Derek Chauvin

[VeritasVincit]

Heenan could be the pupil at my school, who was intervieved by the educational psychiatrist. I met the poor chap just after the interview. Sweating visibly "Astounding. I've never met anyone like that before."
I do though think that Heenan's main reason for dislike is not porn, but a somewhat more obvious reason. His targets over the years suggest this.
I'd love to go on their forum and tackle him about all this but I'd probably get banned if I did. They don'tlike disenters.

[Holden Mcgroyne]

Asking for a retrial. The first juror to speak out publicly also happens to be a BLM activist who lied to get on the jury and has admitted that he saw it as an opportunity to “spark social change.”

The verdict should be thrown out. It wasn’t a fair trial.

Would you like Chauvin to walk free after what he did, Holden?

Just like yourself with Ben Stokes a few years ago, I want justice to be done. A juror has admitted to lying about his knowledge of the case when he was sworn in. Implicit in the US constitution is the right to a fair trial, Mr Chauvin was never going to get one with this juror in place

[Zambo]

Asking for a retrial. The first juror to speak out publicly also happens to be a BLM activist who lied to get on the jury and has admitted that he saw it as an opportunity to “spark social change.”

The verdict should be thrown out. It wasn’t a fair trial.

Would you like Chauvin to walk free after what he did, Holden?

Just like yourself with Ben Stokes a few years ago, I want justice to be done. A juror has admitted to lying about his knowledge of the case when he was sworn in. Implicit in the US constitution is the right to a fair trial, Mr Chauvin was never going to get one with this juror in place

I want Chauvin punished for what he did, but you can't let this go. If it had been an alt-right activist infiltrating a jury for spurious reasons, the left would be in breakdown mode, but they can only see out of one eye.

[subsub]

Asking for a retrial. The first juror to speak out publicly also happens to be a BLM activist who lied to get on the jury and has admitted that he saw it as an opportunity to “spark social change.”

The verdict should be thrown out. It wasn’t a fair trial.

Would you like Chauvin to walk free after what he did, Holden?

Just like yourself with Ben Stokes a few years ago, I want justice to be done. A juror has admitted to lying about his knowledge of the case when he was sworn in. Implicit in the US constitution is the right to a fair trial, Mr Chauvin was never going to get one with this juror in place

Fair enough, Holden.

[JudgeTedd]

Asking for a retrial. The first juror to speak out publicly also happens to be a BLM activist who lied to get on the jury and has admitted that he saw it as an opportunity to “spark social change.”

The verdict should be thrown out. It wasn’t a fair trial.

Would you like Chauvin to walk free after what he did, Holden?

Just like yourself with Ben Stokes a few years ago, I want justice to be done. A juror has admitted to lying about his knowledge of the case when he was sworn in. Implicit in the US constitution is the right to a fair trial, Mr Chauvin was never going to get one with this juror in place

Fair enough, Holden.

Perhaps the jurors should have all been wearing white hoods?

[theleader82]

Asking for a retrial. The first juror to speak out publicly also happens to be a BLM activist who lied to get on the jury and has admitted that he saw it as an opportunity to “spark social change.”

The verdict should be thrown out. It wasn’t a fair trial.

Would you like Chauvin to walk free after what he did, Holden?

Just like yourself with Ben Stokes a few years ago, I want justice to be done. A juror has admitted to lying about his knowledge of the case when he was sworn in. Implicit in the US constitution is the right to a fair trial, Mr Chauvin was never going to get one with this juror in place

+1

[VeritasVincit]

Wasn't the dodgy juror one of the two alternates, who had no input etc into the discussions and verdict?

[shabbado]

Mr Chauvin

Lets see you pay the same respect to BLM protestors who haven't been convicted of murder.

[birdie]

Wasn't the dodgy juror one of the two alternates, who had no input etc into the discussions and verdict?

I don't think so, seems a lot of the time was spent convincing one juror of Chauvins guilt, and as has been said, it would have only taken one, perhaps Nelson will use that as one of the reasons for a retrial.
Apparently, according whichever report you read, he did declare his support for BLM and the fact he'd taken part in a rally/demo supporting BLM, so as he was selected that cant have mattered.

It does strike me as a little strange that the judge didn't put a restriction on the jury members talking about the trial until after sentencing.

[VeritasVincit]

Wasn't the dodgy juror one of the two alternates, who had no input etc into the discussions and verdict?

I don't think so, seems a lot of the time was spent convincing one juror of Chauvins guilt, and as has been said, it would have only taken one, perhaps Nelson will use that as one of the reasons for a retrial.
Apparently, according whichever report you read, he did declare his support for BLM and the fact he'd taken part in a rally/demo supporting BLM, so as he was selected that cant have mattered.

It does strike me as a little strange that the judge didn't put a restriction on the jury members talking about the trial until after sentencing.

I cannot be certain about it. It was something I read a while ago and didn't note. I've actually read very little about this case.

[Sid Pervcat]

Fuck Chauvin.

Hope the cunt gets maimed, re trial or not.

[Sadact7]

Asking for a retrial. The first juror to speak out publicly also happens to be a BLM activist who lied to get on the jury and has admitted that he saw it as an opportunity to “spark social change.”

The verdict should be thrown out. It wasn’t a fair trial.

Would you like Chauvin to walk free after what he did, Holden?

Just like yourself with Ben Stokes a few years ago, I want justice to be done. A juror has admitted to lying about his knowledge of the case when he was sworn in. Implicit in the US constitution is the right to a fair trial, Mr Chauvin was never going to get one with this juror in place

Correct. And if there was ever a case where they needed to make sure everything is done by the book then this one is it.

Even if you think the conviction is a formality, the need to ensure it is secured correctly is paramount.

[birdie]

We know that one of the reasons Nelson will give for a retrial is the non sequestration of the jury, I think he requested that when the woman self confessed to turning on her TV and seeing a member of the prosecution team, the judge said that he trusted the jury to abide by his strictures, the second time Nelson requested the jury be sequestered was when the young chap was shot 'by mistake' instead of being tasered, the judge again said that he trusted the jury to be sensible, but as one of the jurors lived in the area he/she couldn't but be aware of the curfew and local disturbances.
As to whether that juror who has spoken about the trial being, somehow, there to influence the one who he said took some convincing, isn't that what happens with all jury's, there are always those who have to be convinced, that is why verdicts can, sometimes, take several days of deliberation before all of them agree.

[Hillman avenger]

It's interesting that they spent ELEVEN DAYS on jury selection. Questioning over thirty people. This juror was asked about BLM and told them the truth.

It would have been impossible to assemble a jury which had not seen any of the endless coverage on the case over the previous six months.

And the other eleven decided guilty anyway in less than a day.

During the jury selection, Chauvin’s defence lawyer Eric Nelson was told by Mr Mitchell that he had seen video footage of the incident, that he had spoken about the case with his family and friends, that he had wondered why the other officers didn’t stop Chauvin, and that his view of Black Lives Matter was “very favourable”.

He also told the defence attorney that some police officers at Mr Mitchell’s gym were “great guys”. He said he had neutral feelings towards the pro-police group “Blue Lives Matter,” and that he could be neutral during the trial.
Independent

The defence produced one witness and the defendant did not testify.

Unless you moved the trial to Alabama it's difficult to see how you assemble a "better" jury

Looks like desperate stuff. Still more money for his lawyer.

[birdie]

It's interesting that they spent ELEVEN DAYS on jury selection. Questioning over thirty people. This juror was asked about BLM and told them the truth.

It would have been impossible to assemble a jury which had not seen any of the endless coverage on the case over the previous six months.

And the other eleven decided guilty anyway in less than a day.

During the jury selection, Chauvin’s defence lawyer Eric Nelson was told by Mr Mitchell that he had seen video footage of the incident, that he had spoken about the case with his family and friends, that he had wondered why the other officers didn’t stop Chauvin, and that his view of Black Lives Matter was “very favourable”.

He also told the defence attorney that some police officers at Mr Mitchell’s gym were “great guys”. He said he had neutral feelings towards the pro-police group “Blue Lives Matter,” and that he could be neutral during the trial.
Independent

The defence produced one witness and the defendant did not testify.

Unless you moved the trial to Alabama it's difficult to see how you assemble a "better" jury

Looks like desperate stuff. Still more money for his lawyer.

It seems that there was a pool of 300 potential jurors and as you say, this bloke declared his support for BLM which the prosecution didn't challenge, but wherever you moved the trial to, it probably would be difficult to find 12 people and however many reserves who hadn't seen some footage of the event even in passing, and the evidence would still be the same.
It's my thinking that the defence witness who said that Floyd, lying on his front with Chauvin kneeling on his back and neck and two other holding him down too, with his face rammed into the asphalt, wasn't in any pain or discomfort but was 'resting comfortably', probably shot the case for the defence.