Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

biko · 05-05-2021 03:13PM

To have the trail locally with local jurors was never going to deliver a fair trail. Juror intimidation was a factor according to that alternate juror.

Derek Chauvin should get a new trial in a different state (if that's even possible), but I hope he is convicted in that too.

osarusan · 05-05-2021 03:23PM

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:

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.

But they also say:

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.

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 strange to me.

But then, if in some hypothetical trial, the prosecution provided clear video evidence of the accused shooting the victim in the head, should there be a retrial if it turned out that the judge made some errors. In that hypothetical, the same argument that 'it doesn't matter in terms of the verdict' seems to make more sense.

I guess it's a question of whether the errors/prejudice, if proven, actually cast doubt on the validity of the verdict.

Mellor · 05-05-2021 03:27PM

AMKC wrote: »

It would turn your stomach to think someone would represent this horrible man.

His lawyer is legally obliged to defend him. And that includes outing forward the best possibly defence.
Even the guilty deserve legal counsel.
Quite silly and pathetic to suggest otherwise.

I hope it is the same jury

It can’t be.

Penn · 05-05-2021 03:27PM

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.

I think they're just saying that the reasons for requesting a retrial are likely to be deemed to have little or no impact on the juror's decisions, and that even with all that removed and an alternate set of jurors, they most likely would have come to the same decision due to the overwhelming evidence.

Green Peter · 05-05-2021 04:17PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what about them? what did Biden say that would influence a jury unduly?

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.

ohnonotgmail · 05-05-2021 04:19PM

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.

so he agreed with the jury. what a monster. how dare he do that.

Dempo1 · 05-05-2021 05:38PM

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.

Sadly the greatest monsters in history we're entitled to a defence. No doubting what happened is appalling but equally important to point out, lack of control of emotions, interference and possible Bias has potentially opened the door to a successful appeal.

Dempo1 · 05-05-2021 05:40PM

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.

Agree completely however its not the evidence that could cause a retrial

Biker79 · 06-05-2021 07:39AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so he agreed with the jury. what a monster. how dare he do that.

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.

06-05-2021 07:43AM

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.

The jury were sequestered so were not aware of his comments...

Biker79 · 06-05-2021 07:58AM

Deleted User wrote: »

The jury were sequestered so were not aware of his comments...

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.

Mellor · 06-05-2021 08:08AM

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 '.

That's not accurate.

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.

They didn't have their phones.
I agree the timing was deliberate. He waited until they were fully sequestered as that was the responsible thing to do.

Penn · 06-05-2021 08:21AM

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.

Why did you look at your phone when told not to?

McCrack · 06-05-2021 09:02AM

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.

You weren't sequestered, ireland stopped doing that to jury's years ago, the jury in this trial were sequestered after the closing statements

MadYaker · 06-05-2021 09:11AM

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.

You did Jury duty in a incredibly high profile murder case in the USA? That must have been interesting. Jurys haven't been sequestered here for a long time, these people weren't browsing reddit while deliberating over the verdict, sequestered means no phones or anything. Also, politicians make mistakes with communications all the time, Trump put his foot in his mouth nearly every day and Biden isn't far behind him. The evidence seems to have been overwhelming anyway.

BattleCorp · 06-05-2021 09:24AM

Mellor wrote: »

I agree the timing was deliberate. He waited until they were fully sequestered as that was the responsible thing to do.

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.

But Biden didn't want to wait, he wanted to be seen to be sympathetic to Floyd's family.

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.

ohnonotgmail · 06-05-2021 09:29AM

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.

that is so wrong as to be almost a deliberate lie.

Dempo1 · 06-05-2021 09:40AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that is so wrong as to be almost a deliberate lie.

Correct, extraordinary some on here determined to blame Biden, not at all sure what part of Biden Speaking AFTER the trial some are not getting, I'd normally say look at the tape but clearly cast iron proof never stopped Trump conspiracies

Biker79 · 06-05-2021 10:32AM

Penn wrote: »

Why did you look at your phone when told not to?

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.

Mellor · 06-05-2021 10:34AM

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

I don't he it makes a difference whether he says;

"He hopes the jury bring back the correct verdict" (while they are sequestered), or
"That they brought the right verdict" (after the verdict).

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.

I don't see what could have been muddied. Had the waited a few days and said the alternate line above, the net affect is the same.

It's also worth pointing out the Chauvin is the defendant, the prosecution is the government.
It's the court that is neutral one.

charlie_says · 06-05-2021 10:40AM

Many people seem to think the verdict is what is important in justice, it's actually the process that is the most imporant thing, that it is followed fairly and equally for all.

Penn · 06-05-2021 12:20PM

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.

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.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/derek-chauvin-trial-what-happens-when-a-jury-is-sequestered

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.

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.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/20/us/biden-calls-george-floyd-family.html

“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.

Foxtrol · 06-05-2021 02:18PM

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

What evidence is there that he didn't tell the truth? He answered the questions that were asked - he didn't protest in Minneapolis and he was open about his support for the BLM movement. The defense knew these facts and approved him as a juror.

The second half of this video shows even Fox News anchors understand this (the first half shows the prime time outrage merchants at Fox don't watch other Fox shows):

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1390135960701001728?s=20

Biker79 · 06-05-2021 02:19PM

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.

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.

Overheal · 06-05-2021 02:28PM

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.

You're a few weeks late to this outrage. And nothing has changed about my response: here is Donald Trump getting on the phone to arguably the most watched news program in the country to, as the President of the United States, influence the jury pool of Minneapolis of Chauvin's undeniable guilt, in the summer of 2020:

"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.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-george-floyd-death-video/

It's even worse when you consider a couple weeks prior to these comments Trump indicated he had taken extraordinary steps to involve himself in the case, including tweeting about ordering the FBI to 'expedite' the investigation https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national/trump-says-he-has-asked-doj-fbi-to-expedite-george-floyd-death-investigation and meeting personally with the Attorney General to discuss the particulars of the matter. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/28/trump-meets-with-attorney-general-to-discuss-george-floyd-killing.html - then he went on Hannity to blab about how "it doesn't get any more obvious or it doesn't get any worse than that."

I wonder how many jurors had to be turned down because they had pre-conceptions of the case funneled to them by POTUS 45? That's surely a bigger scandal than the tinfoil possibility the jury was leaked to, when we have every indication they weren't. Biden's comments were not considered or heard by the jury during deliberation, which is when the remarks were made.

Biker79 · 06-05-2021 02:42PM

Mellor wrote: »

That's not accurate.

.

Those were the optics - whether they liked it or not.

Mellor · 06-05-2021 03:06PM

Biker79 wrote: »

Those were the optics - whether they liked it or not.

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.

If you really want to get into optics.
The trial itself, the evidence, the incriminating video of his actions. All carry much more weight than a comment by Biden.

McCrack · 07-05-2021 10:19PM

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 fact youre asking that question demonstrates you don't know what you're talking about

Getting to the point of..the jury will be given Judges directions..as you know after allegedly serving on a jury yourself

BattleCorp · 08-05-2021 03:59PM

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.

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.

ohnonotgmail · 08-05-2021 07:36PM

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.

Biden didn't speak until after they were sequestered. what he said had no effect on the outcome. what was most influential towards a guilty verdict was that all the evidence that led to that conclusion and miserable defence from chauvin. it would have been extremely difficult to return a not guilty verdict given the weight of evidence.

Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

Comments