The chauvin jury

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: KansasGirl

Well they don’t get cell phones or televisions and their phone calls are monitored.
They are literally isolated.

But I would agree that only an idiot could be totally clueless about what was riding on their decision.

You’re describing a sequestered jury. I don’t think these jurors were sequestered, were they?

I looked it up and they were allowed to go home every night.
So no, I doubt they didn't keep up with news and social media stories.

Hard to believe really.

That fact will likely come up in the appeal trial.

They’ve set this up for an acquittal, I’ve heard the judge was asked three times to sequester and he declined. Then he went on about Maxine endangering the outcome of the trial.
They’ve kept the city from burning for now.

a reply to: TheLieWeLive

It will only take one juror to come forward saying they felt threatened.
No idea if they were but this case will see an appeal.

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: KansasGirl

Well they don’t get cell phones or televisions and their phone calls are monitored.
They are literally isolated.

But I would agree that only an idiot could be totally clueless about what was riding on their decision.

You’re describing a sequestered jury. I don’t think these jurors were sequestered, were they?

I looked it up and they were allowed to go home every night.
So no, I doubt they didn't keep up with news and social media stories.

Hard to believe really.

That fact will likely come up in the appeal trial.

Even if they all really didn’t watch or listen to “news” or social media, they had to get to and from the courthouse every day. Unless they were all blind, they would know the city was under fire from the not peaceful protestors. And even then they would be able to smell the smoke from the not peaceful fires.

And even if 11 of them obeyed the no media rule, all it would take is one of them to watch the “news” and tell another juror or the whole jury about it.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Bluntone22

And all it takes is for another on the same jury to threaten to turn their identity over to BLM, too. Not saying that's what happened, but wouldn't that make a holdout think twice?

Holy crap- good point, Kets. What are the chances that every juror was principled and wouldn’t do that? 😰

originally posted by: TheLieWeLive

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: KansasGirl

Well they don’t get cell phones or televisions and their phone calls are monitored.
They are literally isolated.

But I would agree that only an idiot could be totally clueless about what was riding on their decision.

You’re describing a sequestered jury. I don’t think these jurors were sequestered, were they?

I looked it up and they were allowed to go home every night.
So no, I doubt they didn't keep up with news and social media stories.

Hard to believe really.

That fact will likely come up in the appeal trial.

They’ve set this up for an acquittal, I’ve heard the judge was asked three times to sequester and he declined. Then he went on about Maxine endangering the outcome of the trial.
They’ve kept the city from burning for now.

He may be disgusted that no change of venue was given to begin with. It should have been given the case and circumstances.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Never mind, I wrote about the house being smeared in pig blood thinking it happened to a juror, but I was mistaken, it was a witness.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: MiddleInsite

Because it's damn near impossible to get 12 people to agree on anything especially in four hours.

My guess is fear...

They made him into a scapegoat..

originally posted by: Kromlech
They made him into a scapegoat..

They who?
Are you suggesting the jury did this on their own or were pressured?

My jury experience was long ago, when I was early 20’s.

It was strange how every jury member was talking and becoming friends with each other in the jury room in the midst of a serious trial— child sexual abuse case.

Synopsis, the guy is a slime ball... he probably did it. But the prosecution was horrible. Lazy. They didn’t have the girl testify, even though they had no physical evidence.

So basically, we did the initial vote and it was 10 guilty vs. 2 not guilty (1 other + me).

Their first question: Why don’t you think he did it?

My answer: I do think he did it, but why didn’t the prosecution prove it?

Basically a lot less tense than 12 angry men, but we acquitted.

The synopsis: the jurors didn’t care, they wanted out quick, they were emotional... and this was small town 15 years ago.

We’re it not for me being firm and basically getting people to admit there were inconsistencies in the case, the guy would probably be in prison today.

The truth is, most jurors see a case as guilty or they would not be prosecuting. They can talk all they want, but they truly believe guilty or they would not be serving jury duty.

If no one has a strong conviction in the jury room and the prosecutor is not brain-dead, people default to conviction. I’m sure it’s especially true for public defenders.

It takes guts to acquit someone you think did someThing bad but it was not proven. And I would guess much more so in current times.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: seeker1963

One of my employees has a brother that is a lawyer. He has all kinds of stupid juror stories.

Why force people to participate in a process they no longer have faith in? That's why I refuse to participate and believe it or not never spent a day in prison. So it has nothing to do with being bitter on my part for being locked up but bitter that our whole justice system seems to create more violent criminals by railroading people onto "paper".

But you do you and if you think it's your duty to serve I won't stop you. It's your choice. I am just telling people how to easily get out of participating in something they don't want to.

I will say that telling them you believe in jury nullification isn't the best of the 2 to use. Mental illness is at a sky high, there fore the second option works much better!

Floyd had enough Fentanyl in his system to kill him from what I've heard. If Floyd's airway was not obstructed it was probably the Fentanyl.

I know a black guy who was getting ready for the riots. Of course they are going to riot and burn down the City!!!!!!! A complete misfit. ambush mugger. drug addict was killed!!!!!! Same thing as the Crucifixion of Christ to them.

Those jurors were probably threatened. How many died in the riots last time? I don't know much about the case but I know that 1+1=2. Looks like a mistrial to me.

a reply to: Bluntone22

I do find it odd 12 agreed to second degree so quick.

Any kind of murder, and you have to have intent.

Manslaughter I'd still be surprised if they came to the conclusion of so quickly, but I'd understand how it could happen. You could have a jury who is sold on the video by itself... And while we could all argue about it the video itself, I'm strictly talking about the perception of other people.

The more I think about it, the more it doesn't make sense.

My opinion is negligence from the officer. But that's a personal opinion. I don't want officers like him on the force... But legally speaking, I'd have to see without a shadow of a doubt that's what killed him for him to get such a charge.

I also expected this to take more time than this, usually a quick response means innocent. Maybe it went quick because these jurors were afraid that there would be massive riots if they did not convict him. Maybe the Jurors were afraid that Black Lives Matter people would kill them.....something is not right and I am glad I was not the only one who noticed this. I have been on a Jury once and I was kicked out in the initial pick but it was a more serious sentence and the Jury was working on that for like three days before they agreed. All three guilty....it does not seem right to me that it only took that long.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I’m sure the jury was aware of everything going on outside the trial. They probably where all scared and rightfully so, that the blm would show up at their houses if they did anything other then convict Chauvin on all three counts. It was not a fair trial at all. How many jurors had families? Whose family member wouldn’t tell the juror they are scared of them being hurt? This will go to appeals court. The question is, will Derek Chauvin be alive long enough to go back to court?

Side note, I can't help but to see the irony in this whole event. It's turned into a political football, and both sides are getting played.

Much of the right seems sympathetic towards the officer. From what I can extrapolate from much of the arguments... If someone is a criminal and runs, anything that happens (even if unarmed) is on them.

While much of the left seems fine with a justice system making an example out of the officer. They don't even really hiding that's what this is.

Both kind of justify this as protecting us from the other party. It's a wedge issue, and I think that much is obvious.

And in the sake of fairness, I do have to point out only one side is burning the property of people who weren't even involved with the incident... Can't expect to be taken seriously if I leave that observation out.

But, either way... The outcome is statist. The power is to go to unelected people to determine the fate of someone's life all over the political hot button du jour. One by cop, the other by judge and jury (public opinion).

a reply to: LucidparadoxThank you for this, I had a similar experience on a drunk driving jury. Most of the people just wanted to be done with it. A lesser case certainly but disappointing for all a jury trial is supposed to be.

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
Why can't 12 people simply see what a lot of us saw? A cop kneeling on someone's neck for over nine minutes, even after he had stopped struggling and was no longer a threat. And was handcuffed. Crying for his mom and air. While people were telling the cop that he was killing the guy.

12 People saw what I saw. A cop murder a man.

a reply to: Bluntone22

I saw the same thing until I watched the trial and saw the same thing the bullied jury saw, along with mountains of evidence that there was no intent. You're repeating media lies and you know it, you damn sure know you didn't see a cop murder a man.

a reply to: panoz77

Jurors, from now on (thanks once again to democrats), should remain hidden with a voice changer and watch everything remotely so nobody (I'm looking at you, democrats) can intimidate and bully them like domestic terrorists. Democrats have become that one "favor-hire" employee that continuously bends the rules and causes the supervisor to impose more, thus effecting everyone and ends up being disliked by the entire workforce.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
I still think it was to fast though...carry on please

It was a murder caught on video. Pretty simple.