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

[Rocko]

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.".

Yeah BLM is a radical organization, but putting that aside having them tip the scale of justice in a criminal case is not what we want

 

[Leo123]

OBVIOUSLY, she's wrong on this one.., The prosecution COULD have played any kind of race card if they HAD ANY.. They did not.. This is about gross disconcern for people already in custody.. Never was a matter of skin color...

They didn't have to play the race card, Biden, Waters and BLM did that for them.

 

[Leo123]

You've actually pointed out why an appeal would fail. If the trial he got, was fairer than what a new trial would bring, they can't fix it by making it worse.

Yeah, pretty sad justice takes a back seat to rhetoric.

 

[meaner gene]

Alternate juror in the Derek Chauvin trial speaks out: 'I felt he was guilty'

Oh so now we convict folks on feelings?

When 12 jurors unanimously feel that way. YES !!!

 

[struth]

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

No....you added that part...because frankly we would never know for sure....

Alternate juror in the Derek Chauvin trial speaks out: 'I felt he was guilty'

yeah i don’t see the part you added

 

[JustAGuy1]

One juror: "I did not want to go through rioting and destruction again and I was concerned about people coming to my house if they were not happy with the verdict."

Appeal on the way.

'I Didn't Want to Go Through the Rioting': Juror in Chauvin Trial Makes Stunning Admission over 'Guilty' Verdict - Becker News

On Tuesday, a jury found Derek Chauvin guilty of second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter in a case that had sparked nationwide riots: The death of George Floyd. During the course of the trial, Judge Peter Cahill mentioned that the court case was getting...

beckernews.com

Do you think we are that dumb.

Kyle is a writer and producer for Fox News' #1 cable primetime show Hannity. He is a veteran of award-winning digital news startup Independent Journal Review. He was one of the initial hires as a freelance Content Creator and quickly became Senior Managing Editor and then Director of Viral Media.
Kyle Becker’s Biography | Muck Rack

We KNOW you are as dumb as a box of rocks.

 

[Leo123]

When 12 jurors unanimously feel that way. YES !!!

First of all, you keep referring to feelings which you are not privy to, second, courts deal in facts of the case not feelings. Are you from America? Are you familiar with our system of justice? Have you are been empaneled in a jury? I have and I can tell you juries are instructed to consider the FACTS in the case not the FEELINGS in a case. In this case the jurors obviously FELT they would be at some risk letting Chauvin off completely or on lessor charges. This is not a basis for a fair verdict in the American court system.

 

[meaner gene]

If he doesn't appeal he'll likely have to spend the rest of his life in prison. He has nothing to lose.

Right now the judge may feel like being lenient on Chauvin, giving him the benefit of the doubt toward his accepting responsibility. If he appeals and the judge has to go through it all over again, he may add time because Chauvin has shown no remorse, or taken any responsibility.

 

[Leo123]

Right now the judge may feel like being lenient on Chauvin, giving him the benefit of the doubt toward his accepting responsibility. If he appeals and the judge has to go through it all over again, he may add time because Chauvin has shown no remorse, or taken any responsibility.

 

[meaner gene]

WOW. I didn't think there were that many cases of white police officers killing unarmed black men / women.

Thanks for the count. So you say there were 80 of them. WOW !!!

Yes and they stood and are standing for conviction...Which totally blows your theory out of the water.

Actually that sheer number makes me wonder why there weren't more riots. That's practically one a month for the last decade.

 

[meaner gene]

When 12 jurors unanimously feel that way. YES !!!

First of all, you keep referring to feelings which you are not privy to, second, courts deal in facts of the case not feelings.

Jurors take those facts, and then either feel the defendant is guilty or not guilty.

If 12 of them agree, their feelings become a verdict.

 

[struth]

WOW. I didn't think there were that many cases of white police officers killing unarmed black men / women.

Thanks for the count. So you say there were 80 of them. WOW !!!

Yes and they stood and are standing for conviction...Which totally blows your theory out of the water.

Actually that sheer number makes me wonder why there weren't more riots. That's practically one a month for the last decade.

which tells me that the recent insurrections, riots and such from BLM, and such weren’t at all about policing and criminal justice, but about simply politics...mere brownshirts for the dnc

 

[meaner gene]

Have you are been empaneled in a jury? I have and I can tell you juries are instructed to consider the FACTS in the case not the FEELINGS in a case.

I'll give you that. But then this is where you derail your point.

In this case the jurors obviously FELT they would be at some risk letting Chauvin off completely or on lessor charges.

As you said, the jurors were instructed to go with the facts of the case, like the testimony of the witnesses, and not how they felt about people rioting in the streets.

 

[Leo123]

As you said, the jurors were instructed to go with the facts of the case, like the testimony of the witnesses, and not how they felt about people rioting in the streets.

But you were referring to their feelings he was guilty. I am saying they let their feelings fly in the face of fact. I think you are getting confused about what you yourself have posted.

 

[meaner gene]

But you were referring to their feelings he was guilty.

And you were referring to her feelings about the riots.

Her feelings on Chauvins guilt was based on the facts of the case, remember she said the prosecution put on a much better case.
And as you said, she was to ignore the feelings about the riots.

 

[struth]

But you were referring to their feelings he was guilty.

And you were referring to her feelings about the riots.

Her feelings on Chauvins guilt was based on the facts of the case, remember she said the prosecution put on a much better case.
And as you said, she was to ignore the feelings about the riots.

your second paragraph is all speculation and the Consitutional rights of the defendant can’t be risked over speculation. Hence why a new trial will likely be granted

 

[meaner gene]

your second paragraph is all speculation and the Consitutional rights of the defendant can’t be risked over speculation. Hence why a new trial will likely be granted

A new trial can't be granted unless the errors in the first trial are "fixable". When they select jurors, they do so based on people who have no knowledge of the case, but those who have the least knowledge, and who haven't already formed an opinion.

After the trial of the decade, you won't be able to find a jury as unprejudiced as the one they already had. Any appeal would have to be based on an error in law, and not the prejudices of the jury.

 

[Leo123]

Her feelings on Chauvins guilt was based on the facts of the case, remember she said the prosecution put on a much better case.
And as you said, she was to ignore the feelings about the riots.

You just want to argue. You speculate that this alternate juror represents the feelings of the jury. By all accounts she felt intimidated by what was going on around this trial. I am saying that IF you believe she represents the feelings of the jury you must also take into account the intimidation factors surrounding the case. How do you know that jurors did not feel intimidated to bring down a guilty verdict on all charges? You don't but here you are trying to say their 'feelings' about the facts were based solely on testimony. Sure, that is SUPPOSED to be the way it works but, this alternate juror showed that may not have been the case.

 

[WEATHER53]

My conclusion is supported by the results of the outcome. It is your contention that is not supported by her statements nor the outcome from those whose necks were unduly put at risk.

This is typical Trump thinking. Just like thinking that Trump lost because the democrats cheated. Rather than the simple fact that Biden got more votes. 81 to 74 million and 306 to 232 electoral votes.
Chauvin was found guilty because like the alternate juror said, the prosecution put on a much better case.

That is not what the alternate juror said

 

[Leo123]

Jurors take those facts, and then either feel the defendant is guilty or not guilty.

If 12 of them agree, their feelings become a verdict.

You are assuming their decision was wholly based on the facts of the case but, apparently it wasn't.