Poll of the Day > Conservatives demand RETRIAL for CHAUVIN after a JUROR attended BLM Rally!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

One of the jurors who spoke out after the Derek Chauvin Verdict and revealed that one juror was CLOSE to voting not guilty after some convincing was revealed to have attended a BLACK LIVES MATTER march with conservatives now demanding a RETRIAL for the former officer now convicted killer!!

The speculation about his motives for serving on the jury and whether it would be grounds for appeal where a photo of Brandon Mitchell attending an August 28th event to commemorate MLK JR's "I have a dream" speech during the 1963 March on Washington.

The photo recently surfaced online as it shows him standing with 2 cousins with a picture of King and the words "GET YOUR KNEE OFF OUR NECKS" and "BLM"

The 31 y/o acknowledged being at the event and his uncle posting the photo but doesn't recall wearing or owning the shirt.

He was one of the 12 jurors who convicted Chauvin and is the first to go public

He said "I'd never been to DC. The opportunity to go to DC, the opportunity to be around thousands and thousands of black people, i just thought it was a good opportunity to be a part of something."

The AP has not received messages back from Mitchell and Chauvin's attorney if they plan to appeal after this relevation

Mike Brandt, a Minneapolis Defense Attorney said the revelation alone wasn't nearly enough to overturn the conviction but could be combined with other issues with the massive settlement with Floyd's family during jury selection and the shooting of Daunte Wright, the judge's refusal to move the trial could be an appeal to say Chauvin was denied a fair trial

But Ted Sampsell-Jones, a professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law however said this could be what Chauvin needs to get what he needs to ask for a retrial and said this wasn't the fault of the judge or prosecutors but a function of publicity and public pressure

Mitchell said "No" to 2 questions that asked "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? and 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?"

Mitchell said during jury selection he had a very favourable opinion of BLM and knew some police officers at his gym who are "great guys" but felt neutral to blue lives matter, a pro police group.

He said he could be neutral on trial and said lst summer's protest was 100% not a march for floyd but a march for MLK's March...

Do you think there will be hell to pay if Chauvin verdicts get revoked and there's a retrial?

https://i.imgur.com/bh91Whi.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/zQSElFv.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/eFJOCgH.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/JTZ8pyi.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/9UI9gjs.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/rkqTD5o.jpg
---

There are riots when he's found guilty because people still aren't satisfied. I don't think either verdict would make a difference.

---

I fail to understand how him attending a BLM rally would impact the verdict? I fully expect an appeal to occur but a retrial is an entirely different matter isn't it?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

There are riots when he's found guilty because people still aren't satisfied. I don't think either verdict would make a difference.

There were riots after the guilty verdict?

---

I hate this bs, no one can ever just lose

Trump won in 2016? Clearly it was rigged
Biden won in 2020? Clearly it was rigged
Chauvin got convicted? Clearly is was rigged

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

There are riots when he's found guilty because people still aren't satisfied. I don't think either verdict would make a difference.

What riots, lol? There were peaceful demonstrations after the verdict. Pretty sure we all would have heard more about any riots.

BlackScythe0 posted...

I fail to understand how him attending a BLM rally would impact the verdict? I fully expect an appeal to occur but a retrial is an entirely different matter isn't it?

This is a tricky question to respond to and i wont do it on these boards in fear of my safety. But i would certainly like to have an open conversation on these matters with someone willing to talk with me without yelling.

im just saying this in general not direct to anyone

Muscles posted...

I hate this bs, no one can ever just lose

Trump won in 2016? Clearly it was rigged
Biden won in 2020? Clearly it was rigged
Chauvin got convicted? Clearly is was rigged

yeah. Power is a big deal in this country/world. i sure as hell wouldn't want to lose "it"

teddy241 posted...

yeah. Power is a big deal in this country/world. i sure as hell wouldn't want to lose "it"

Sure, but you just gotta take the L and move on when things don't go your way

---

Ok so because Duckbear fails, I saw in another place where apparently dude in question was asked twice if he had attended any rallies during the jury interview and he said no both times.

Does that taint the jury? That question is way outside the realm of my meager legal knowledge, but maybe?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

There are riots when he's found guilty because people still aren't satisfied. I don't think either verdict would make a difference.

if there was riots after the verdict, zeus, ohja, whiskey, and you would have been going insane posting about it like it was some big gotcha moment.

---

teddy241 posted...

This is a tricky question to respond to and i wont do it on these boards in fear of my safety.

LMAO
---

Gotta watch yourself on the mean streets of GameFAQs.

---

Full Throttle posted...

The photo recently surfaced online as it shows him standing with 2 cousins with a picture of King and the words "GET YOUR KNEE OFF OUR NECKS" and "BLM"

The 31 y/o acknowledged being at the event and his uncle posting the photo but doesn't recall wearing or owning the shirt.

wtf? So that was a clearly compromised juror then?

BlackScythe0 posted...

I fail to understand how him attending a BLM rally would impact the verdict? I fully expect an appeal to occur but a retrial is an entirely different matter isn't it?

idk, if a jury lied about an affiliation like that, I kinda wonder if it could be grounds for a mistrial that would result in a retrial.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Ok so because Duckbear fails, I saw in another place where apparently dude in question was asked twice if he had attended any rallies during the jury interview and he said no both times.

Does that taint the jury? That question is way outside the realm of my meager legal knowledge, but maybe?

The problem is clearly he lied and went in knowing exactly how he was going to vote, because he had demonstrated it by being at the very rallies protesting Floyd's death. And while you could argue "well, it's one juror," technically all a defendant needs is one juror to get another trial.

Joe_Biden posted...

if there was riots after the verdict, zeus, ohja, whiskey, and you would have been going insane posting about it like it was some big gotcha moment.

Helly with the trolling again. When was the last time I posted a topic about the numerous riots that have happened? If I were so inclined to discuss riots and looting, I'd have no end of content over the past few years. As for Whiskey, who the fuck knows where he is now? His alt got banned and, unlike you, he apparently doesn't have a ton of spares to fall back on, so if he's still on Gamefaqs, he's probably getting his karma back up so he can use PotD.

I think the only political topic I've posted this year might have been when I was dunking on Andrew Yang the other week. I didn't post about John Kerry not wearing a mask on a flight or the continued allegations that he had been conducting shadow diplomacy with Iran while Trump in office (which was worse than the initial charge against Michael Flynn, who initially had only got in trouble for speaking with diplomats before Trump was officially in office; but, you know, rules and laws don't apply to men like John Kerry).

---

zeus falls back on trying to pretend no one knows who he is and what he does, again

---

https://www.dailywire.com/news/report-floyd-juror-wore-blm-shirt-referencing-floyd-in-july-challenging-what-he-told-defense-during-jury-selection

I didnt see any of this coming, at all......

teddy241 posted...

This is a tricky question to respond to and i wont do it on these boards in fear of my safety. But i would certainly like to have an open conversation on these matters with someone willing to talk with me without yelling.

im just saying this in general not direct to anyone

No, its really easy.

Jurors arent supposed to know anything about the case at all. Which is why this case is pointless, because youd have to be not alive, or somewhere in the deepest parts of Siberia to not know about it.

Zeus posted...

The problem is clearly he lied and went in knowing exactly how he was going to vote

Really, that's true for most highly-publicized cases, regardless of the juror's actions. The notion of finding a perfectly impartial juror who has no pre-existing opinion on a case that they've already heard about has never been anything more than a fantasy. You'd be extremely hard-pressed to find somebody that doesn't want a murderer convicted for committing a murder, but that doesn't mean people can't be convinced that it wasn't a murder if the evidence presented doesn't prove that it was.

Zeus posted...

he had demonstrated it by being at the very rallies protesting Floyd's death.

Eh, that's debatable. The BLM rallies following Floyd's death were protesting a whole lot more than just Floyd's death, even if Floyd was the last straw. The claim could very easily be made that he felt that police violence was a problem in a more general sense, but not necessarily that Chauvin was an example of it. Despite people's attempts to characterize it as such, BLM is not a hive mind, and the issue of police brutality is a whole lot more nuanced than "let's just throw all the cops in jail."

---

zebatov posted...

https://www.dailywire.c

don't link to this garbage plz
---

I guess Zeb has blocked me, since I can't see that post at all. I feel so honoured.

---

zebatov posted...

Jurors arent supposed to know anything about the case at all.

This isn't true lmao. You can know about a case. You have to declare that your knowledge of the case isn't clouded in bias and you feel you can impartially judge the case.


---

adjl posted...

but that doesn't mean people can't be convinced that it wasn't a murder if the evidence presented doesn't prove that it was.

that's the entire point behind a jury trial


---

adjl posted...

I guess Zeb has blocked me, since I can't see that post at all. I feel so honoured.

he apparently blocked me because he complained that Canada was gonna start censoring misleading information on social media, and I told him that was a good thing

---

Joe_Biden posted...

that's the entire point behind a jury trial

Precisely. Efforts should be made to filter out jurors that will ignore the evidence presented and vote based on what they've already decided, obviously, but there's nobody alive that doesn't have a first impression on a case, even in the fantasy ideal scenario of them going in completely blind. The trial process accounts for and seeks to mitigate that first impression.

Mead posted...

he apparently blocked me because he complained that Canada was gonna start censoring misleading information on social media, and I told him that was a good thing

Presumably, he blocked me because I don't let him get away with being wrong, which I consider to be a compliment.

---

why not use babies as jurors

---

100% should be overturned or ruled a mistrial. The juror lied and mislead the lawyers. Tainted jury pool, etc, etc. And the only person to blame is this person.

---

Joe_Biden posted...

zeus falls back on trying to pretend no one knows who he is and what he does, again

What crazy accusations is crazy Helly crazily leveling this time?

adjl posted...

Really, that's true for most highly-publicized cases, regardless of the juror's actions. The notion of finding a perfectly impartial juror who has no pre-existing opinion on a case that they've already heard about has never been anything more than a fantasy. You'd be extremely hard-pressed to find somebody that doesn't want a murderer convicted for committing a murder, but that doesn't mean people can't be convinced that it wasn't a murder if the evidence presented doesn't prove that it was.

There's a pretty massive gulf between "maybe he's heard a litle about this trial" and "he's attended protests related to the subject of the trial while being pictured next to people with shirts specifically protesting the person on trial". While it can be hard to find somebody who hasn't heard about a case at all, you can do a fuckton better than going with somebody who already had their mind made up and lied about their activities to get on the jury panel. If you're going in with that level of bias, no amount of evidence can change a person's mind (and that's assuming that they're not interested in convicting regardless of guilt to send a social message, which both some BLM supporters and people on Gamefaqs have suggested in other cases involving alleged police brutality)

adjl posted...

Eh, that's debatable. The BLM rallies following Floyd's death were protesting a whole lot more than just Floyd's death, even if Floyd was the last straw. The claim could very easily be made that he felt that police violence was a problem in a more general sense, but not necessarily that Chauvin was an example of it. Despite people's attempts to characterize it as such, BLM is not a hive mind, and the issue of police brutality is a whole lot more nuanced than "let's just throw all the cops in jail."

So you mean instead having a bias specifically against Chauvin, he was biased against all police? Either way, that removes any possibility at a fair trial.

---

Now we want to violate the 5th amendment.

Zeus posted...

While it can be hard to find somebody who hasn't heard about a case at all, you can do a f***ton better than going with somebody who already had their mind made up and lied about their activities to get on the jury panel. If you're going in with that level of bias, no amount of evidence can change a person's mind

Sure there it can. Strong opinions can be changed with strong evidence/arguments. Conveniently, given the publicly-known facts of this case, strong evidence/arguments were the only way anyone that hadn't already decided to ignore all the murdering could possibly be convinced that Chauvin wasn't guilty, so it's unlikely having strong opinions on the publicly-known facts of the case would affect the verdict.

Zeus posted...

So you mean instead having a bias specifically against Chauvin, he was biased against all police?

The fact that you're characterizing "he thinks police shouldn't brutalize and kill unarmed people over non-violent crimes" as "he's biased against all police" really says a lot about your ability to view this issue impartially.

Zeus posted...

Either way, that removes any possibility at a fair trial.

How melodramatic.

I'm curious, Zeus: Do you think Derek Chauvin should have been found guilty of murder?

---

Decoy77 posted...

100% should be overturned or ruled a mistrial. The juror lied and mislead the lawyers. Tainted jury pool, etc, etc. And the only person to blame is this person.

Theres possibly an argument for a mistrial although that is seriously a stretch at this point considering how often jurors misunderstand questions or arent paying enough attention and answer wrongly, this kind of thing isnt all that uncommon and its one of the reasons you need a unanimous verdict from jurors in a case like this.

to suggest his guilty murder verdict should be overturned based on this though is pretty far and away detached from reality

---

Execution by cop also prevents a fair trial, just fyi for the bootlickers in this topic

---

The left-leaning democratic party member Zeus doing backflips to defend racist killers again

"The far-left loony Zareth claiming anyone remotely right of him is a racist nazi again"

Hey look Zeus I did your work for you, that'll be $3.99 plus tax please, you can pay me on Patreon

---

Mead posted...

Theres possibly an argument for a mistrial although that is seriously a stretch at this point considering how often jurors misunderstand questions or arent paying enough attention and answer wrongly, this kind of thing isnt all that uncommon and its one of the reasons you need a unanimous verdict from jurors in a case like this.

to suggest his guilty murder verdict should be overturned based on this though is pretty far and away detached from reality

Yeah, but no one would be crazy enough to do something like a mistrial with the mob out. And let's face it, Chauvin, isn't worth dieing over anyways. He still fucked up massively


---

DragonClaw01 posted...

Yeah, but no one would be crazy enough to do something like a mistrial with the mob out.

Hey Im just glad they didnt overturn an election to placate one in January

---

adjl posted...

I'm curious, Zeus: Do you think Derek Chauvin should have been found guilty of murder?

Still no reply. He must be undecided.

---

So a black man thinks BLM, and there are people who think there should be a mistrial for that?

LOL

I'm going to give the based take here. I think Chauvin is at the very least guilty of manslaughter and probably murder assuming there was probably some malicious intent behind his actions. Hard to believe 9 minutes of knee on neck could be pure reckless stupidity but he is also a cop...

But I also don't think BLM protesters should be on the dude's jury. You're being willfully dense if you think that a BLM protester is likely to have an unbiased attitude toward police and also ignorant of the whole situation with Floyd

Yeah, but you can say the same thing about someone who doesn't support BLM have bias towards the police. The whole idea behind a jury is that no single person can make the verdict, you need consensus with the rest of Jury for a clear verdict, which we got.

*edit*
if EVERY juror was at a BLM event, sure I see your point.

IronBornCorps posted...

Yeah, but you can say the same thing about someone who doesn't support BLM have bias towards the police. The whole idea behind a jury is that no single person can make the verdict, you need consensus with the rest of Jury for a clear verdict, which we got.

*edit*
if EVERY juror was at a BLM event, sure I see your point.

I'm pretty sure the goal is still to fill a jury completely with people that are seemingly unbiased toward the defendant as well as being mostly unaware of the event in question. I feel that both are highly unlikely, probably next to nonexistent, for a BLM protester

And I would also agree that bootlickers loyal to cops like dogs shouldn't be on the jury either

OhhhJa posted...

You're being willfully dense if you think that a BLM protester is likely to have an unbiased attitude toward police and also ignorant of the whole situation with Floyd

Let's be real here: Nobody's ignorant of the whole situation with Floyd. This happens with pretty much every high-profile case, such that it's all but impossible to find jurors that genuinely don't have a pre-existing opinion on the matter. Everybody has an opinion on BLM, regardless of whether or not they were able to attend a protest, and virtually all of those opinions are going to be strong enough to amount to some form of bias.

Should this guy have declared that conflict of interest? Yes, especially where he was explicitly asked about it. That's just best practice. Did it make an appreciable difference to the trial's outcome, such that calling it a mistrial is remotely reasonable? Almost certainly not. Nobody that was even eligible for that jury was unbiased.

---

In a perfect world sure, yeah everyone is unbias.

Any big trial like this it's going to be near impossible to find someone who doesn't have an opinion on it. You think OJ's trial didn't have a football fan on the jury?

Well, sure its almost impossible to find someone who is completely unaware of the event in question. You'd probably have to find some out of touch cave dwelling bumpkin who'd have no business on a jury. But it's probably not TOO hard to find someone who hasn't read much past a headline

To that I would even say attending a BLM event doesn't necessarily mean they support all aspects within the BLM movement.

It's not a monolith, even here in my town, the organized group separated from BLM and became The Coalition for Black Liberation.

The jury probably should've been sequestered given the the media hype and political issues around the case. Plus some of them got partially doxed by the media, which could be cause for concern if you are a juror given the political situation given the case. Overall, it would be impossible to have a impartial trial given the circumstances surrounding the case. I mean people were pretty much threatening to burn down Minnesota unless a guilty verdict was achieved something the jurors knew going into the case. But regardless, I am fine with the ruling anyways. I mean, I understand peoples' interest in pushing back on BLM, but you shouldn't have to support crooked cops to do so.

---