On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 9:33:31 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 10:41:17 AM UTC-4, Art60430 wrote:
Chauvin did not get an impartial jury
A juror on the Derek Chauvin trial who told the court that he had no prior knowledge of the George Floyd civil case was photographed last August wearing a shirt that read €śGet your knee off
our necks€ť and €śBLM.€ť He stated last week that he saw jury duty as a means to €śspark some change.€ť€¦
https://populist.press/chauvin-trial...k-some-change/
Somehow I suspect that the part about said juror telling the court that he had
no prior knowledge about the case isn't true. I know he said that he had not
participated in any anti-police protests. That seems to be the center of the new
issue for another trial. A lot more questions need to be asked and answered
here. So far what I see is that he was at a rally in DC on the anniversary of
MLK's speech, wearing a "get your boot off our necks" T shirt. Whether that's
enough, IDK and maybe there is more. He may have truthfully answered the
questions asked in court with his minimal answers, but if he was a decent,
upstanding citizen, he should have stated that he had been at the rally,
wearing that T shirt. It would have spared us the drama, cost and all the
BS with a new trial, if it comes to that. I've said before I think he should get
a new trial because the request for a change of venue was not granted.
That trial never should have taken place in Minneapolis.
Key legal question for at least one point related to the juror:
Can the MLK rally in DC be defined as an "anti-police protest"?
If not, then he probably told the truth.
I'd compare this situation to the type of thing that attorney's (on both
sides of any case) do all the time. If they can (legally) do it, then
so can a potential juror.
A Yes or No question is asked and when the witness tries to expand
on their answer, "Yes, but..." the attorney shuts her/him down. "It was
a Yes or No question. Thank you."
I haven't read the transcript of the voir dire sessions, but if it went
something like this, then I don't think the defense will win this
argument:
Atty: "Have you ever taken part in an anti-police protest?"
Potential Juror: "No"
Had he said "No, but I went to the MLK rally" then the defense
could have tossed him. However, if all he did was answer a Yes
or No question with a one-word answer, it doesn't matter what
he wore to that rally. He didn't lie when he answered the direct
question.
Again: Can the MLK rally in DC be defined as an "anti-police
protest"?