Reply to Thread for Derek Chauvin trial watchers?

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Thread for Derek Chauvin trial watchers?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]Link to blank Jury Questionnaire:

https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/JurorQuestionnaire12222020.pdf

This was sent to prospective jurors ahead of (in-court, mostly publicly recorded) voir dire. Presumably some prospective jurors were excluded prior to questioning on the basis of their answers, although it would be partially speculation at this point as to what exactly would disqualify someone. Obviously we can use some common sense and the reasons that other prospective jurors were dismissed for cause on the record in court.

There are two questions that could potentially be meaningful. One is question 7:

[quote] Did you, or someone close to you, participate in any of the demonstrations or marches against police brutality that took place in Minneapolis after George Floyd’s death?  Yes, me  Yes, someone close to meNo.
If you participated, explain how much you were involved.[/quote]

This obviously specifies “in Minneapolis.” I don’t know why it doesn’t include “or anywhere else” but it plainly does not include that. So if a juror answered no but then attended some kind of demonstration in Washington DC, they could just mark no.

For some reason a similar question, minus the Minneapolis specification, appears in another section. Question 12:

[quote] Other than what you have already described above, have you, or anyone close to you, participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality? YesNo[/quote]

Following question 12, prospective jurors are asked how favorably they rate the statements “Black Lives Matter” and “Blue Lives Matter.”

Question 12 does seem to frame things quite narrowly in terms of police use of force and brutality. So if you were at the March on Washington and didn’t perceive your involvement in the activities you attended to be about that, it seems you could say no. How objectively reasonable that is would probably require some more info at this point I think. But I definitely foresee no issues for the juror himself unless there’s some bombshell revelation of contemporaneous records that show he intended to mislead the court. Which I doubt.

From what I remember about Mitchell’s in court questioning, he said he’s seen police use more force than he thought was necessary but also knows cops who are “great guys.” He also said something along the lines of he didn’t think Chauvin intended to kill Floyd but he didn’t know why someone didn’t intervene. Nelson didn’t try to get him dismissed for cause or use a peremptory. Why? Total speculation but possible fear of a Batson challenge (where the state would challenge the attempt to get the juror dismissed by saying the dismissal was on the basis of race) or possibly defense interpreted some of Mitchell’s answers as potential sympathetic to Chauvin (not many prospective jurors said they knew MPD cops who were “great guys”, also if such a person came along had a connection to one of the four former officers on trial, they would have been dismissed).

What does it mean for a new trial? It’s probably not as easy as some online comments seem to be making it out but it’s early to tell without more info. Defense asked for more time today. Impeaching a verdict on juror testimony alone is very difficult. The Supreme Court has set very stringent limits on it, basically allowing it only where certain racial animus towards the defendant existed. So the defense will need more than just the statements made to the media so far about what happened during deliberations, at least as far as the statements I’ve been tracking. 
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics