BLM Activist Was on the Jury in Chauvin Trial

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: vonclod

What is relevant is you have people with ties to BLM making demands of the jury. And stating certain things will happen if the right decision isn’t made.

Is that a false statement.

Nope, still irrelevant to the question, of NRA being excluded from some gun related trials. Because of a riot or not. Riots are not part of the equation on the jury questionnaire.

The jury is not supposed to watching media/news..is that effective..probably not.

originally posted by: EvanB
Yes but those prejudices have to be weighed when selecting a jury in order to have a fair trial.

No, if it comes up in voir dire you're asked if you can set aside any prejudices. I was on a trial where someone openly said they were prejudiced and the judge basically told them to deal with it.

This clearly didn't happen very well in this case and has given the defence a legal route for a miss trial, retrial or an appeal at the minimum.

If it 'clearly didn't happen' then the defense attorney is culpable as well since he should have dismissed this juror. I will wager with you right now that this will not cause a mistrial to be called.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

This wouldn't be the first time a case was appealed due to a juror lying during jury selection.

Pretty sure the defense would have excused any potential jurors that attended BLM rallies.

If a case can be made they didn't just "forget" and lied to mislead the lawyers and make it on to the jury with a predisposition to convict that's a clear definition of a mistrial.

It should be investigated.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
If a case can be made they didn't just "forget" and lied to mislead the lawyers and make it on to the jury with a predisposition to convict that's a clear definition of a mistrial.

Actually, it's not, a mistrial has to be declared before a verdict is rendered.

a reply to: vonclod

You

Riots are not part of the equation on the jury questionnaire.

Sigh

The actual argument.

And I am sure the past history of rioting and arson did run through the minds of the jurors. I don’t know if it played in the decision. But it was an aspect hinted at if the right decision wasn’t made.

Chauvin Judge: Rep. Waters’ Call for Protesters to Get ‘Confrontational’ Could Lead to Trial Being Overturned

www.thedailybeast.com...

A little melodramatic. Shrugs. But now we find a person with ties to BLM was on the ”inside” with the jury.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: SuperDave90
Id love to see the questions that were asked of the jurors on that questionnaire.
This person could have committed perjury, I wonder if they will be charged...........

A BLM member charged?
Where? When? Ever happened?
Don't hold your breath waiting for that.

Yep, not even when they set fire to an apartment building with families inside. Not one liberal or Democrat prosecutor cared or did anything about it.

Not even when black people were murdered in CHAZ by BLM members in Seattle. Nothing was done about these murders, the parents of one of the victims is now suing the Democratic politicians for not caring her black son was murdered and doing nothing about it, except excuse the murders because the murders were being very politically correct and appropriately liberal.

These are acceptable activities if one is a member of BLM and VP Harris will raise bail and call the prosecutor to make sure the person is never charged.

Yes, having a BLM member on this jury is reason for dismissal of the charges and a mistrial declared. Shame the juror lied. But that is perfectly ok with liberals and Democrats. They will fawn over the BLM juror and be enraged that the "very acceptable and woke PC lie" about being a BLM member, caused a mistrial and blame the defense counsel.

Remember in today's world a liberal Democrat, a BLM member can do no wrong, ever, including murder, rioting, looting, burning cities, terrorizing citizens and of course something as small as a lie. Our system of justice these days will never punish a liberal or Democrat if what they do is done in the name of political correctness and racial justice. Never.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I object

a reply to: neutronflux

Correct me if I'm wrong, what I initially replied to..you indicated an NRA member shouldn't be excluded from a trial involving..lets say gun rights..because there has never been an NRA riot..true, or not true. Because that is the sentiment I replied to.

Whether there has been a riot at a protest..is not the question.

Dude has a 6th Ammendment right to a fair trial.
It appears to me this juror violated that.
A new trial is a remedy for this given situation, also convictions have been overturned for purjurous jurors.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
I object

Go ahead, the legal world doesn't care:

A courtroom trial that has been terminated prior to its normal conclusion. A mistrial has no legal effect and is considered an invalid or nugatory trial. It differs from a "new trial," which recognizes that a trial was completed but was set aside so that the issues could be tried again. Mistrial - legal definition

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: neutronflux

Correct me if I'm wrong, what I initially replied to..you indicated an NRA member shouldn't be excluded from a trial involving..lets say gun rights..because there has never been an NRA riot..true, or not true. Because that is the sentiment I replied to.

Whether there has been a riot at a protest..is not the question.

And I am saying the fact the BLM would riot if the right verdict wasn’t handed down as implied by Waters could be undo influence with the irony of a person with ties to BLM on the jury.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: neutronflux

Correct me if I'm wrong, what I initially replied to..you indicated an NRA member shouldn't be excluded from a trial involving..lets say gun rights..because there has never been an NRA riot..true, or not true. Because that is the sentiment I replied to.

Whether there has been a riot at a protest..is not the question.

And I am saying the fact the BLM would riot if the right verdict wasn’t handed down as implied by Waters could be undo influence with the irony of a person with ties to BLM on the jury.

Dontcha think riots were a given, had the verdict been different? Waters is an idiot for sure, but I doubt her foolish words would of made something happen, that was already going to happen..as far as the public goes. And anyway, the jurors weren't supposed to be aware of Waters comments. I have no idea if they did hear them. It would have to be proven.

Anyway, I don't support BLM, I don't support sh#tty cops either.

originally posted by: SuperDave90
Id love to see the questions that were asked of the jurors on that questionnaire.
This person could have committed perjury, I wonder if they will be charged...........

Nope, just like Christine Blasey Ford wasn't charged when she lied under perjury. But let some anonymous person say the president (the one these people don't like) touched a woman and these same people will go straight to impeachment.

a reply to: vonclod

You

And anyway, the jurors weren't supposed to be aware of Waters comments.

And we know at least one juror was not truthful. Who was that again...

K. What about the other 11 jurors who obviously agreed in a matter of hours?

I attended 2 rallies for this last summer btw, and I'm not in any way shape or form a "mEmBeR" of BLM. The rallies I went to were led by our local police department. They blocked off streets for us and had cops on golf carts in front and back of the march to protect us.

I don't think a verdict is going to be overturned because one guy practiced his constitutional right of peacefully protesting.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

I know someone who, due to selective video editing and narrative shaping by MSM, had no F'n clue that Mr. Floyd was resisting arrest, bucking and kicking and generally not being compliant when being detained by the police.

They told me that, in all of the combined hours of video replay loop of Chauvin kneeling on Floyd they had viewed on TV, they saw 1 (one) instance on 1 network that showed Floyd kicking furiously at the squad car doors prior to being put on the ground.

One of the more inaccurately manipulated video edits I saw made it appear as if they had successfully placed Floyd completely into the back of the police car, and then Chauvin just decided to pull him out the other side of the car and put him on the ground.

a reply to: jjkenobi

Pretty sure the defense would have excused any potential jurors that attended BLM rallies.

If a case can be made they didn't just "forget" and lied to mislead the lawyers and make it on to the jury with a predisposition to convict that's a clear definition of a mistrial.

It should be investigated.

I'm not going to pretend to know exactly how it works, but it might be possible that they could somehow blame this on the defense. Maybe it could be spun in a way that the defense should have realized this sooner, but they didn't, and now it's too late.

a reply to: LordAhriman

The guy in question would've been able to influence the other jurors

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: vonclod

You

And anyway, the jurors weren't supposed to be aware of Waters comments.

And we know at least one juror was not truthful. Who was that again...

Well, one juror may have been untruthful about having been to a protest or not. I said that "could" be problematic. It doesn't mean he, or others heard Waters, like I said about her..meaningless pretty much, super dumb, but was already in play..she should of been sent to the corner with a dunce cap!

Anyway, a lie is not good..I have not read the actual question/answers though.