In court documents Eric Nelson argues that the process was not impartial because of pre-trial publicity. He writes that it was "so pervasive and so prejudicial" before and during the trial, that it amounted to a "structural defect in the proceedings". The motion also alleges that errors were made by the judge and that there was prosecutorial misconduct and witness intimidation.
The New York Times quoted experts as saying it was unlikely that the jury's decision would be overturned because of the evidence in the case.
AMKC wrote: » It would turn your stomach to think someone would represent this horrible man.
I hope it is the same jury
osarusan wrote: » Applying for a retrial is fairly common and not all that noteworthy in itself. What are the grounds for actualy granting a new trial - what is the standard to be met? I though this was interesting from the BBC: But they also say: That seems like a weird argument to me - that the weight of evidence be considered when evaluating the grounds for a mistrial. It sounds like 'Maybe it was a bit prejudicial but the evidence is so strong that they'd always convict anyway'...which just sounds wrong to me. But maybe that's not what it means.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » what about them? what did Biden say that would influence a jury unduly?
Green Peter wrote: » He said he hoped the jury would bring back the correct verdict and then welcomed the guilty verdict and said it was the right one and it was a good day for america. I think most people in America would know that by now. I suspect you do too.
AMKC wrote: » It would turn your stomach to think someone would represent this horrible man. What about George Floyd? Did he get a chance or a fair trial. No he got no trial because this horrible man killed him slowly and painfully. I hope it is the same jury or a least a jury that can see Chauvin was in the wrong if it goes ahead and that the politicians keep there mouths shut.
Penn wrote: » None of that changes the evidence, which the majority of legal experts I saw commenting on the case said was overwhelming against Chauvin. There's very little else the defence could throw during a retrial that would change that, as they had almost no counter to the vast majority of the prosecutions' evidence or witnesses, whereas the prosecution could now show more evidence to eliminate some of the defence's arguments (such as the carbon monoxide poisoning claims). I don't see a retrial going Chauvin's way at all.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » so he agreed with the jury. what a monster. how dare he do that.
Biker79 wrote: » The timing of his comments is hard to ignore. He made them right when the jury were making key deliberations, essentially telling them ' your president advises you to make the right decision here '. If that was Trump, there would have been uproar/ social media bans etc.
Deleted User wrote: » The jury were sequestered so were not aware of his comments...
Biker79 wrote: » The timing of his comments is hard to ignore. He made them right when the jury were making key deliberations, essentially telling them ' your president advises you to make the right decision here '.
Biker79 wrote: » I've been on jury duty. Although we were told to ignore them, we all had mobile phones and could see news headlines/ social media posts. Politicians never make ambiguous mistakes with communications. The timing was deliberate.
Biker79 wrote: » I've been on jury duty. Although we were told to ignore them, we all had mobile phones and could see news headlines/ social media posts.
Mellor wrote: » I agree the timing was deliberate. He waited until they were fully sequestered as that was the responsible thing to do.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » that is so wrong as to be almost a deliberate lie.
Penn wrote: » Why did you look at your phone when told not to?
BattleCorp wrote: » The responsible thing to do would have been either to not comment at all or to comment when the verdict was delivered and the trial was over. It's pretty common in the US for state officials to comment on criminal proceedings. At time local
Did Biden speaking when he did affect the outcome of the trial, I very much doubt it, but things like that do muddy the waters.
Biker79 wrote: » Told not to look at the news, which we didn't, but information leaks through other sources, which is the point I'm making. Is a sequestered Jury leak proof? Do they surrender their phones during the trial until a verdict is reached? The point about Biden's timing stands.
The jury was sequestered on Monday by Judge Peter Cahill, who advised jurors to "plan for long and hope for short" when packing. Sequestering a jury is where jurors are separated from other people in order to prevent outside influences from swaying a decision. Throughout the Chauvin trial, jurors have been partially sequestered and supervised in the courthouse at all times. However, according to KARE 11, the jurors have been free to return home at night. Now, the jury will remain in an undisclosed hotel room, where they will deliberate every day until the early evening. A sequestered jury typically deliberates after the close of normal business hours to finish its work faster. The jurors will not be allowed to carry phones or any electronic devices and have been told to avoid all news about the case.
“I can only imagine the pressure and anxiety they are feeling, so I waited till the jury was sequestered,” Mr. Biden said of his conversation with the Floyd family during brief remarks in the Oval Office. “They’re a good family, and they’re calling for peace and tranquillity, no matter what that verdict is. I’m praying the verdict is the right verdict.” The evidence “is overwhelming in my view,” Mr. Biden said, adding that most of the conversation focused on “personal things.” The president quickly defended his decision to weigh in on an unresolved trial, saying he thought it was appropriate to do so because all the evidence had been presented and the jury would not hear his remarks. “I wouldn’t say that unless the jury was sequestered now,” he added, following a meeting with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
charlie_says wrote: » Didn't tell the truth one at least one of the jury selection questions which is under oath could be construded as perjury perhaps. It remains to be seen with the appeal. At this point it's really up to the judge to decide that based on the appeal arguments and *maybe* questioning and evidentiary inquiry into that juror, and *maybe* others. I doubt it though, the mob has spoken and they get "their justice" and "their truth" thesedays in 'murica
Penn wrote: » Sorry, I thought your post said that you were told to ignore the phones. Either way, in the Chauvin case, they had to surrender their phones before being sequestered. It's also worth pointing out that by the time it became public that Biden spoke with Floyd's family, the jury were in deliberations and very near a verdict at that point. Biden's comments to the Floyd family did not influence the jury, because the jury could not have known about them, unless someone has actual evidence to the contrary.
Biker79 wrote: » No jury is leak proof, even if they are sequestered. Even locked in a hotel room, there are staff delivering meals, trips to the bathroom/ breaks that pass by a public screen with CNN etc, etc..the longer a deliberation goes on the more chances something will seep through and influence a decision. However, whether they got through or not is besides the point. Biden and Maxine Waters made remarks that were ill advised at best.https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/19/politics/maxine-waters-derek-chauvin-trial/index.html In my experience, being ' very near a verdict ' doesn't mean anything, and is no excuse. Senior politicians know exactly what they are doing with the timing of their remarks. Its just some can get away with it and others cant.
"The George Floyd case, nothing has to be said. I watched that," Mr. Trump said in a phone interview with Sean Hannity. "I couldn't really watch it for that long a period of time, it was over eight minutes. Who could watch that?" "But it doesn't get any more obvious or it doesn't get any worse than that," he added.
Mellor wrote: » That's not accurate. .
Biker79 wrote: » Those were the optics - whether they liked it or not.
Mellor wrote: » Your claims were incorrect. It’s that simple. The jury was sequestered without that phone. You were not. The optics to the public are irrelevant to the decision of a sequestered jury.
BattleCorp wrote: » They were only sequestered while deciding upon the verdict. Every other day they got to go home, hear about things that they weren't allowed to hear about in court, watch tv footage of the trial, hear about it from their family, see all the protesters and be totally aware that if they didn't return a guilty verdict, their city would have been razed to the ground. Now I'm not saying they made a wrong decision, but it would be hard in those circumstances not to be influenced towards a guilty verdict.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbba4c22aa1d352d2cdbb076e36aea8c.svg)
