Chauvin Juror Lied about BLM Activism. Could Help Chauvin's Appeal

The TV combined with his other statements in the media do seem to suggest he had reached his conclusion long before the trial started.

Jenner for Gov wrote:

The TV combined with his other statements in the media do seem to suggest he had reached his conclusion long before the trial started.

*the t-shirt

once a lawyer wrote:

fasciz wrote:

I care.

Prove to me that the juror did not fulfill his duties in an impartial manner.

Impartiality is not the issue; the juror could be considered “tainted” for having lied during voir dire. I don’t know why jurors can’t just be upfront all the time, it’s much better for everyone for you to get everything out in the open than to have it revealed later. And never, never lie under oath.

This guy wanted to be on this jury so that he could vote to convict and so he could be a hero to his community. The fact he sought out the media to explain how he was part of the group that brought justice to the black community, along with his lies to get on the jury, clearly shows he was anything but impartial.

He should be charged, convicted and jailed for perjury. Chauvin was guilty, that juror didn't have to be there. This lying juror screwed up one of the most emotional and critical cases in the country.

If his stupid behavior results in a mistrial, the effects for the country will be bad. But no one can claim this juror was impartial or did his job. He tainted the whole process.

I agree. I think he is guilty but will get a second chance now due to this biased juror.

Imagine the riots if a juror was photographed in a M.A.G.A. hat at a “Back the Blue” rally.

Those would be 10/10 riots. The courthouse would look like Notre Dame.

Whatever side you take in this trial, we should all feel contempt and disgust for this juror tainting the whole process. Those praying for conviction should be upset with this juror for not only tainting the process, but for giving racists another reason to say, "but it really wasn't a fair trial".

Questions:

Is it possible other jurors felt like that juror but that was the juror that got caught?

Is it difficult for black jurors to be impartial in white (particularly with white cops) on black crime?

Is it difficult for white jurors to be impartial in black on white crime?

The whole belief in systemic racism in the legal system is predicated on the belief that it is difficult for white jurors to be impartial in black on white crime.

Could the opposite be true too. Is it hard for black jurors to be impartial too?

Just thinking aloud.

Jenner for Gov wrote:

Imagine the riots if a juror was photographed in a M.A.G.A. hat at a “Back the Blue” rally.

Those would be 10/10 riots. The courthouse would look like Notre Dame.

Yes and the media would have a field day with it.

However, the factor you are leaving out, is that everyone saw the video of Chauvin committing a vile heinous act of murder. So evidence of a juror being impartial for acquittal would rightfully draw a stronger reaction.

Imagine if someone raped and killed your daughter, wife, mom or someone close to you.

Then imagine if they were freed on a technicality of what some juror said in initial questioning.

Would you be cool with that?

Obviously not which is why he is calling out this juror. This case could have been a slam dunk.

Stronger than Armstronglivs wrote:

Obviously not which is why he is calling out this juror. This case could have been a slam dunk.

Yes, I would be furious with the lying juror in that hypothetical.

Legal experts say defense attorney Eric Nelson could ask for a new trial on the grounds of juror misconduct. That would need to go through a process called a Schwartz hearing. During the hearing, Judge Peter Cahill would ask Mitchell questions in order to determine if there was any misconduct.

Defense attorney Fred Goetz, who was not a part of the Chauvin case, said juror misconduct is a serious issue. But there’s a high bar to cross to prove it.

“Something has to have been said that was demonstrably false,” said Goetz. “And it has to make a difference.”

If Cahill refuses to grant the new trial or doesn’t find evidence of juror misconduct or bias, Nelson may raise that as grounds for appeal.

Rachel Paulose, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas and a former U.S. attorney for Minnesota, said it doesn’t appear to her that Mitchell committed misconduct.

“It’s going to be the defense’s burden to show that this juror lied or that somehow the juror was not open and responsive to the voir dire,” she said. “Based on what I’ve seen so far, that’s going to be very hard to show.”

There isn't a convicted killer who doesn't deny their guilt after conviction and who doesn't file an appeal. It means nothing. It is a long long way from an appeal being granted and even further from a conviction being overturned.

Why would you write this whole post and not even read from the link you sent me. No definition for "substantial causal factor" provided, and the term was only used once so I am not sure what I am supposed to learn from this. Maybe this is where the confusion is stemming from, the jurors were never provided the definition of substantial causal factor.

I also don't know why it's weird not to want our court system to be turned into a witch hunt where people are convicted without fair trials and where people are convicted based on the law, not everyone's emotional knee-jerk reaction to a video with no further evidence.

call it like it is. wrote:

Stronger than Armstronglivs wrote:

Obviously not which is why he is calling out this juror. This case could have been a slam dunk.

Yes, I would be furious with the lying juror in that hypothetical.

Really, you'd be more mad at the juror than the lawyer trying to free the person who killed your loved one or the system that would allow him to be free.

Whoever gave this quote is an idiot. Nelson specifically asked the jurors if they had attended any police brutality protests in the past year, which Mitchell answered no to. That's just one lie that we know of.

Yes. If we did not have defense lawyers willing to do their best to defend their clients, there would be hundreds of thousands more black males in prison. I don't think you have really thought this through. We have a system in place that presumes innocence. We have defense attorneys who have taken an oath that places a burden on all lawyers. Every lawyer has the affirmative duty to promote, uphold, and defend the US Constitution. Every action undertaken by a lawyer, both personally and professionally, must comport with this sworn duty. Even further, every inaction of a lawyer must comply.

Let it Rupp wrote:

Why would you write this whole post and not even read from the link you sent me. No definition for "substantial causal factor" provided, and the term was only used once so I am not sure what I am supposed to learn from this. Maybe this is where the confusion is stemming from, the jurors were never provided the definition of substantial causal factor.

I also don't know why it's weird not to want our court system to be turned into a witch hunt where people are convicted without fair trials and where people are convicted based on the law, not everyone's emotional knee-jerk reaction to a video with no further evidence.

I didn't follow the trial all that closely, but there were one or two things during the trial that, if I were representing Chauvin, I would bring up on appeal to argue that he didn't get a fair trial (the announcement of the $27 million civil settlement during jury selection comes to mind). But I would expect to lose, because on balance he did get a fair trial.

You were wrong about the definition of substantial factor, can we at least agree about that now?

Even if you're right and the guy did lie, that lie still has to make a difference.

Given the overwhelming evidence of Chauvin's guilt, the fact that this guy may have attended a police brutality protest may be irrelevant.

Judges are very reluctant to set aside jury verdicts. It happens, but someone in Chauvin's shoes has a big mountain to climb.