It’s a shame that this is happening, because it only keeps all the tensions ginned up. Passions that we thought were going to cool are now being elevated. My kneejerk reaction is that Chauvin’s attorney did this because it’s an extension of his original impassioned plea for a change of venue, because his client wasn’t going to get a fair trial in Minneapolis, he contended. The problem with that, is that it’s the same argument as was made with the O.J. Simpson case. To find a venue where people didn’t know about the Simpson case wasn’t possible, it was decided, and it wasn’t going to be possible with respect to the George Floyd case — unless Judge Cahill decided to take the case to Mars. Some sentient bacteria up there might not have heard about this disgrace in Minneapolis. Unfortunately, we live in an age of world wide media saturation. Nevertheless, here’s Nelson’s newest gambit.
BREAKING: Derek Chauvin's attorney Eric Nelson just filed a motion asking for a new trial on multiple grounds including jury misconduct. @kare11 pic.twitter.com/g03hoDbLe1
— Lou Raguse (@LouRaguse) May 4, 2021
Here is the full motion. The specifics will come in a future filing. https://t.co/ejadMndDTK
— Lou Raguse (@LouRaguse) May 4, 2021
This is going to be the newest right-wing media fodder. Watch for Newsmax and OAN to go for this like a duck to water. This is the stuff of pure grievance culture.
Oh sure – the jury behaved badly – they found him guilty of murder after actually seeing him do it on camera.
They were supposed to acquit him on the grounds that he was a white cop
^^^^^THIS!^^^^^
Couldn’t have said it better!
I read about this earlier today (can’t remember where) and the author of the piece said in and of itself this wouldn’t be enough to get the conviction overturned on appeal. He noted the event in question wasn’t a BLM protest for George Floyd but a commemoration of MLK’s march on Washington. Also, in the jury voir dire the issue of BLM came up as well as having seen the video with this juror. His answers indicated his knowledge of both, and support of the former but that he thought he could remain impartial. He was specifically asked if he’d taken active part in any of the George Floyd protests in Minneapolis itself and he denied doing so. It might be an interesting debate about whether Nelson should have drilled down and asked a broader question about BLM and/or George Floyd protests (anywhere other than Minneapolis itself?) but he didn’t and like anyone should when in court the juror answered only what he was asked.
No doubt Chauvin will in the days and weeks ahead make a big deal about the juror not volunteering the information about the DC march but again it wasn’t a George Floyd event – it was for MLK as so many others have been. The article didn’t say if Nelson challenged that juror during voir dire for cause, but even if he challenged the guy for cause (I suspect he didn’t or the article would have mentioned it) he could have used one of his peremptory challenges. Nelson didn’t have a problem back when he had the chance to do something with information that might have successfully on its own gotten that juror excluded. So, it might become part of an “ineffective assistance of counsel” motion on appeal but that would assume Chauvin fires Nelson and gets someone else to take up his case which is possible.
The issue is whether taken in combination with the venue (and I agree with you that there wasn’t anywhere in that state where everyone didn’t know about Floyd’s murder and that video) and the judge not sequestering the jury until deliberations started (and perhaps other stuff that escapes me at the moment) Nelson might get Chauvin a new trial by using a “kitchen sink” approach of relatively minor points, each of which would fail on its own but taken in combination would add up to the conviction being overturned on appeal. And the judge in the case might decide that’s likely before things ever get to that point.
The ugliness of the murder and the trial is far from over.
Won’t help Chauvin with federal charges, though, which would have been coming whether he got convicted or not.
As I understand it, the jury was sure of their decision early on in the deliberations.
If the juror had worn that shirt in court, they might have a small chance, but the evidence was overwhelming.
I’m sure this has NOTHING to do with the fact that the DOJ is going to put Chauvin up on federal charges…charges, I might add, which would have got the cuffs slapped back on Chauvin in the event of an acquittal. His lawyer is just pounding the table because he doesn’t have anything else.