No one here talking about the Chauvin juror who possibly has a conflict of interest....

[Sogo]

that could throw the case into a new trial?


https://www.twincities.com/2021/05/03/chauvin-juror-defends-participation-in-washington-protest/

[Beakybird]

1. Oy ve!

[hlthe2b]

2. For an appeal they will need one hell of a lot more than this.

Meh. He was asked in voir dire about relevant protests and answered honestly apparently. The MLK march WAS not an anti-police march at all.

If you watch RW media, undoubtedly you will get a far more hysterical take, but this is not going to earn him a new trial.

[Sogo]

3. Not RW media, but a story by AP being carried on MSM and

local stations in MN....

[hlthe2b]

5. My statement said if you were listening to the discussion of the story on RW media you will get a

very different take than what I am presenting (undoubtedly).

If you are concerned, perhaps wait for some of the better attorneys to discuss. Again, not the RW attorneys on Fox, NewsMax or OAN or even, perhaps on local news channels.

[Sogo]

8. And my reply was to say that I'm NOT listening to RW media, nor their attorneys.

It was a story put out by AP, picked up by MSM. I've never watched OAN or NewsMax, and haven't tuned to Fox in many years....Of course, I'll be listening for competent commentary....

Thank you for your perspective, minus the attack.

[hlthe2b]

10. I am not saying you are. I am saying to the wider world, that those hearing this from RW media

will get a very different view than what I presented legally.

You need to take a breath. No one was attacking YOU. This IS being presented on RW media. I just left an office where FOX was playing in the waiting room.

We talk about our RW opponents all the time. Those comments are not directed to you unless you state you agree with them.

[Sogo]

11. Fair enough....

Breath taken....

[hlthe2b]

12. ...

[uponit7771]

16. AP repeats too many MAGA Media headlines, politicos at AP don't police their editors

[NoMoreRepugs]

6. Agree.

[dawg day]

4. Well, we have to allow jurors to have opinions and lives

It's going to be hard to get a racially diverse jury and demand the African Americans be completely neutral about racism.

And lots of people (of all races) participated in protests last summer. It would be hard to empanel a completely uninvolved jury, not sure we'd want that anyway. I'm always amazed at potential jurors who say-- quite honestly-- that no, they don't pay any attention to the news, and never heard anything about some extremely famous defendant or victim or notorious case. Really? You never heard of David Letterman? Charles Manson?

But I guess not everyone refreshes the AP website every 10 minutes.....

[Calista241]

7. The judge could easily declare a mistrial.

[OneBro]

9. Not a conflict of interest.

Not even close. Just an example of how America suggesting only white people can be impartial on juries. The commentary and video of Chauvin kneeling on Floyd’s neck was all over the media, and the idea that this juror was somehow brainwashed by a speech is just goofy and, sadly, predictable.

Tucker Carlson and his merry band of Jim Crows will, of course, have a field day with this. Chauvin is their kind of cop, doing their god’s work. What?, a juror came to trial so biased that he was already outraged that a human suffocated another human with a knee for 8 minutes? Well now that, THAT!, is simply outrageous.

[Dawson Leery]

13. The right only cares about the minute (and irrelevant) details when the lose the argument

This is one of those cases.

[cilla4progress]

14. This continues to be othering.

That Black lives matter is not mainstream. That it is a view held by that dangerous threatening other.

This is a bias and a ruse.

The RW routinely - and often successfully, labels progressive or egalitarian or now democratic! views as suspect and biased, and those that, for example, storm the US Capitol under the banners of the Confederacy and Hitler to be the real Americans.

I've seen them succeed at this for years.

Don't fall into their trap.

[IrishAfricanAmerican]

22. THIS

[cilla4progress]

25. ...

sick of it....

[ScratchCat]

15. FWIW,

This issue has been started by some RW internet sleuth, not Chauvin's attorney. The article is a little confusing, but it sounds like the defense questioned him directly about BLM, his knowledge of the case and views of police. If that's the case, then this is nothing.

The only possibly troubling issue is the shirt he had on at the MLK day march(assuming that is real; don't know why he says he doesn't remember wearing or owning the shirt.)

[Calista241]

17. Chauvin's attorney seems to be a straight shooter and not a firebrand type of guy.

If he's going to complain, it won't be to the press. Chauvin has yet to be sentenced, and the judge could still declare a mistrial.

The article also gives weight on appeal. The judge denied the defense's request for a change of venue, and this only add fuel to the fire.

[Elessar Zappa]

18. I doubt a mistrial will be declared.

[StarlightGold]

20. Yeah, let the judge

declare a mistrial. Whatever the court technicalities, the world will see that a knee on the neck of a man until he suffocates is small potatoes compared to a juror’s “questionable” t-shirt.

I’m a middle aged white person and am SO sick of this shit.

[WarGamer]

26. there can't be a mistrial now... right?

[sarisataka]

19. Nope,

We don't talk about things we don't like to talk about

[David__77]

21. If the fuckers declare a mistrial, the cost will be very high.

Of course it might also tear away illusions about the system.

[IrishAfricanAmerican]

23. This is a nothingburger.

Don't believe the hype.

[IcyPeas]

24. weren't the jurors asked/told not to speak out until after the sentencing?

[kcr]

27. No one is talking about it because it doesn't matter

There isn't going to be a new trial.