BLM Activist Was on the Jury in Chauvin Trial

BLM Activist on Chavins Jury

I thought that jury's had to go through a vetting process in order to create a fair trial?

I'm not saying the Jury didn't reach the right conclusion but am saying that this trial didn't meet the required standards under the law and with information that one of the jurors was a t-shirt wearing, rally/protest attending paid up BLM member then this was never a fair trial and an unsafe conviction.

It is also very good grounds for appeal.

Jury selection needs a serious overhaul

It's a bit like a kkk member being on the trial of a black man :/

a reply to: EvanB

The defense should have found this, but the juror also should not have lied.

There will be more that come out. The conviction will be overturned. Chauvin will be released because he can't get a unbiased trial with a jury of his peers.

Folks need to understand that this is exactly the reason bodycam footage and videos should not be released before a trial....this is also the reason attorneys demand the release....so they CAN bias the entire public.

Trial by media is our native right. If you're in another country it's trial by predator drone.

a reply to: Vasa Croe
Uh pardon me, but what does transparency have to do with someone lying on a jury questionnaire?

Sunshine is always the best disinfectant.

Sure is surreal in America today. Everything involving courts, judges, officials, city, county, state, and federal all tainted and dirty in some way. Some dirty in very big ways.

Looking like the end is quite near and divine judgement is right around the corner.

In a regular untainted time, the media would be all over this case and public uproar. (Back when more people were honest and mostly uncorrupted.)

Id love to see the questions that were asked of the jurors on that questionnaire.
This person could have committed perjury, I wonder if they will be charged...........

a reply to: EvanB

That's ok.
I'm sure there was a member of the police union on the jury too.

a reply to: SuperDave90

Not sure what this guys answers were, but here's the blank questionnaire for the Chauvin Trial jurors.

mncourts.gov...

a reply to: SuperDave90

I was wondering the same thing.

It seems like a kangaroo court in a banana republic under mob rule, and even a sitting president who should take no part in it rather than a fair justice system where you should expect a fair trial under the law

a reply to: Vasa Croe

"unbiased trial with a jury of his peers."

Raises an interesting question. The leftist social engineers have successfully divided this country along "tribal" lines. My question is simply, that being the case, how can anyone expect to get a "jury of their peers" if the jury members are not of the defendants tribe? They cant! And the net result is simply that the trial by jury model is entirely broken down.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Vasa Croe

"unbiased trial with a jury of his peers."

Raises an interesting question. The leftist social engineers have successfully divided this country along "tribal" lines. My question is simply, that being the case, how can anyone expect to get a "jury of their peers" if the jury members are not of the defendants tribe? They cant! And the net result is simply that the trial by jury model is entirely broken down.

The litmus test for hypocrisy is to perform a thought experiment on what the reaction would be like if the circumstances of the case were completely inverted.

For example, let's imagine a hypothetical trial for the black officer that murdered Ashley Babbit.

Now, let's say that a member of the Proud Boys made it onto the jury.

First of all, given the circumstances of that hypothetical trial, the media would be watching the jury selection pool like a hawk, they would pull out all the stops and would scrutinize the jury pool in excruciating detail, to the point where they would know if one of the jury had posted an inappropriate social media update when they were 13 years old. The media would have the whole deck of race cards in hand, at the ready.

If it happened that an inappropriate juror (i.e. known sympathies with political organizations that make them unfit to be an impartial juror) made it past their selection gauntlet, the MSM would have wall to wall coverage of the story and would be fanning the flames, complete with "mostly peaceful rioters" following around the juror.

Also, since the hypothetical juror would be a so-called "white nationalist", the sanctity of protecting the identity of jurors would be gone, out the window. "The bad guys" (i.e. anyone not down with far-left woke ideology) are given no quarter, and the media feels that this is a natural and suitable situation, without any hypocrisy whatsoever

a reply to: EvanB

Deliberate torpedoing of the case by the Justice department just like they did with George Zimmerman and Mike Brown. They'll win an appeal and a new trial and then play it up for the next election.

originally posted by: Dutchowl
Deliberate torpedoing of the case by the Justice department...

The Justice Department wasn't involved at all in jury questioning and empanelment. You should check your facts.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I don't know how it works in the US but in the UK the prosecution and justice department (Crown prosecution service) are one and the same

a reply to: EvanB

We have 50 states which all have their own separate prosecutors and then down to the municipal level.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Vasa Croe
Uh pardon me, but what does transparency have to do with someone lying on a jury questionnaire?

Sunshine is always the best disinfectant.

Because people start forming opinions on something they know nothing about. The video doesn't always tell the entire story adn then it makes it difficult to find jurors who are impartial or been corrupted by media.

While I know it is tradition to have randomly selected jurors from the public, I think we should move to a system of professional jurors.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Vasa Croe
Uh pardon me, but what does transparency have to do with someone lying on a jury questionnaire?

Sunshine is always the best disinfectant.

Because people start forming opinions on something they know nothing about. The video doesn't always tell the entire story adn then it makes it difficult to find jurors who are impartial or been corrupted by media.

Precisely.

I know someone who, due to selective video editing and narrative shaping by MSM, had no F'n clue that Mr. Floyd was resisting arrest, bucking and kicking and generally not being compliant when being detained by the police.

They told me that, in all of the combined hours of video replay loop of Chauvin kneeling on Floyd they had viewed on TV, they saw 1 (one) instance on 1 network that showed Floyd kicking furiously at the squad car doors prior to being put on the ground.

Naturally this slip-up in narrative shaping occurred AFTER the trial was underway and jury had already been selected.

This person exclaimed to me, after seeing at least a little more of the "big picture" than what MSM and their lackeys had allowed the general public to see,

"Oh. Wow. So Floyd wasn't just immediately, arbitrarily thrown to the ground and knelt on, like they showed on TV?? There was more to the encounter than Chauvin kneeling on Floyd? Floyd was resisting arrest and as a large 6'5" man who is acting like a spastic child with 0 compliance to verbal commands....the police were having a hard time figuring out how to get him under control? That sort of puts the encounter in a different context".

Gee, do you think??

I would like to have been on the jury deliberations?

Well. If that is how you feel. I would hate for BLM getting ahold of your identity....