The chances of Derek Chauvin prevailing in an appeal of his conviction improved slightly because of Judge Cahill's denial of repeated requests by his lawyer (Eric Nelson) to move the case out of Minneapolis.

The chances of Derek Chauvin prevailing in an appeal of his conviction improved a little more slightly because of the massive publicity given to the case.

The chances of Derek Chauvin prevailing in an appeal of his conviction improved even a little more slightly because of an ill-timed pre-trial settlement ($27 million) with the Floyd family.

The chances of Derek Chauvin prevailing in an appeal of his conviction again improved even a little more slightly because of Judge Cahill’s refusal to sequester the jury throughout the trial in order to shield them from any news about the case.

The chances of Derek Chauvin prevailing in an appeal of his conviction again improved even further because of loudmouth Maxine Waters demanding a guilty verdict, and implying negative reactions if he was acquitted.

Still, the odds at that point were not seen as very good (in general, some 90% of appeals are denied across the United States).

But now, the chances of Derek Chauvin prevailing in an appeal of his conviction have improved substantially because one stupid juror lied when answering the juror selection questionnaire.

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2021/05/ ... perts-say/

The revelation of this alone probably isn’t enough to overturn the conviction, but when combined with the other issues outlined above, a successful appeal claiming Chauvin was denied a fair trial looks possible.

Why Brandon Mitchell lied on the questionnaire is apparent. What is also apparent is that he either didn’t think carefully about the repercussions of lying and/or he received some very bad advice.

Just when it seemed this a-hole cop, who has a history of criminal actions against suspects, was going to spend decades in prison, trying to avoid ‘street justice’ while behind bars, this had to happen. If Chauvin’s appeal is successful, he will still be convicted in a second trial – but to put the country through all this again was unnecessary.

Let's get this straight, the Defense Attorney's that failed at any point to put Chauvin on the stand to defend his behavior want to blame everyone else.? This appeal lacks evidence of any of their bogus claims. They should be disbarred.

Their one claim to fame is that a juror executed their constitutional right to attend a march.

Here is a follow up article with the real info on what said Juror did.

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 first asked, with the second asking: “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?”

"Mitchell reportedly answered "no" to both questions.

Mitchell separately told Chauvin's attorney during the jury selection process that he had a “very favorable” opinion of the Black Lives Matter movement and that some police officers are “great guys." He insisted he could be impartial during the trial.

“It was directly related to MLK’s March on Washington from the '60s. ... The date of the March on Washington is the date. ... It was literally called the anniversary of the March on Washington,” Mitchell told the Star-Tribune in reference to the demonstration he attended last year.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc ... was-a-good

Don't think Mr. Chauvin will be successful with this one.

Elkadad313 wrote:

The chances of Derek Chauvin prevailing in an appeal of his conviction improved slightly because of Judge Cahill's denial of repeated requests by his lawyer (Eric Nelson) to move the case out of Minneapolis.

The chances of Derek Chauvin prevailing in an appeal of his conviction improved a little more slightly because of the massive publicity given to the case.

The chances of Derek Chauvin prevailing in an appeal of his conviction improved even a little more slightly because of an ill-timed pre-trial settlement ($27 million) with the Floyd family.

The chances of Derek Chauvin prevailing in an appeal of his conviction again improved even a little more slightly because of Judge Cahill’s refusal to sequester the jury throughout the trial in order to shield them from any news about the case.

The chances of Derek Chauvin prevailing in an appeal of his conviction again improved even further because of loudmouth Maxine Waters demanding a guilty verdict, and implying negative reactions if he was acquitted.

Still, the odds at that point were not seen as very good (in general, some 90% of appeals are denied across the United States).

But now, the chances of Derek Chauvin prevailing in an appeal of his conviction have improved substantially because one stupid juror lied when answering the juror selection questionnaire.

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2021/05/ ... perts-say/

The revelation of this alone probably isn’t enough to overturn the conviction, but when combined with the other issues outlined above, a successful appeal claiming Chauvin was denied a fair trial looks possible.

Why Brandon Mitchell lied on the questionnaire is apparent. What is also apparent is that he either didn’t think carefully about the repercussions of lying and/or he received some very bad advice.

Just when it seemed this a-hole cop, who has a history of criminal actions against suspects, was going to spend decades in prison, trying to avoid ‘street justice’ while behind bars, this had to happen. If Chauvin’s appeal is successful, he will still be convicted in a second trial – but to put the country through all this again was unnecessary.

Mitchell went to an MLK march commemoration...please explain how that is scandalous or potentially impartial.

Aaron747 wrote:

Elkadad313 wrote:

The chances of Derek Chauvin prevailing in an appeal of his conviction improved slightly because of Judge Cahill's denial of repeated requests by his lawyer (Eric Nelson) to move the case out of Minneapolis.

The chances of Derek Chauvin prevailing in an appeal of his conviction improved a little more slightly because of the massive publicity given to the case.

The chances of Derek Chauvin prevailing in an appeal of his conviction improved even a little more slightly because of an ill-timed pre-trial settlement ($27 million) with the Floyd family.

The chances of Derek Chauvin prevailing in an appeal of his conviction again improved even a little more slightly because of Judge Cahill’s refusal to sequester the jury throughout the trial in order to shield them from any news about the case.

The chances of Derek Chauvin prevailing in an appeal of his conviction again improved even further because of loudmouth Maxine Waters demanding a guilty verdict, and implying negative reactions if he was acquitted.

Still, the odds at that point were not seen as very good (in general, some 90% of appeals are denied across the United States).

But now, the chances of Derek Chauvin prevailing in an appeal of his conviction have improved substantially because one stupid juror lied when answering the juror selection questionnaire.

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2021/05/ ... perts-say/

The revelation of this alone probably isn’t enough to overturn the conviction, but when combined with the other issues outlined above, a successful appeal claiming Chauvin was denied a fair trial looks possible.

Why Brandon Mitchell lied on the questionnaire is apparent. What is also apparent is that he either didn’t think carefully about the repercussions of lying and/or he received some very bad advice.

Just when it seemed this a-hole cop, who has a history of criminal actions against suspects, was going to spend decades in prison, trying to avoid ‘street justice’ while behind bars, this had to happen. If Chauvin’s appeal is successful, he will still be convicted in a second trial – but to put the country through all this again was unnecessary.

Mitchell went to an MLK march commemoration...please explain how that is scandalous or potentially impartial.

He didn't just have an image of MLK on his shirt, there was a slogan about 'get your knee off our necks' and 'BLM' was on his hat. I'm not supportive of a successful appeal; jut pointing out how a stupid mistake can jeopardize the outcome of a trial.

Elkadad313 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Elkadad313 wrote:

The chances of Derek Chauvin prevailing in an appeal of his conviction improved slightly because of Judge Cahill's denial of repeated requests by his lawyer (Eric Nelson) to move the case out of Minneapolis.

The chances of Derek Chauvin prevailing in an appeal of his conviction improved a little more slightly because of the massive publicity given to the case.

The chances of Derek Chauvin prevailing in an appeal of his conviction improved even a little more slightly because of an ill-timed pre-trial settlement ($27 million) with the Floyd family.

The chances of Derek Chauvin prevailing in an appeal of his conviction again improved even a little more slightly because of Judge Cahill’s refusal to sequester the jury throughout the trial in order to shield them from any news about the case.

The chances of Derek Chauvin prevailing in an appeal of his conviction again improved even further because of loudmouth Maxine Waters demanding a guilty verdict, and implying negative reactions if he was acquitted.

Still, the odds at that point were not seen as very good (in general, some 90% of appeals are denied across the United States).

But now, the chances of Derek Chauvin prevailing in an appeal of his conviction have improved substantially because one stupid juror lied when answering the juror selection questionnaire.

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2021/05/ ... perts-say/

The revelation of this alone probably isn’t enough to overturn the conviction, but when combined with the other issues outlined above, a successful appeal claiming Chauvin was denied a fair trial looks possible.

Why Brandon Mitchell lied on the questionnaire is apparent. What is also apparent is that he either didn’t think carefully about the repercussions of lying and/or he received some very bad advice.

Just when it seemed this a-hole cop, who has a history of criminal actions against suspects, was going to spend decades in prison, trying to avoid ‘street justice’ while behind bars, this had to happen. If Chauvin’s appeal is successful, he will still be convicted in a second trial – but to put the country through all this again was unnecessary.

Mitchell went to an MLK march commemoration...please explain how that is scandalous or potentially impartial.

He didn't just have an image of MLK on his shirt, there was a slogan about 'get your knee off our necks' and 'BLM' was on his hat. I'm not supportive of a successful appeal; jut pointing out how a stupid mistake can jeopardize the outcome of a trial.

But does wearing the shirt at a MLK march commemoration produce enough evidence that he falsely answered question #2?
I don't think it does. However I can completely be open to other forms of evidence showing that he was misleading during jury selection ,but this one piece does not do it.

casinterest wrote:

Elkadad313 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Mitchell went to an MLK march commemoration...please explain how that is scandalous or potentially impartial.

He didn't just have an image of MLK on his shirt, there was a slogan about 'get your knee off our necks' and 'BLM' was on his hat. I'm not supportive of a successful appeal; jut pointing out how a stupid mistake can jeopardize the outcome of a trial.

But does wearing the shirt at a MLK march commemoration produce enough evidence that he falsely answered question #2?
I don't think it does. However I can completely be open to other forms of evidence showing that he was misleading during jury selection ,but this one piece does not do it.

You need to read my original post which stresses that this one piece does not 'do it.'

Elkadad313 wrote:

He didn't just have an image of MLK on his shirt, there was a slogan about 'get your knee off our necks' and 'BLM' was on his hat. I'm not supportive of a successful appeal; jut pointing out how a stupid mistake can jeopardize the outcome of a trial.

So? He is a black man, and has every reason to be concerned about the police and their approach to black suspects (or non-suspects who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time). Further, he stated that he supported the Black Lives Matter movement; the slogans on his shirt and hat merely substantiate that.

Chauvin's attorneys are doing what they are paid to do, but they are grasping at straws. Straws don't get a murderer a "Get out of Jail Free" card.

casinterest wrote:

But does wearing the shirt at a MLK march commemoration produce enough evidence that he falsely answered question #2?

It would set an interesting precedent.

If that where to be the case, then would NRA members be disallowed from trials involving guns? The NRA member clearly has the same bias towards guns as a BLM supporter has towards police violence against minorities.

petertenthije wrote:

casinterest wrote:

But does wearing the shirt at a MLK march commemoration produce enough evidence that he falsely answered question #2?

It would set an interesting precedent.

If that where to be the case, then would NRA members be disallowed from trials involving guns? The NRA member clearly has the same bias towards guns as a BLM supporter has towards police violence against minorities.

Excellent point, and precisely why this is all much ado about nothing. Jurors are vetted in person by counsel for a reason.

Whether or not Chauvin has a reasonable shot at getting an appeal, it isn't going to happen. He has become a sacrificial lamb so that the city doesn't burn. The juror's voir dire would be interesting to watch. I wouldn't want this juror on any jury as much as I wouldn't like a juror that is predisposed for innocence. Juries need to be impartial; read zero activism. Justice needs to be blind.

extender wrote:

He has become a sacrificial lamb so that the city doesn't burn.

No, he's a convicted murderer.

alfa164 wrote:

Elkadad313 wrote:

He didn't just have an image of MLK on his shirt, there was a slogan about 'get your knee off our necks' and 'BLM' was on his hat. I'm not supportive of a successful appeal; jut pointing out how a stupid mistake can jeopardize the outcome of a trial.

So? He is a black man, and has every reason to be concerned about the police and their approach to black suspects (or non-suspects who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time). Further, he stated that he supported the Black Lives Matter movement; the slogans on his shirt and hat merely substantiate that.

Chauvin's attorneys are doing what they are paid to do, but they are grasping at straws. Straws don't get a murderer a "Get out of Jail Free" card.

To be clear, I am not advocating a successful appeal, just pointing out how a cumulation of several relatively minor issues could POSSIBLY open what was once considered an air-tight conviction to a POSSIBLE successful appeal. Some here are reading too much into my motive in creating this thread, which was to create a forum for comments/debate over whether the outlined factors pose a POSSIBLE threat to Chauvin's conviction.

par13del wrote:

To be clear, are you saying that anyone who supports BLM and or attends any of the marches held to protest police treatment of minorities is an activist?

That is an activist.

scbriml wrote:

extender wrote:

He has become a sacrificial lamb so that the city doesn't burn.

No, he's a convicted murderer.

Of which that conviction may be appealed. Then what will you call him?

extender wrote:

scbriml wrote:

extender wrote:

He has become a sacrificial lamb so that the city doesn't burn.

No, he's a convicted murderer.

Of which that conviction may be appealed. Then what will you call him?

A murderer?

You know, from the video which shows him murdering someone.

alfa164 wrote:

Elkadad313 wrote:

He didn't just have an image of MLK on his shirt, there was a slogan about 'get your knee off our necks' and 'BLM' was on his hat. I'm not supportive of a successful appeal; jut pointing out how a stupid mistake can jeopardize the outcome of a trial.

So? He is a black man, and has every reason to be concerned about the police and their approach to black suspects (or non-suspects who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time). Further, he stated that he supported the Black Lives Matter movement; the slogans on his shirt and hat merely substantiate that.

Chauvin's attorneys are doing what they are paid to do, but they are grasping at straws. Straws don't get a murderer a "Get out of Jail Free" card.

Even if this person was at the rally it still took 11 other people to unanimously vote to convict Chauvin.

Even with a new jury what changes in this case to create reasonable doubt to overturn the conviction. I'm no lawyer but the actions of the previous jury wouldn't count and the same evidence would be presented to a new jury.

The defense in this case was clearly grabbing at straws to begin with and if a new trial was granted Chavin would probably have to take the stand and face some serious questions from the prosecution. That might not be good for him as he has a history of misconduct before George Floyd.

extender wrote:

par13del wrote:

To be clear, are you saying that anyone who supports BLM and or attends any of the marches held to protest police treatment of minorities is an activist?

That is an activist.

What about NRA members, Right to Life marchers, Environmentalists, Are they all incapable of being impartial?

scbriml wrote:

extender wrote:

He has become a sacrificial lamb so that the city doesn't burn.

No, he's a convicted murderer.

There you go again, pointing out the obvious to those who always blame non whites!

You do all realize this is just lawyers wringing the case out to the last drop so they make even more money.
Little to do with getting a murderer off with a lighter conviction / sentence.

I have no dog in this hunt. You can look back and I stated that certainly, manslaughter. For those of you thinking the color of Chauvin or Floyd's skin has anything to do with it, it doesn't. Justice is blind.

Every juror has their own spin on things, that is what voir dire and the challenge process is for.

extender wrote:

I have no dog in this hunt. You can look back and I stated that certainly, manslaughter. For those of you thinking the color of Chauvin or Floyd's skin has anything to do with it, it doesn't. Justice is blind.

Every juror has their own spin on things, that is what voir dire and the challenge process is for.

We're all just fortunate you have no actual role in the justice system. Crimony sakes. No activist of any kind can be a juror? Gimme a break. Let's leave that to counsel to determine on a case by case basis, as they do.

Aaron747 wrote:

We're all just fortunate you have no actual role in the justice system. Crimony sakes. No activist of any kind can be a juror? Gimme a break. Let's leave that to counsel to determine on a case by case basis, as they do.

Yeah, it offends the collective sensibilities. Too bad. Your opinion is the only one the counts, right?

Spin it however you like, such views are way out of the mainstream.

"If [Mitchell] specifically was asked, 'Have you ever participated in a Black Lives Matter demonstration,' and he answered, 'No,' to that, I think that would be an important appealable issue," said Joseph Daly, emeritus professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law.

Link

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?”

Mitchell answered “no” to these two questions in the juror questionnaire.

Aaron747 wrote:

Spin it however you like, such views are way out of the mainstream.

So you like to say.

StarAC17 wrote:

The defense in this case was clearly grabbing at straws to begin with and if a new trial was granted Chavin would probably have to take the stand and face some serious questions from the prosecution. That might not be good for him as he has a history of misconduct before George Floyd.

I can’t see any way Chauvin’s lawyer will want him to take the stand. If he testifies, he might as well plead guilty because his police record is going to look very bad in the cold light of a courtroom.

GDB wrote:

There you go again, pointing out the obvious to those who always blame non whites, there's a word for that.

Yeah, my bad.

extender wrote:

par13del wrote:

To be clear, are you saying that anyone who supports BLM and or attends any of the marches held to protest police treatment of minorities is an activist?

That is an activist.

By that definition, someone who attends church, wears a cross, raises money for that church and attends the church fete is an activist as well. Doesn’t mean they can’t be impartial.

extender wrote:

Of which that conviction may be appealed. Then what will you call him?

A murderer that got away with it? The whole World watched him commit murder:

Source: dailymail.co.uk

This is a 'Desperate Effort' on the part of Eric Nelson, to 'Overturn The Verdict' that was against Derek Chauvin.

The possible defense for Chauvin was to produce any 'Evidence' that proved George Floyd physically resisted the arrest and the officers had to handle him this way.

But Eric Nelson could not produce it during the trial. So, I don't think the judge will be in favour of Chauvin this time as well.

Aaron747 wrote:

extender wrote:

I have no dog in this hunt. You can look back and I stated that certainly, manslaughter. For those of you thinking the color of Chauvin or Floyd's skin has anything to do with it, it doesn't. Justice is blind.

Every juror has their own spin on things, that is what voir dire and the challenge process is for.

We're all just fortunate you have no actual role in the justice system. Crimony sakes. No activist of any kind can be a juror? Gimme a break. Let's leave that to counsel to determine on a case by case basis, as they do.

Funny coming from someone who would have a cow if one of the jurors had a MAGA hat on. Do you think a member of MADD mothers against drunk driving would be impartial in a DUI case? The questionnaire is meant to root out potential bias of a juror it appears this man most certainly would have a bias against this cop. But I think it is hard in general to get a totally impartial jury anyway especially one with this much media attention. Chauvin doesn't have much of a shot but it is his lawyers job to reach for a straw if he finds one.

stratosphere wrote:

Funny coming from someone who would have a cow if one of the jurors had a MAGA hat on.

A MAGA cap is a symbol of someone who is a member of a deranged cult. That is different.

stratosphere wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

extender wrote:

I have no dog in this hunt. You can look back and I stated that certainly, manslaughter. For those of you thinking the color of Chauvin or Floyd's skin has anything to do with it, it doesn't. Justice is blind.

Every juror has their own spin on things, that is what voir dire and the challenge process is for.

We're all just fortunate you have no actual role in the justice system. Crimony sakes. No activist of any kind can be a juror? Gimme a break. Let's leave that to counsel to determine on a case by case basis, as they do.

Funny coming from someone who would have a cow if one of the jurors had a MAGA hat on. Do you think a member of MADD mothers against drunk driving would be impartial in a DUI case? The questionnaire is meant to root out potential bias of a juror it appears this man most certainly would have a bias against this cop. But I think it is hard in general to get a totally impartial jury anyway especially one with this much media attention. Chauvin doesn't have much of a shot but it is his lawyers job to reach for a straw if he finds one.

As I said, it’s up to counsel to judge each juror’s temperament, not the peanut gallery.