Chauvin juror: I didn't want to go thru the rioting

[meaner gene]

Did you not read the OP and what the juror said? She was clearly worried about more riots....I don't know how much clearer she can be.

Did you read the "alternate" juror said she would have convicted on second degree manslaughter, independent of any outside influence.

 

[Desperado]

She thought he was guilty and would have voted that way, but she was an alternate and did not participate in the decision. The actual jurors' names have not been released.

Before the trial, she was asked if she wanted to be a juror, and said her feelings were mixed....but after she had sat through the trial she would have voted guilty anyway. So why a retrial?

Right and she would be willing to come out and say she would vote not guilty even now? If she was afraid of retribution then I'm sure she would be afraid of retribution now

 

[meaner gene]

Nah mob justice is not ok no matter how you justify it. If BLM and rioters played a role that’s not a good thing

According to the alternate juror, she said mob justice played no role in her concluding Chauvin guilty of second degree manslaughter.

 

[WEATHER53]

Nah mob justice is not ok no matter how you justify it. If BLM and rioters played a role that’s not a good thing

According to the alternate juror, she said mob justice played no role in her concluding Chauvin guilty of second degree manslaughter.

Therefore, she made the more correct decision based on lack of undue influence thus the other jurors did not due to undue influence

 

[Rocko]

Nah mob justice is not ok no matter how you justify it. If BLM and rioters played a role that’s not a good thing

According to the alternate juror, she said mob justice played no role in her concluding Chauvin guilty of second degree manslaughter.

And I hope that was indeed the case. We’ll she if what she said was grounds for appeal. It does sound like it to me.

 

[meaner gene]

Before the trial, she was asked if she wanted to be a juror, and said her feelings were mixed....but after she had sat through the trial she would have voted guilty anyway. So why a retrial?

Right and she would be willing to come out and say she would vote not guilty even now? If she was afraid of retribution then I'm sure she would be afraid of retribution now

What? She took no part in the jurys verdict, so the mob wouldn't care what her opinion was. All it does is give a snapshot of what one of the impaneled jurors thought about what hey were told not to pay attention to.

 

[Meathead]

Yeah, because thugs wouldn't riot and loot without the maximum. Idiot!

Are you sure you don't want to correct that? Try it again before I answer the question.

OK: Yeah, because thugs wouldn't riot and loot without the maximum. Moron!

Based on your post being sarcastic, I have to point out historically that hasn't happened.

Oh yeah, they were mostly peaceful protests. I forgot.

 

[meaner gene]

According to the alternate juror, she said mob justice played no role in her concluding Chauvin guilty of second degree manslaughter.

Therefore, she made the more correct decision based on lack of undue influence thus the other jurors did not due to undue influence

That's an unsupportable conclusion. As any juror taking the influence less seriously in your example, would have resulted in a hung jury on all charges, and if some jurors took it more seriously that would have resulted in a hung jury of the murder charges.

There is no way you could slide the degree of influence to have it land on the verdict of guilty on every count.

 

[Leo123]

And i've shown it did not influence the jury to go past finding him guilty of second degree manslaughter.
As I asked in the case of a robber asking you for your wallet, you would have handed over your wallet, without volunteering anything else. Having your wallet, the crook would be "barely satisfied".

The jury wouldn't have thrown in murder on top of manslaughter if they didn't believe it.

You have not shown that, you pretended to know what the jury believed.

 

[Leo123]

That's an unsupportable conclusion. As any juror taking the influence less seriously in your example, would have resulted in a hung jury on all charges, and if some jurors took it more seriously that would have resulted in a hung jury of the murder charges.

There is no way you could slide the degree of influence to have it land on the verdict of guilty on every count.

Word salad ^^^^

 

[meaner gene]

According to the alternate juror, she said mob justice played no role in her concluding Chauvin guilty of second degree manslaughter.

And I hope that was indeed the case. We’ll she if what she said was grounds for appeal. It does sound like it to me.

The opinion of an alternate juror can't be used as a ground for appeal. You would have to question the jurors about how they came to their verdict, and that's not allowed.

Defendants and prosecutors don’t have the right to cross-examine jurors about the verdict. Even when jurors have previously complained about being bullied in the jury room, courts have found that defendants aren’t entitled to have the judge ask how individual jurors arrived at their decisions, after they’ve clearly responded during the polling that they agreed with the verdict (Bethea v. Commonwealth, 809 S.E.2d 684 (Va. Ct. App. 2018)).

 

[meaner gene]

Based on your post being sarcastic, I have to point out historically that hasn't happened.

Oh yeah, they were mostly peaceful protests. I forgot.

There haven't been riots because of the degree of the guilty verdict.

 

[meaner gene]

The jury wouldn't have thrown in murder on top of manslaughter if they didn't believe it.

You have not shown that, you pretended to know what the jury believed.

Anybody going along with something begrudgingly, such as because of the riots going on outside, would do the minimum necessary, and find them guilty of "something", usually the lowest crime they were charged with.

This jury responded just the opposite.

 

[Leo123]

Anybody going along with something begrudgingly, such as because of the riots going on outside, would do the minimum necessary, and find them guilty of "something", usually the lowest crime they were charged with.

This jury responded just the opposite.

To me that's backwards thinking. Anything less than guilty on all charges could have resulted in riots.

 

[meaner gene]

There's occams razor of why the jury voted guilty on all counts.


Christensen said she felt prosecutors “made a really good, strong argument” and credited Dr. Martin Tobin, one of their medical experts, for his testimony on how Floyd’s breathing was cut off by the restraint.

“Dr. Tobin was the one that really did it for me. He explained everything to me, I understood it, down to where he said, ‘This was the moment where he lost his life.’ Really got to me.”

Christensen was critical of the defense, saying attorney Eric Nelson ” overpromised in the beginning and didn’t live up to what he said he was going to do.”

 

[OldLady]

The sad thing about this trial was that it proved that intimidation works IF you let it. IMHO, the judge's decisions to hold this trial in Minneapolis and deny sequestration allowed the intimidation of witnesses and jurors to occur without impediment. The point isn't whether Chauvin wouldn't have been convicted of all 3 charges if the trial had been moved to Duluth and the jury sequestrated, maybe the outcome would been the same. BUT - the notion that Chauvin got the fairest and most impartial trial he could have is wrong - he didn't. In our justice system, the ends do not justify the means.

And this trial sends an awful message to those who desire mob rule: all we have to do is raise hell and threaten to do more if we don't get our way, not just in a courtroom but in politics and just about everywhere else. Are we a nation of laws or not? And I lay the blame for allowing the intimidation to continue unabated squarely on the democrats for not maintaining law and order in their cities; we are moving in the direction of totalitarianism, a step at a time. And we are moving fast too.

There were times last summer when I felt the same. You can look at it that way, or that a great many people were demanding justice in a very obvious case from a system that had failed to give them justice many times before. Same scenario, different perspective.

Nah mob justice is not ok no matter how you justify it. If BLM and rioters played a role that’s not a good thing

BLM protesters are a good thing, not a "mob.".

 

[Leo123]

There haven't been riots because of the degree of the guilty verdict.

There haven't been riots because the jury agreed with BLM as much as they could although, BLM would have liked to see Chauvin hang on racist charges.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The sad thing about this trial was that it proved that intimidation works IF you let it. IMHO, the judge's decisions to hold this trial in Minneapolis and deny sequestration allowed the intimidation of witnesses and jurors to occur without impediment. The point isn't whether Chauvin wouldn't have been convicted of all 3 charges if the trial had been moved to Duluth and the jury sequestrated, maybe the outcome would been the same. BUT - the notion that Chauvin got the fairest and most impartial trial he could have is wrong - he didn't. In our justice system, the ends do not justify the means.

And this trial sends an awful message to those who desire mob rule: all we have to do is raise hell and threaten to do more if we don't get our way, not just in a courtroom but in politics and just about everywhere else. Are we a nation of laws or not? And I lay the blame for allowing the intimidation to continue unabated squarely on the democrats for not maintaining law and order in their cities; we are moving in the direction of totalitarianism, a step at a time. And we are moving fast too.

There were times last summer when I felt the same. You can look at it that way, or that a great many people were demanding justice in a very obvious case from a system that had failed to give them justice many times before. Same scenario, different perspective.

Nah mob justice is not ok no matter how you justify it. If BLM and rioters played a role that’s not a good thing

BLM protesters are a good thing, not a "mob.".

Of course, because free Nikes!!!

 

[Leo123]

There's occams razor of why the jury voted guilty on all counts.


Christensen said she felt prosecutors “made a really good, strong argument” and credited Dr. Martin Tobin, one of their medical experts, for his testimony on how Floyd’s breathing was cut off by the restraint.

“Dr. Tobin was the one that really did it for me. He explained everything to me, I understood it, down to where he said, ‘This was the moment where he lost his life.’ Really got to me.”

Christensen was critical of the defense, saying attorney Eric Nelson ” overpromised in the beginning and didn’t live up to what he said he was going to do.”

The problem is that Tobin was wrong because cause of death was not physical strangulation. Tobin was giving his 'expert' opinion which flew in the face of the medical examiner. I believe Tobin let the video snippet color his opinion.

 

[Leo123]

BLM protesters are a good thing, not a "mob.".

So plastering "BLM" in black paint all over burnt and looted buildings is a 'good' thing to you? Using force to make a stupid mayor have Black Lives Matter scrawled across a public street is a 'good thing' to you? You must consider dividing folks by skin color is a 'good thing' which proves you are a racist.