FTR, this has not happened.
I dunno if that’s enough to get him a new trial or not, but – if it is – then there’s time for the potential jury pool to learn about stories like this one:
The indictment in the 2017 case charges Chauvin with two counts of deprivation of rights under color of law. The brief, three-page indictment includes the following allegations:
Chauvin, “while acting under color of law, willfully deprived Juvenile 1 of the right, secured and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, to be free from an unreasonable seizure, which includes the right to be free from the use of unreasonable force by a police officer. Specifically, Defendant Chauvin, without legal justification, held Juvenile 1 by the throat and struck Juvenile 1 multiple times in the head with a flashlight. This offense includes the use of a dangerous weapon – a flashlight – and resulted in bodily injury to Juvenile 1.”
Also, that Chauvin “held his knee on the neck and upper back of Juvenile 1 even after Juvenile 1 was lying prone, handcuffed, and unresisting.”
You don’t think facts and reality will stop them from aggressively writing their own alternative narrative, do you?
It didn’t happen? They got this guy in pictures wearing a shirt that says “get your knee off our necks”, with a BLM hat on his head.
I think he’ll be able to get it down to manslaughter, which it probably should have been anyway.
No, it didn’t. The photo was from an MLK memorial rally that was not directly connected to either the George Floyd murder, or the BLM organization. He wore a shirt that had BLM on it, but that doesn’t indicated any affiliation with the organization, any more than wearing a MAGA hat means you’re a member of the Trump administration.
And there’s no evidence that he lied about any of this during the jury selection process.
Thank you, I was worried.
I don’t think that the juror lied. The question on the jury questionnaire was (to the effect of) “have you attended any protests or rallies in Minneapolis”.
- He wasn’t in Minneapolis. He was in D.C.
- It wasn’t a protest. It was an event for the anniversary of the MLK speech. I’m not sure if it would be considered a “rally” either.
So, the juror didn’t lie. He just didn’t supply information that was not asked for. If anything, the defense should have done a better job of vetting the potential jurors.
Even with all of this, it doesn’t mean that the juror wasn’t impartial. Although it does seem to imply a leaning. But that leaning doesn’t necessarily mean he can’t be impartial and serve as a juror.
Wow, you two are really trying to spin this. I’m not really going to respond, I can see your minds are made up and anything I say won’t matter. I’ll let your posts stand for themselves and watch the response.
I’m sorry I have to respond. No one said he was managing BLM, he’s a supporter. If it was just for MLK, why wear a get your knee off our necks shirt? What does that have to do with MLK? That is a direct reference to the Chauvin-Floyd case.
He lied, clearly trying to hide his bias. And most likely will be the cause of that conviction being overturned.
I agree that it’s not a good look but you have offered no proof that the jurist lied. If you can show that he lied to get on the pool then I’d probably agree that it puts the verdict in legal jeopardy.
Before you can say that, you need to know the exact questions he was asked, and his replies. An allegation of lying on an official form is serious, and to be supported, needs to be compared to the actual words of the questionnaire and the response.
Are the forms available online, do you know?
I don’t know, and I don’t think anyone has released the actual questions yet. Even one of the posters here that claims for fact that Brandon Mitchell is not lying use the words “to the effect of” in regards to the questions he was asked. That leaves alot of wiggle room for some, but not for me. He clearly lied about the intent of the questions.
I’m using the jurors name here because he went public, trying to get a book deal I think. That’s how he was found out. He went public and then people started researching.
You should have gone with your first instinct.
He wore a t-shirt that said “BLM” on it. He might have worn it because he agrees with the specific aims of one of the legally contracted public organizations that use BLM in their names. He might have worn it because he agrees with the plain meaning of the phrase, “Black lives matter.” He might have worn it because he agreed with the other sentiment displayed on the shirt - which we’ll get to in a second - and the shirt happened to have been produced by a BLM-affiliated organization.
That imagery has been common in Civil Rights arguments for decades.
“It demands great spiritual resilience not to hate the hater whose foot is on your neck, and an even greater miracle of perception and charity not to teach your child to hate.” - James Baldwin, 1963
“That’s not a chip on my shoulder, that’s your foot on my neck.” - Malcolm X, 1964
“I ask no favor for my sex, all I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks” - Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 2018
MLK, of course, was a Civil Rights leader who spoke often about the evils of white supremacy, and who was, famously, frequently the target of police violence.
While the shirt designer likely was referencing Floyd’s murder by changing “foot” to “kneeling,” it’s a leap to go from that t-shirt message, to the idea that the person wearing it was too biased to sit on this jury. You will be hard pressed to find a Black person who does not think that Black lives matter, or who does not think that police violence should go unaddressed: and that’s as much as can be learned from the photo of the gentleman at the MLK rally. If the bar for keeping a Black person off a jury in a civil rights case is that low, you’re effectively arguing that no Black person can sit on a jury for a civil rights case.
You have not provided even a smidgen of evidence that this is true.
I saw an image of the question on CNN. I don’t remember the exact words which is why I used “to the effect of”. However, the question was specific to protests and rallies in Minneapolis. It was a poorly worded question if what they really wanted to know was what that person had done anywhere. That’s the fault of whoever wrote the question.
Granted, they did not show the whole questionnaire so perhaps there was another question about protests and rallies elsewhere. I just don’t know.
At this point, the information that I have seen does not seem to indicate that this juror is a reason for a new trial. More information may come out later and I’ll re-evaluate then.
You shouldn’t have to interpret intent in a jury questionnaire. You shouldn’t have to interpret anything in a jury questionnaire. The questions should have been written to get the information they wanted and not make the potential jurors have to guess about what they wanted from the question. It should be clear in the question.
You can see the questionnaire here. I believe you’re thinking of question 7, which is “Did you, or someone close to you, participate in any of the demonstrations or marches against police brutality that took place iin Minneapolis after George Floyd’s death?” So your recollection was pretty solid.
The photo in question was neither a George Floyd rally, nor in Minneapolis. And nothing on the rest of the questionnaire says anything about BLM.
So, what exactly is the lie here, split?
You “don’t think” anyone released the questionnaire yet, but you’re still willing to state as an unqualified fact that Mitchell lied on it, and that the lie was so egregious that it will result in the verdict being overturned?
I’d like to point to Newsweek’s take on this issue, from two days ago:
Mitchell, who is Black, has defended his presence at the event in Washington, D.C., saying it was not a protest over Floyd’s death but commemorating the 1963 March on Washington where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous “I Have a Dream” speech.
“It was directly related to MLK’s March on Washington from the '60s,” he told The Star Tribune . “The date of the March on Washington is the date.”
Rachel Moran, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, told Newsweek that Mitchell’s presence at the march alone does not qualify as juror misconduct.
“The real question is whether Mr. Mitchell lied in his written questionnaire or during his oral testimony,” she said. “Jurors don’t have an obligation to volunteer information about themselves, but they do have an obligation to answer questions truthfully.”
“But I don’t think he was necessarily lying by answering no, since some people would conceive of the march as much broader than a protest about police brutality.”
And then there’s the “Washington, DC vs. ‘Minneapolis’” issue.
From what we know at this point, I’d tend to agree with Professor Moran.
[MODS: I hope I didn’t exceed the bounds of Fair Use. Please feel free to edit if I may have]
I’m black, so yes black live matter to me but how would you respond if Chauvin was acquitted on all charges and a juror was seen in a picture after wearing a blue lives matter shirt? All hell would break loose.
Just because I’m black doesn’t mean I can ignore blatant lies when I see them, when its convenient for me.