The Derek Chauvin trial {Mod Edit: Guilty on all charges} (2 Viewers)

Joined
Nov 10, 2018
Messages
1,485
Reaction score
2,696
Age
57
Location
Carriere Ms
Offline
Sticky Post
I don’t have much to say about this but if you heard the testimony of some of the prosecutions witnesses today and didn’t have a tear in your eye you aren’t human. Yes the man had a criminal record, yes the man had drugs in his body but he didn’t deserve to die like that. Could the drugs have killed him???? Maybe. Did he have other health conditions that could’ve killed him???? Maybe. But that cop took those decisions into his on hands and brought about an outrage in this country that’s been at the surface for a long time. God it’s time we turn to you.
 

DaveXA

I love the Lord!
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Sep 6, 2001
Messages
36,383
Reaction score
24,609
Age
50
Location
Vienna, VA via Lafayette
Offline
There always was. I'd be surprised if it weren't to be honest.

Why? I mean, I saw the Waters and Biden comments before and after deliberations and I wouldn't think those had any affect on the jury. This potential issue with the juror could be something, but he answered some pretty specific questions, so unless there is legitimate proof that he lied during questioning, I don't see this being an issue either.

That said, you never know when something comes up on appeals. We'll see.
 

Jeff

All-Pro
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 14, 2001
Messages
1,592
Reaction score
1,380
Age
47
Location
The purgatory between Shreveport and Alexandria
Offline
It's like being written up once a year at a regular job. Or having recordable safety incidents every year in a construction job.

A ticket or a wreck every 12 months for a driver. No way you last past year 3 or 4. He went 19. Not to mention the years where there were multiples.

Those are the kinds of people who eventually end up doing exactly what he did. The warning signs were there.
Moreover, the department handed over the training of rookies to the guy whose habitually written up. That screams cultural issues.
 
Last edited:

superchuck500

tiny changes
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
59,097
Reaction score
91,291
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Offline
How bad is this? Is there a real chance of this being overturned?

I suspect there’s case law on similar or analogous situations (where a juror has misrepresented something on the questionnaire response). I really don’t know, but my sense is that it probably isn’t enough to overturn the verdict. But without looking at what the proper legal a analysis is and the case law on this issue, anyone who says it will or will not impact the verdict is likely talking out of their arse.
 

bigdaddysaints

BigDaddy Has Arrived
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
7,738
Reaction score
11,834
Age
47
Location
DutchTown
Offline
So the juror didn't attend a "protest" or anything specific to Floyd. He attended a march to commemorate the 57th anniversary of the March on Washington, when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his iconic “I Have a Dream” speech.
A couple articles i saw posted, the headlines said he attended a protest, which is completely false information. To say he was partial because he attended this rally would be a reach.
 

Brennan77

Bass Manager
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2001
Messages
47,547
Reaction score
21,472
Location
The Channel
Online
So the juror didn't attend a "protest" or anything specific to Floyd. He attended a march to commemorate the 57th anniversary of the March on Washington, when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his iconic “I Have a Dream” speech.
A couple articles i saw posted, the headlines said he attended a protest, which is completely false information. To say he was partial because he attended this rally would be a reach.

The local cbs report says that he attended a march that featured speeches by Floyd's family and was photographed wearing a shirt saying "get your knees off our necks". If true, this absolutely should have been disclosed.
 

DaveXA

I love the Lord!
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Sep 6, 2001
Messages
36,383
Reaction score
24,609
Age
50
Location
Vienna, VA via Lafayette
Offline
The local cbs report says that he attended a march that featured speeches by Floyd's family and was photographed wearing a shirt saying "get your knees off our necks". If true, this absolutely should have been disclosed.
Well, the questions were pretty specific. I'm not sure if he's required to disclose that he wore the shirt or even attended the rally since the questions didn't really address that. But, if he was there and listened to speeches by the Floyd family, that's really problematic.

I don't know that it's enough to change the verdict, but I do think it's definitely something that won't go over well in appeals court.
 

superchuck500

tiny changes
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
59,097
Reaction score
91,291
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Offline
Well, the questions were pretty specific. I'm not sure if he's required to disclose that he wore the shirt or even attended the rally since the questions didn't really address that. But, if he was there and listened to speeches by the Floyd family, that's really problematic.

I don't know that it's enough to change the verdict, but I do think it's definitely something that won't go over well in appeals court.

*caveat, I'm not a criminal lawyer and don't practice in Minnesota so I can't say for sure that the following is actually correct, though it seems to be:

So I did a bit of research and in Minnesota, post-verdict evidence of a juror's compromised impartiality is handled through a motion for a hearing by the "defeated-litigant" that lays out the basis for the trial court to consider a mistrial based on juror misconduct (intentionally misrepresenting one's impartiality would ostensibly constitute misconduct). The motion may include a request for hearing to probe the juror about the questionable information or conduct. This process is favored over "harassment of jurors" after a trial wherein the losing party contacts jurors directly in attempt to determine more information for possible appeal.

In fact, the hearing is called a "Schwartz" hearing, named for the case that originated the process in 1960. In that case, the issue was a juror's impartiality after the juror answered that he had nothing in his history that would render him unable to be impartial in a civil case for damages related to a bus accident (when it was learned after the verdict against the bus company that the juror's daughter, four years earlier, had been in an accident with a bus, very near where there case's accident had occurred).

At the hearing, the moving party (the defeated litigant) has to show "actual bias" - but can question the juror and introduce evidence about the juror's lack of impartiality. The other side (the state in the Chauvin case) can also introduce evidence to rebut the moving party's assertions. If there's any nuance in how the juror answered a question in the impaneling phase (including a questionnaire), the parties can probe that and the court will rule on whether the moving party has carried the burden of proving actual bias. If so, there's a mistrial.

Given that Minnesota has this process that appears to go directly to the question of this juror in the Chauvin case, I would think that it requires Chauvin to file the motion and possibly have a Schwartz hearing that then becomes part of the record on appeal (should the trial court not grant the mistrial).

Will be interesting to see if that's the next step (should Chauvin wish to challenge this juror's impartiality).

If you want to read more, I think this 2008 Minnesota Supreme Court case covers it fairly well: https://casetext.com/case/state-v-evans-650
 
Last edited:

gavinj

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Apr 12, 2004
Messages
11,606
Reaction score
11,036
Offline
Yeah, throw out the verdict because one of the black jurors went to a MLK march. That’ll be some great optics, Minnesota.
 

superchuck500

tiny changes
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
59,097
Reaction score
91,291
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Offline
*caveat, I'm not a criminal lawyer and don't practice in Minnesota so I can't say for sure that the following is actually correct, though it seems to be:

So I did a bit of research and in Minnesota, post-verdict evidence of a juror's compromised impartiality is handled through a motion for a hearing by the "defeated-litigant" that lays out the basis for the trial court to consider a mistrial based on juror misconduct (intentionally misrepresenting one's impartiality would ostensibly constitute misconduct). The motion may include a request for hearing to probe the juror about the questionable information or conduct. This process is favored over "harassment of jurors" after a trial wherein the losing party contacts jurors directly in attempt to determine more information for possible appeal.

In fact, the hearing is called a "Schwartz" hearing, named for the case that originated the process in 1960. In that case, the issue was a juror's impartiality after the juror answered that he had nothing in his history that would render him unable to be impartial in a civil case for damages related to a bus accident (when it was learned after the verdict against the bus company that the juror's daughter, four years earlier, had been in an accident with a bus, very near where there case's accident had occurred).

At the hearing, the moving party (the defeated litigant) has to show "actual bias" - but can question the juror and introduce evidence about the juror's lack of impartiality. The other side (the state in the Chauvin case) can also introduce evidence to rebut the moving party's assertions. If there's any nuance in how the juror answered a question in the impaneling phase (including a questionnaire), the parties can probe that and the court will rule on whether the moving party has carried the burden of proving actual bias. If so, there's a mistrial.

Given that Minnesota has this process that appears to go directly to the question of this juror in the Chauvin case, I would think that it requires Chauvin to file the motion and possibly have a Schwartz hearing that then becomes part of the record on appeal (should the trial court not grant the mistrial).

Will be interesting to see if that's the next step (should Chauvin wish to challenge this juror's impartiality).

If you want to read more, I think this 2008 Minnesota Supreme Court case covers it fairly well: https://casetext.com/case/state-v-evans-650

Just searched "Schwartz hearing" on twitter and saw this tweet from Harry Litman, former US Attorney and now law professor and legal analyst for the LA Times. Seems to suggest my post ^ above is accurate. He doesn't think the trial judge will overturn the verdict but it will then be another aspect of Chauvin's appeal.

 
Last edited:

superchuck500

tiny changes
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
59,097
Reaction score
91,291
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Offline
Yeah, throw out the verdict because one of the black jurors went to a MLK march. That’ll be some great optics, Minnesota.

It's a legal question - optics will have nothing to do with it.

And the issue isn't that a juror went to a march or protest or whatever he went to. The issue is whether his responses to questions about that activity were truthful. If they were not, it (arguably) deprived Chauvin of the right to seek to strike that juror for cause at the impaneling (voir dire) phase.
 

gavinj

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Apr 12, 2004
Messages
11,606
Reaction score
11,036
Offline
It's a legal question - optics will have nothing to do with it.

And the issue isn't that a juror went to a march or protest or whatever he went to. The issue is whether his responses to questions about that activity were truthful. If they were not, it (arguably) deprived Chauvin of the right to seek to strike that juror for cause at the impaneling (voir dire) phase.
Yeah, I understand all that. Chauvin’s lawyers also filed today asking for a retrial listing a bunch of reasons that don’t even have anything to do with this specific juror, stuff like venue, jury instructions, etc

It would be interesting to see how many strikes the defense used before the jury was seated anyway. They may have exhausted them all before getting to juror 57. Depends how many were excused by the judge before the lawyers got to use their strikes.

I guess another question is would the judge have excused the juror if he knew about the guy attending the march in Washington, and if so, why?
 

superchuck500

tiny changes
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
59,097
Reaction score
91,291
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Offline
Yeah, I understand all that. Chauvin’s lawyers also filed today asking for a retrial listing a bunch of reasons that don’t even have anything to do with this specific juror, stuff like venue, jury instructions, etc

It would be interesting to see how many strikes the defense used before the jury was seated anyway. They may have exhausted them all before getting to juror 57. Depends how many were excused by the judge before the lawyers got to use their strikes.

There's no limit on strikes for cause (provided the judge doesn't sustain an objection that the proffered cause is insufficient). In this example, I think Chauvin would have been able to strike a juror for cause if the juror had participated in a police protest associated with the Floyd incident (I don't know if this juror actually did, I'm speaking categorically).
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

 

New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

 

Headlines

Top Bottom