or not) would have a bias. And aren't these biases supposed to be discovered during the jury choosing? What a lot of time and money wasted. Not to mention energy and emotion.

I presume the rules are put in place for complete fairness to a defendant. That includes the jurors not having any pre-existing prejudice against the defendant. This is obvbiously a good thing if you are the subject of prejudices and standing trial.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2004/03/what-are-the-grounds-for-a-mistrial.html

Quote:

Trial judges have ultimate discretion, and anything that might impede a jury’s ability to remain impartial

https://legaldictionary.net/mistrial/

Quote:

In the American judicial system, great pains are undertaken in order to ensure that trials, whether civil or criminal, are fair and impartial

An attorney may also request that the trial be ended because of some error or prejudice.

https://www.altoonamirror.com/news/local-news/2018/02/possible-juror-bias-forces-mistrial/

Quote:

Possible juror bias forces mistrial

Etc.

There's a difference between noticing a pattern (say of too many police officers using execessive force in too many circumstances) and prejudice (police are prone to brutality). The difference between the two is that one enables discernment of individual events, and the other is a blanket statement. The truth (rather than the prejudice) is that some (or many) police are prone to excessive force - the defendant here was obviously one of those.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Quote:

The difference between the two is that one enables discernment of individual events

My apologies - this should read 'individual people and events'

0 Replies

Everyone does not agree that the public statements made by the alternate juror will enhance the chances for a successful appeal.

Some think the exact opposite; that the juror saying they weren’t feeling any outside pressure to come to a guilty verdict will hurt Chauvin’s chances of getting an appeal.

All this noise is because those defending the convicted murderer are trying to paint the jury as being swayed and bullyed into their guilty votes by loud crowds and a loud congresswoman.

1 Reply

@snood,

Crump was saying that the juror's comments are evidence against a mistrial based on an 'outside pressure' argument. My comments related to arguments for a mistrial due to possible juror prejudice, which is a very different argument.

I hope not, but it did appear to leave the argument open.

0 Replies

Why are we talking about “juror prejudice”? Did someone actually involved with this trial try to raise that as an issue, or is this just an exercise for the resident wannabe lawyers?

1 Reply

To me it was about as clean a trial as it could be. Appeals may be based on personal biases or political pressure, however.

1 Reply

@snood,

This is very obviously a discussion forum. Otherwise why is anyone here other than the lawyers involved in the trial discussing the trial, or any aspect of it.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

This is very obviously a discussion forum. Otherwise why is anyone here other than the lawyers involved in the trial discussing the trial, or any aspect of it.

Thank you Major Obvious; I know it’s a discussion forum. But there is a difference between actually discussing matters that are actually at hand , and discussing hypotheticals, and theories, and how many fairies can dance on a pinhead. On this thread the discussion was about all things RELEVANT to the Chauvin trial.

Things that might actually happen. No one is going to be considering anything about juror prejudice during the sentencing period of the Chauvin trial. In the real world. Not in your head.

1 Reply

@snood,

A mistrial application and possible grounds IS relevant to the Chauvin trial.

Just because you apparently don't like discussing anything that disagrees with how you want things to play out, does not make discussion of issues irrelevant. Nor is it justification for your continued sniping an rudeness.

Again, this is a discussion forum.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

A mistrial application and possible grounds IS relevant to the Chauvin trial.

Just because you apparently don't like discussing anything that disagrees with how you want things to play out, does not make discussion of issues irrelevant. Nor is it justification for your continued sniping an rudeness.

Again, this is a discussion forum.

Has someone applied for a mistrial in the Chauvin case?
No. Then why are you talking about a mistrial application in a thread about the Chauvin case?

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

To me it was about as clean a trial as it could be. Appeals may be based on personal biases or political pressure, however.

Yes, they certainly could be.

Until it happens in this case, I really don’t see the gain in speculating about what if.

And I’m not saying you were doing that, Ed. Some folks are just holding forth and it’s boring.

0 Replies

@snood,

Quote:

Has someone applied for a mistrial in the Chauvin case?
No. Then why are you talking about a mistrial application in a thread about the Chauvin case?

Because it is a discussion forum.

And probably for the same reason that Crump talked about the possibility & probabilities of a Mistrial application - with you reposting him talking about it while complaining that others are talking about it.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Crump said there was no possibility of a mistrial application because of the juror’s statements. Can you read?

“Because it’s a discussion forum” is not an excuse for blathering your nonsensical tangents.

2 Replies

@snood,

I did read - he was very clear when he said there was no possibility of 'outside influence' being used for a mistrial application...while my comments were aimed at an argument of possible juror prejudice - which is both different to what he was talking about, and very, very clear in my writing.

You are happy for him to comment on the possibility of a mistrial, and for you to post it here... but in this discussion forum, you are not happy for me to make any comment on such.

Again - your continued sniping and rudeness is not justified.

0 Replies

@snood,

To my impression, the Judge controlled this trial very well. He made a few bench decisions in favor of Chauvin, one I questioned but learned later he probably went the right way. This doesn't mean Chauvin doesn't come up with something to apply for a mistrial.

The evidence was absolutely damning. If I had to pick one thing, it was the fact that Chauvin was an instructor and those smug, f... you facial and body expressions. Kinda like, "I know what I'm doing and no one can stop me." He can't get away from that; combined with the slew of upper level Department of Corrections personnel that testified he was plain wrong!

1 Reply

@BillW,

BillW wrote:

To my impression, the Judge controlled this trial very well. He made a few bench decisions in favor of Chauvin, one I questioned but learned later he probably went the right way. This doesn't mean Chauvin doesn't come up with something to apply for a mistrial.

And if he does, I want to discuss it.

BillW wrote:

The evidence was absolutely damning. If I had to pick one thing, it was the fact that Chauvin was an instructor and those smug, f... you facial and body expressions. Kinda like, "I know what I'm doing and no one can stop me." He can't get away from that; combined with the slew of upper level Department of Corrections personnel that testified he was plain wrong!

I thought it was the most open and shut case I’ve ever seen. If it hadn’t been a cop killing a black man - if it had, say, been a white
guy under Chauvin’s knee for nine minutes - the verdict would have been foregone.

(On the other hand, how many white guys get this kind of treatment from cops?)

0 Replies

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/may/3/brandon-mitchell-derek-chauvin-juror-who-attended-/
A juror in the Derek Chauvin trial may have jeopardized the guilty verdict by attending a rally last year and wearing a “Get Your Knee Off Our Necks/BLM” T-shirt, raising questions about whether he told the truth during jury selection.

Brandon Mitchell, known as Juror #52, told Minneapolis news outlets Monday that he attended the Aug. 28 march in Washington, D.C., featuring speeches by George Floyd’s siblings, while a photo circulating online shows him with two cousins wearing the T-shirt as well as a “Black Lives Matter” hat.

What may come back to haunt the prosecution is that Mr. Mitchell, 31, answered “no” when asked during jury selection if he had attended any protests for George Floyd.

“I think they asked if I attended any protests for George Floyd or anything for police brutality. My answer was no because I hadn’t,” Mr. Mitchell told WCCO-TV in Minneapolis. “This particular march was more so for voting, voter registration. Getting people out to get out and vote for the presidential election that was upcoming a couple months afterward … This was the only thing I attended.”

The march was held to commemorate the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech, but the National Action Network billed it as the “Commitment March: Get Your Knee Off Our Necks,” and several members of the Floyd family spoke.

News photos from the event show demonstrators wearing Black Lives Matter T-shirts and carrying BLM flags as well as signs with messages that included, “I Can’t Breathe,” which Floyd repeatedly told police before he died.

“The march that he went to, which was on August 28, 2020, was specifically about police brutality,” criminal defense attorney Joe Tamburino, who was not associated with the case, told WCCO. “In fact, it was partly advertised as ‘Get Your Knee Off Our Necks’ and it had speakers with the Floyd family, Breonna Taylor and Jacob Blake.”

2 Replies

The Derek Chauvin Trial

Quick Links

My Account

able2know