Looks Like The Derek Chauvin Case Might Be Headed For A Mistrial

[travestyny]

Indeed. But this isn't won't end well if this wasn't disclosed before jury selection

He released a statement saying he was very honest during jury selection about his thoughts on the case (wondered why the other police didn't stop Chauvin) and *** (that he was very favorable toward it). Also said he was neutral regarding Blue Lives Matter, and that he thought the police that attended his gym were "good guys."

He said he was at an event regarding MLK's I Have a Dream speech in D.C., but not specifically about George Floyd. Apparently, all of the questions asked during jury selection was regarding events focused on police brutality. Seems to me that they should look into the event to verify.

From what I can find, the event included the topic of police brutality. I think he should have definitely mentioned this during the jury selection process, but he may have indeed answered the questions fairly. Here's a good article on it specifically.




Here's a description of the event:

The 2020 march pushed for racial justice, boosting voter registration, a new version of the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965, and encouraged people to take part in the 2020 census. The march also took on the issue of police brutality. Family members of some who had been shot by police spoke to the crowd, including Philonise and Bridgett Floyd, the brother and sister of George Floyd. The march also boosted federal police reform legislation, specifically the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.

So here are the pertinent questions asked according to the article:

Two questions on the questionnaire sent out before the jury was selected asked about participation in demonstrations. Mr Mitchell said he answered “no” to both of the questions.

The first question about demonstrations was: “Did you, or someone close to you, participate in any of the demonstrations or marches against police brutality that took place in Minneapolis after George Floyd’s death?”


--Well...I guess he wasn't in Minneapolis, since it was in D.C. So he won't be on the hook for this one.


The second question asked: “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?”


--I guess he's going to say the event wasn't a protest, but a march regarding a plethora of topics.

[Fists_of_Fury]

Of course the usual Libtard clowns and afrocentric racist clowns see no issue with this clearly biased piece of sheeit jury member. They are supposedly for fair and impartial justice doe. Clearly these clowns are only about "winning" at all cost. This jury member should go to hell with overdosing career criminal scumbag George Floyd.

[Rip Chudd]

He released a statement saying he was very honest during jury selection about his thoughts on the case (wondered why the other police didn't stop Chauvin) and *** (that he was very favorable toward it). Also said he was neutral regarding Blue Lives Matter, and that he thought the police that attended his gym were "good guys."

He said he was at an event regarding MLK's I Have a Dream speech in D.C., but not specifically about George Floyd. Apparently, all of the questions asked during jury selection was regarding events focused on police brutality. Seems to me that they should look into the event to verify.

From what I can find, the event included the topic of police brutality. I think he should have definitely mentioned this during the jury selection process, but he may have indeed answered the questions fairly. Here's a good article on it specifically.




Here's a description of the event:




So here are the pertinent questions asked according to the article:

Two questions on the questionnaire sent out before the jury was selected asked about participation in demonstrations. Mr Mitchell said he answered “no” to both of the questions.

The first question about demonstrations was: “Did you, or someone close to you, participate in any of the demonstrations or marches against police brutality that took place in Minneapolis after George Floyd’s death?”


--Well...I guess he wasn't in Minneapolis, since it was in D.C. So he won't be on the hook for this one.


The second question asked: “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?”


--I guess he's going to say the event wasn't a protest, but a march regarding a plethora of topics.

Seems legit. If that's the case and he was honest then they have nothing to cry about

[OldTerry]

how in the world could someone with red blood and a family want this to be declared a mistrial? a black man was murdered by cops in broad daylight. this keeps happening. chauvin kneeled on a man until he was dead in front of an hd cell phone camera with audio. you can see the act and the amount of force and what is neccessary, and determine that floyd was no threat to anyone, and that chauvin acted in a depraved manner in that light, and caused his death. i mean how much more concrete can you get?

the prosecution did a heck of a job but there really wasn't much lawyering to be done.n they piucked the right statute and they let the evidence do the talking. the defense sounded desperate and they were really reaching at times and that's because they were defending a very guilty individual who showed a depraved mind and caused someone's death on camera.

derek chauvin will die in prison. so should a lot of you. let me kneel on your back in front of your family until you die. then offer up your wife and one child, and see if they live through nine minutes of my knee on their backs. 236 lbs. weeeeze. weeeze. cough... dead

It's not about justice it is about the integrity of the legal process. Justice was served and Chauvin got what he had coming but that is not the point. The legal process was compromised and when that happens everyone suffers. The Juror whose actions put the retrial possibility on the table needs to face criminal charges and face trial himself, that would also be justice served.

[travestyny]

It's not about justice it is about the integrity of the legal process. Justice was served and Chauvin got what he had coming but that is not the point. The legal process was compromised and when that happens everyone suffers. The Juror whose actions put the retrial possibility on the table needs to face criminal charges and face trial himself, that would also be justice served.

For what? He says he was honest about his answers to questions.

[Vlad_]

He has a *** shirt on. He is biased. Period.

If it were the other way, a black man was sentenced and found guilty, and the juror was white, and you’d have a photo of him with a **** shirt, you people here would be screaming biased white supremacist, racist ****, immediate mistrial and reversal of verdict.

[OldTerry]

For what? He says he was honest about his answers to questions.

Of course he is saying he did nothing wrong, would you expect him to say otherwise. If he is actually telling the truth why shouldn't it be decided by a jury?

[travestyny]

Of course he is saying he did nothing wrong, would you expect him to say otherwise. If he is actually telling the truth why shouldn't it be decided by a jury?

What I mean is that he revealed what questions they asked and his answers. They asked if he had been to any protests or demonstrations about police brutality in Minnesota and he said no. Then they asked if he or any family member had been to any other protests regarding police brutality and he said no. The event that he was at was a march in D.C., but it wasn't a protest or about police brutality specifically. Why would he go before a jury without there being a crime?

[4truth]

He’ll be found guilty again if they have another trial but if they have another trial then the lying juror should be charged with a crime. At the very least he should be heavily fined.

[OldTerry]

What I mean is that he revealed what questions they asked and his answers. They asked if he had been to any protests or demonstrations about police brutality in Minnesota and he said no. Then they asked if he or any family member had been to any other protests regarding police brutality and he said no. The event that he was at was a march in D.C., but it wasn't a protest or about police brutality specifically. Why would he go before a jury without there being a crime?

If the juror is the guy on the right in the photo at the beginning of this discussion then his bias is indicated (pre-trial) by the tee-shirt he is wearing. I believe what I see much more than what he says.