The Derek Chauvin Trial

@edgarblythe,

Brandon Mitchell is the same juror who made the remarks that I said I hope don't spark a mistrial (post showing link to news article on Brandon Mitchell) . I'm presuming that after he said what he said, defence then went and looked into his past. I'd now be surprised if they didn't make application - which would also be a shame.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Now, that’s worrisome.

I guess we’ll see if the defense can make something out of it.

I can’t overlook the source(not that it makes the story false, but we can’t pretend that the Washington Times doesn’t serve a certain agenda).
<edit> Never mind. They’re reporting it on other publications also.

0 Replies

In this article the possibility of a Chauvin appeal is acknowledged, but says there’s little chance of the appeal being successful.

https://www.insider.com/derek-chauvin-appeal-likely-wont-be-successful-legal-experts-explain-2021-4

1 Reply

@snood,

It appears it's okay by you to talk about this now, barely a day after your arguing against talking about it, calling it blathering and nonsense, the talk of wannabe lawyers, hypotheticals, irrelevant, etc. You engaged in quite a lot of rudeness and now commence this U-turn.

Your article is from 28 April, from before:

- Mitchells words were reported on 29 April
- Mitchells attendence was reported at protests wearing a 'stop kneeling on our necks / BLM' shirt, reported on 3 May

It would carry much more weight if the experts opinion were reported afterwards. We can't yet know how much his view would have been affected by the new information.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Okay Vikorr I concede that I was wrong to resist talking about the possibility of appeals being applied for.

1 Reply

@snood,

Thank you. I'll not mention it (the resistance) again then.

0 Replies

I'm not sure this is strong enough to turn the tide of a completed trial. In the jurist opinion, he was not attending the march because of what the question he was asked to answer during voir dire. It also does not go towards facts presented at trial. Chauvin was kneeling on Floyd's neck for over 9 minutes and this action was the proximate cause of death. Facts don't change!

2 Replies

@BillW,

I don’t think it’s a very strong basis for an appeal. Guess we’ll see if they try, and if they do, whether the judge buys it.

0 Replies

Okay, this is definitely concerning to me now..,

Quote:

Even at this late date, on the eve of finally putting away at least one killer-cop, a mistrial is still possible and an appeal is an absolute certainty. If a mistrial is declared you may rest assured that a change of venue will again be the defense’s first pretrial motion. And such a motion will be readily granted. The case will then be tried in the absolute remotest, GOP-centric area of the state, where the only black people there are ones living inside white folks’ televisions, computer monitors, and on motion picture screens.

- Herb Dyer on Medium

1 Reply

@snood,

It that even possible? A mistrial after a verdict is announced?

1 Reply

@roger,

I don’t know - someone else wrote that on a site I frequent.
I’ve always thought a mistrial was declared before a verdict is reached; sometimes because the jury can’t reach a verdict.

Maybe it’s a wrong use of terminology. Maybe the judge can’t declare a mistrial after a verdict has been reached, but he can throw the results away and say there has to be another trial?

1 Reply

The Department of Justice planned to arrest former Minneapolis police office Derek Chauvin at the courthouse if he had not been found guilty of murdering George Floyd last week. He was, however, and he is now in jail awaiting sentencing. Now the DOJ is continuing to build its case against the white former officer and plans to charge him and the three other officers involved in Floyd’s death—J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane, and Tou Thao—with federal civil rights violations, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reports. DOJ attorneys are reportedly planning to ask a grand jury to return an indictment against Chauvin for kneeling on Floyd’s neck for more than nine minutes in May 2020 and for violently arresting a 14-year-old boy in 2017.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/feds-plan-to-charge-chauvin-other-three-former-officers-with-civil-rights-crimes-over-floyds-death

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Glad to see that

0 Replies

@BillW,

As I see it:

- they will argue that it was widely known that the 'rally' he attended was a protest...attended by the relatives of Floyd, with the juror wearing clothing about Chauvin's actions...surrounded by relatives who were also dressed appropriately for a Floyd protest...shows that he knew it was a protest and went dressed appropriately for the protest.
- They will argue that 'get your knees of our necks, has never been seen before Chauvin, and therefore is directly linked Chauvims actions
- They will argue that his Tshirt showed he already had a preconceived notion of Chauvin's guilt
- They will argue that his words after the trial matched what was on hi T-shirt before the trial....showing he had a preconcieved notion that all police used excessive force, and therefore had a preconceived notion of Chauvins guilt
- they will re-iterate that his attendance at the protest, dressed for the protest, surrounded by relatives dressed for a protest, the words on his T-shirt, and his words after the trial all show he had a preconceived belief in Chauvin's guilt and together, these pieces of information can't be interpretted in any other way,
- They will argue that the juror lied about having attended the rally , and that any explanation the juror provides for his attendance will be self-serving, due to his vested interest in seeing Chauvin found guilty.

As you said though Bill - facts don't change. And I don't think anyone would find Chauvin not guilty (well, maybe an incredibly small percentage of people).

0 Replies

@snood,

In Australia, you can get a mistrial before a verdict, or after. It depends on when the information that causes the mistrial becomes known. Of course this is said without knowing the laws of the particular state, but I doubt this one would vary much.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

In this country a mistrial occurs before a verdict is reached (for different legal reasons or a hung jury). A verdict can be overturned or a new trial granted following an appeal, but the appeal has to pass the smell test.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

Fair enough. Hopefully then, given the strength of the evidence, an appeal doesn't get up.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Although a mistrial can only occur before a verdict - I presume that the same grounds can be used for appeal, so I looked up some of the things that can cause a mistrial:

https://www.houstoncriminalattorney.us/articles/mistrial-criminal-law/

Quote:

Criminal Mistrial Causes – List
Here is a list of some things that might lead to a mistrial:

A juror or attorney passes away during the trial;
A discovery that the jury was improperly selected;
A serious error in the case that is unfair to the defendant, in such a way that it cannot be remedied by further jury instructions or a brief delay in the proceedings;
Misconduct on the part of a juror which can include a juror contacting one of the parties to the trial, considering evidence that was not introduced during the trial, or conducting an independent investigation during the case;
A juror discusses the case with the media;
A juror is found to be prejudiced or incompetent;
A finding that someone tampered with the jury; or
Improper handling of evidence.

And on Appeals:

https://www.freeadvice.com/legal/grounds-for-criminal-appeal/<br />

Quote:

Juror Misconduct
In order to facilitate an impartial jury decision based strictly on the evidence before them in court, jurors are subject to very strict rules while on a jury. Juror misconduct occurs when a juror breaks any of these rules. In many states, once juror misconduct is raised on appeal, the burden shifts to the opposing side to show that there was no juror misconduct. This essentially means that it is easier to prevail on an appeal based on juror misconduct than on another basis.

One example of juror misconduct includes inappropriate communication. This inappropriate communication can occur between jurors, jurors and witnesses, or jurors and the attorneys. When a juror discusses the case with another juror outside the deliberation room, this can lead to a biased jury. Likewise, if a juror interviews a witness, or discusses the case with the prosecution, it can lead a juror to make conclusions about the case based on outside influences, and not just the evidence presented before them in the court.

Another example of juror misconduct includes juror experiments. This is when jurors investigate beyond the evidence that is given in court. Other examples of juror misconduct include refusing to deliberate, abusing drugs and alcohol, or concealing information that is relevant to the case at hand.

But also this:
https://www.justia.com/criminal/procedure/criminal-appeals/

Quote:

Grounds for Appeal
Potential grounds for appeal in a criminal case include legal error, juror misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. Legal errors may result from improperly admitted evidence, incorrect jury instructions, or lack of sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict. To grant the appeal, the appellate court must find that these errors affected the outcome of the case. If the errors would not have changed the verdict, they are considered harmless, and the conviction will stand.

0 Replies

Chauvin’s attorney has asked for a new trial due to “jury misconduct“.

0 Replies

However it turns out, the facts are the facts, Chauvin is guilty and will be found guilty even if he gets another trial.

at least that it is how it should go.

1 Reply

The Derek Chauvin Trial

Quick Links

My Account

able2know