The Derek Chauvin trial {Mod Edit: Guilty on all charges} (3 Viewers)

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.
 
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.
 
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:
Yeah, throw out the verdict because one of the black jurors went to a MLK march. That’ll be some great optics, Minnesota.
 
*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:
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.
 
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?
 
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).
 
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).
Ok yes I see what you are saying. Sounds reasonable.

I just hope if they have a do-over, that black people have a significant presence on the next jury.
 
Ok yes I see what you are saying. Sounds reasonable.

I just hope if they have a do-over, that black people have a significant presence on the next jury.

Even if this juror wasn't truthful in the response (that's even not clear yet) there's still a lot of room for nuance and other evidence. "Actual bias" is a very high standard and there is ample authority that the defendant is only entitled to an impartial jury made up of people in the community or district, as it lies.

I don't think Chauvin could broadly exclude, for cause, any juror that attended any police reform protest - that would seem too wide of a net to me. The issue is one that impacts the whole community and a juror is not disqualified for taking part in that process . . . I wouldn't think. But I do think attending a rally, march, protest, vigil, etc. for George Floyd goes directly to the very case for which the juror would be deciding.
 
So Chauvin has filed the motion for a new trial based on a number of allegations.

 

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

    Back
    Top Bottom