The chauvin jury

"Correction"
I miss read the story and had the deliberation at 4 hrs which was Monday only. Several more hours happened today.
My apologies.
I still think it was to fast though...carry on please


I've been pondering the verdict for a bit and something is bothering me about this case.
I'm not here to argue the trial details, that's been beat to death. That being said, this feels wrong.

I've been on a couple jury's over the years.
Every time the deliberation took much longer than I felt it should. Mostly because there is one or two people that is hesitant to convict.
One time we talked for three hours about wether or not the accused knew he didn't have a valid drivers license.

Four hours to convict on all three counts.
That's hard to believe in my opinion.
There is so much information to process and they do not discuss the case as it is ongoing.

Could this jury have been pressured?
Could they be scared for their safety?

Has anyone else had experience being on a jury and if so what is your opinion?

Again I'm not arguing the verdict.

Probably has absolutely nothing to do with Maxines threat about if they don't call it guilty. Probably has nothing to do with threats from BLM and other militant groups.

There's no justice in this country. Especially if you're white. I saw a video of a white cop getting blasted by a Mexican dude with a very long history of drug crimes in Las Cruces, and haven't seen anything about it.

There will be an appeal that will be successful. This court case had its fair share of ...issues.

I highly doubt you'll find the answer to the question you're asking here on an internet message board.

I'm sure there will be a special on ID channel within a year or 2

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

a reply to: TXRabbit

Ok, boomer.


Them darn kids talking about life on the internet messaging boards on AOL.

originally posted by: TXRabbit
I highly doubt you'll find the answer to the question you're asking here on an internet message board.

I'm sure there will be a special on ID channel within a year or 2

Actual I was asking for opinions from other people's experiences on juries.
This is the perfect place for that.

a reply to: Bluntone22

It took a jury 11 hours to convince Noor of killing Justine Damond. With no video.

This jury spent ten hours, not four, to reach a decision of an event almost entirely captured on video.

How is this odd?

a reply to: MiddleInsite

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

originally posted by: Bluntone22
I've been pondering the verdict for a bit and something is bothering me about this case.
I'm not here to argue the trial details, that's been beat to death. That being said, this feels wrong.

I've been on a couple jury's over the years.
Every time the deliberation took much longer than I felt it should. Mostly because there is one or two people that is hesitant to convict.
One time we talked for three hours about wether or not the accused knew he didn't have a valid drivers license.

Four hours to convict on all three counts.
That's hard to believe in my opinion.
There is so much information to process and they do not discuss the case as it is ongoing.

Could this jury have been pressured?
Could they be scared for their safety?

Has anyone else had experience being on a jury and if so what is your opinion?

Again I'm not arguing the verdict.

I was the lead juror on a jury.

It was a major drug trafficking case.

We deliberated for 4 hours and came with a verdict.

The Jury was split 50/50... and argued heavy for 4 hours.

I was on the side that wanted to give a "NOT GUILTY" verdict, because the way the police handled the information. In the case I was involved in, the police were super negligent in their investigation and collection of evidence because they felt it was such an open and shut case they didnt need to put time and $$ into it.

From the standpoint of a juror.. I felt.. "well.. yeah.. he probably did it and it was blatantly obvious.... but.. the actual physical evidence and investigation if youre being really nitpicky (which you should be) isnt necessarily "beyond a reasonable doubt""

The fact that the police were so lighthearted and cocky about the whole thing left a bad taste in half the jurys mouth, and we felt that although not the most probable.. the defenses story was definitely plausible.

The problem is, in just 4 hours... the side who said "guilty".. which was then down to only 2 people.. were so stubborn... and adamantly so... just said.. "sorry guys... c'mon.. we all know he did it.. im not switching.." In that instant... the other 9 people switched to guilty because they realized the 2 people wouldnt budge. I.. the lead juror was then the ONLY one in the "Not Guilty" camp.. and as the lead juror.. I felt it was wrong to hold the rest of the entire jury hostage by what I then wanted.. so I caved.

We gave a guilty verdict.

The question then came afterwards.. to then Trump up the charges... and that then passed unanimously bc everyone just wanted it over with.

So in 1 hour... it went from
8 not guilty... 4 guilty
in 3 hours...
10 not guilty... 2 guilty..
then in 1 hour...
1 not guilty... 11 guilty.
then 5 minutes..
12 guilty..
Then afterwards... 0 seconds for additional aggravated charges unanimously


After being a part of that in person... and how mindblowing that was...

I learned, you NEVER know what a jury will decide or why. EVER.

Most of the time, people just want to go home, and honestly.. dont really care about the outcome as much as they should. Its not them up there in the defendant seat, or in the seat of a victim or their family.

a reply to: Bluntone22

I've been on one jury, it was an injury case of a girl suing her girlfriend over injuries sustained in a car accident, basically girl was looking for pain and suffering money. But I tend to agree, this jury knew full well if they didn't convict, cities would BURN. This jury was well aware of what last summer looked like, they all knew that this summer would have been child's play to the riots and looting if they didn't convict.

But that's the way the cookie crumbles. Even though I believe there was mountains of reasonable doubt, Chauvin did not perform his job well that day.

a reply to: Bluntone22

The prosecution presented and easily to understand, straight forward, open and shut case. The defense tried to muddy the facts and confuse the jury, because that's really all they had. That tactic didn't work.

a reply to: Bluntone22
Where do you see 4 hours? Everything I read says 10 or 11 hours.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I'm not saying you are wrong.
I can only go by my own experience and was asking the opinion of others that have been on a jury.

Have you served on a jury?
If so what did you take away?

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

Correct!

This trial set some precedents....

A: if you’re a cop just shoot them or resign already

B: if you’re dying from drugs, try to find some violent cops around. Bonus if they’re white.

Did I get this right?

a reply to: Lucidparadox

Did you feel pressured to render the "right" verdict?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Bluntone22

The prosecution presented and easily to understand, straight forward, open and shut case. The defense tried to muddy the facts and confuse the jury, because that's really all they had. That tactic didn't work.

The appeal trial might be different.
Time will tell.

originally posted by: Bunch
a reply to: Bluntone22
Where do you see 4 hours? Everything I read says 10 or 11 hours.

I went back and read my source again..
You are correct.
It was 4 hours on Monday.

Still feels to fast..

I will edit my op...

Hindsight is always perfect when the results are rigged ahead of time 😎

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Bluntone22

The prosecution presented and easily to understand, straight forward, open and shut case. The defense tried to muddy the facts and confuse the jury, because that's really all they had. That tactic didn't work.

The appeal trial might be different.
Time will tell.

I'll be watching to see if Chauvin's fan boys start attacking jurors, like Roger Stone's fan boys did.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Have you served on a jury?

Folks in my line of work tend to get excused pretty quickly. Some states, and the federal system, consider certain career fields an automatic exemption, though my current state does not. I’ve been called once, and was there less than half an hour before being excused.

The longer a jury deliberates the more likely an acquittal or hung jury is in my experience. In this particular instance, if the jury had gone on much longer, and especially if it had gone into late tomorrow, I would have expected a hung jury or an acquittal of one of both the murder charges. Given the video evidence and Chauvin’s lack of testimony, this deliberation period seems about right to me.