In my last post about the Chauvin trial I said the following:
The only way I see an appeal winning is if they can produce at least one juror who was going to acquit Chauvin but voted guilty due to the riots or potential threats to his or her life or property. If a juror comes out, on record saying this then I would absolutely expect the convictions to be thrown out
Recently one of the jurors decided to out himself and while he didn't say that he felt threatened and hence voted to convict, he did something that is, in my opinion, just as bad.
One of the jurors who convicted Derek Chauvin in the murder of George Floydon Monday defended his participation in a protest last summer in Washington, D.C., following online speculation about his motives for serving on the jury and whether it might be grounds for appeal.
A photo, posted on social media, shows Brandon Mitchell, who is Black, attending the Aug. 28 event to commemorate Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech during the 1963 March on Washington. Floyd’s brother and sister, Philonise and Bridgett Floyd, and relatives of others who have been shot by police addressed the crowd.
Mind you, I don't think participating in a march is grounds for dismissing a juror. It's what comes next:
it shows Mitchell standing with two cousins and wearing a T-shirt with a picture of King and the words, “GET YOUR KNEE OFF OUR NECKS” and “BLM,” for Black Lives Matter. Chauvin knelt on Floyd’s neck for 9 minutes, 29 seconds last May as Floyd said repeatedly that he couldn’t breathe.
Mitchell, 31, acknowledged being at the event and that his uncle posted the photo, but said he doesn’t recall wearing or owning the shirt.
Well see, this points to a prejudging of the defendant. This guy should not have been on the jury. And lets' be clear, he is straight up lying about "not recalling" having or wearing the shirt. You don't just accidentally purchase such a shirt. It ain't a white T from the Dollar Store.
But worse:
Mitchell said he answered “no” to two questions about demonstrations on the questionnaire sent out before jury selection.
The first question asked: “Did you, or someone close to you, participate in any of the demonstrations or marches against police brutality that took place in Minneapolis after George Floyd’s death?” The second asked: “Other than what you have already described above, have you, or anyone close to you, participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality?”
He lied on a state form. The legal consequence of that, as stated clearly on the form is a charge of perjury. And that could be a felony.
So first, this juror should be charged. This wasn't some small detail. It was a lie that directly impacted the case. And I would think that an appeals court should examine this closely. This is one known juror. It is reasonable to think that he is not the only person who has lied.
Remember, a conviction on the charges requires a unanimous jury. If even one juror thinks that Chauvin should not be convicted of any or all charges then that's what happens. There is reason to believe that a fair juror may not have chosen to convict (even though I think the state met its standard).
This guy may have handed Chauvin a get out of jail card.
https://www.wkrg.com/national/chauvin-juror-defends-participation-in-washington-protest/