Juror in Chauvin trial attended Washington DC march last year, but says event wasn't for Floyd
By: Alex Nitzberg (Just The News)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A photo of one of the jurors from the trial of former police officer Derek Chauvin and the news that he attended a rally in Washington DC on the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous "I Have A Dream" speech are attracting attention after the jury in the widely-watched case convicted Chauvin last month of second-degree unintentional murder, second-degree manslaughter and third-degree murder in connection with the death of George Floyd.
"I'd never been to [Washington] D.C.," Brandon Mitchell said about his reasons for attending the event in the nation's capital, the Star Tribune reported. "The opportunity to go to D.C., the opportunity to be around thousands and thousands of Black people; I just thought it was a good opportunity to be a part of something."
He said was it was not a march for Floyd: "It was directly related to MLK's March on Washington from the '60s … The date of the March on Washington is the date," Mitchell said, according to the outlet.
Reports indicate that the march was referred as the "Get Your Knee Off Our Necks" March. Members of Floyd's family spoke to the crowd.
A photo of Mitchell and two of his cousins shows him wearing a shirt that appears to say "Get Your Knee Off Our Necks" and "BLM," though Mitchell does not remember wearing or owning the item of apparel, according to the Star Tribune. Mitchell said the post with that photo was placed on social media by his uncle.
Mitchell had answered no on a questionnaire that asked if he had engaged in any events against police brutality or police utilization of force.
"I think they asked if I attended any protests for George Floyd or anything for police brutality. My answer was no because I hadn't," Mitchell said to WCCO. "This particular march was more so for voting, voter registration. Getting people out to get out and vote for the presidential election that was upcoming a couple months afterward … This was the only thing I attended."
The Star Tribune reported that one question on a juror questionnaire sent out prior to jury selection had inquired: "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?" and another 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?"
Tags
Who is online
263 visitors
"I'd never been to [Washington] D.C.," Brandon Mitchell said about his reasons for attending the event in the nation's capital, the Star Tribune reported. "The opportunity to go to D.C., the opportunity to be around thousands and thousands of Black people; I just thought it was a good opportunity to be a part of something."
Just an open minded juror./s
The verdict was most likely inevitable, but I don't think Chauvin's defense team earned their money.
If you were on that jury, how would you have voted? I guess that's an unfair question since you could not possibly have been privy to all the evidence. However, the fact that you posted this seed does provide a hint as to whose side you're on.
Sides?
That is the problem I am trying to highlight. The seeded article is about the need for objectivity by jurors. Obviously this juror was not and somehow was allowed on the jury.
But on the other hand, Vic, you also implied that if Chauvin had a more competent defence, he could have been able to walk away free - again being defensive of Chauvin. Maybe he needed Dershowitz, who has had his successes in getting murderers to walk free.
From what I know of the case I think the jury was right but this guy should never have been on the jury. It's not that I think this juror voted wrong it's just his very presence at that rally provides Chauvin with not only grounds for appeal but probably grounds to throw out the conviction altogether as a mistrial. What happens then ? A new trial but how much violence and riots just from this guy not disclosing his involvement in this march. How many millions did the Chauvin trial cost that were wasted because of this jackass. When they asked him he should have disclosed the info and stated what he believed he was marching for and they could have decided whether it disqualified him from serving on the jury. Now his secret is going to cause a clusterfuck of problems that could and should have been avoided if he had just been honest in the first place.
No I did not. I went so far as to say "the verdict was most likely inevitable."
Maybe he needed Dershowitz, who has had his successes in getting persons accused of murder to walk free.
I doubt that even Professor Alan Dershowitz (who prepares cases for trial lawyers) could have changed the outcome. I'm only pointing out a serious flaw committed by the defense team. Their job is to do everything possible in defense of their client.
Thank you.. How many more ways can it be said.
What this juror did, by the possibility of lying on the questionnaire, was give Chauvin's defense ammunition in an appeal. No matter how well intentioned the juror was to get on the jury to convict a murderer, their actions may have given Chauvin a way out, whereas a truly impartial jury finding him guilty would not, at least through the jury, give an opportunity for an appeal.
As I was typing, you were posting.
If they truly have a photo of this juror at the rally with a "Get Your Knee Off Our Necks" and "BLM" shirt the conviction will be thrown out, they'll have no choice. Then the riots will start again.
I'm sure there is already ammunition for appeals with public statements coming from Biden & the hate-filled Maxine Waters. That "defense team" has 90 days after the verdict to file an appeal.
You know what, I just had a total change of heart in this. Even if the march had nothing to do with Floyd specifically, it may have been one in opposition of police brutality, and if that was so, that is biased enough. I agree that he should have made it clear he attended it, because I do believe that it was cause for him to be dismissed from the jury.
Now that I've agreed with you, you can do my quiz.
There was more to that statement that your copy and paste didn't get, "No matter how well intentioned......." (I'll stop there for I don't know how far you would go with the sentence).
I think we are now in total agreement. Reason has always been your strong suit.
You mean the riots have stopped?
Lol I doubt a single person in America would meet your definition of objectivity, not even yourself.
What evidence do you have that the juror wasn't objective Vic?
Just because he attended the march to commemorate the 57th anniversary of MLK's I have a dream speech doesn't mean he wasn't objective.
Imagine the reaction if someone on the jury had been to a Back the Blue Event or Trump rally
That's the point!
Are you implying Trump voters are incapable of being impartial jurors? That supporting the police automatically makes one support even bad cops?
It was a commemoration of MLK's IHAD Speech...
It wasn't a BLM rally or an anti-cop event. Get real!
Floyd's family made speeches at that rally and most if not all speakers spoke of the Floyd case and it was called The Commitment: Get Your Knee Off Our Necks March. Get Your Knee Off Our Necks was the theme. This is from the National Action Network's site -
The Commitment March will take place on August 28th, 2020 — the 57th anniversary of the historic March on Washington, where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his "I Have a Dream" Speech. Announced by Rev. Al Sharpton during George Floyd's memorial it is co-convened by Martin Luther King, III.
This intergenerational inclusive day of action will demonstrate our advocacy for comprehensive police accountability reform, the Census, and mobilizing voters for the November elections.
and it was called The Commitment: Get Your Knee Off Our Necks March The Commitment: Get Your Knee Off Our Necks March.
That's a tough look for you.
So if you went to a rally commemorating George Washington and his leading colonialists in victories over the British and David Duke somehow got up and started speaking at the event, would that mean you're a member of the KKK or would later have to admit you attended a KKK rally?
Are churchgoers disqualified for bias against murder?
That sounds like Bronx justice.
Our Justice system doesn't work that way. As Obama and his understudy would say "It's not who we are!"
Our justice system is supposed to render justice! In this case the preponderance of evidence made a guilty verdict likely no matter who were jurors. Historically? Not so much for black and brown Americans. That is changing.
No, our system is supposed to offer everyone a fair and impartial trial. That means for both the accused and the plaintiff.
So you would have no problem with a juror that attended a pro Blue Lives Matter rally, and was pictured wearing Blue Lives Matter paraphernalia, sitting on the Chauvin case? If the preponderance of evidence made a guilty verdict so certain and all.
And the left accuses the right of living in the past. Times have changed, and will continue to change. There are just those of us that don't want to live the Democrat nightmare they are trying to force on us.
Then a new trial will arrive at the same conclusion.
Our justice system
Our Justice system also guarantees the accused a fair trial.
I believe it will but that doesn't change the fact that Chauvin deserves a new trial. I believe Chauvin deserved the verdict but I now know the trial was unfair and Brandon Mitchell lied so he could remain on that jury so Chauvin should get a new trial and hopefully he gets convicted again.
This motion for a Swartz trial (disqualification of the verdict) and an appeal were always going to happen. The defense has a really, really high bar to meet to overturn anything and at this point I'm not seeing anything that points otherwise. Perhaps the defense will pull something from their ass? It's rare, but it's happened.
The only time a verdict isn't appealed by the defense is when it's an acquittal.
I've spoken with several attorneys about this trial. Every one found it astounding that with all of the media attention, not just locally but nationally and internationally, that the jury was not sequestered from day one. They also noted that they had an issue with the refusal for a change of venue, although they did note that even a change of venue would likely not have made a substantive difference due to the publicity the initial video had.
Personally, I believe Chauvin is guilty but not of the charges they found on which all require some degree of intent. I tend to believe along the lines of involuntary homicide. He wanted to do something and simply went too far. I wonder if prison will change his attitude.
I also made that same point when the trial was happening. The defense now has to convince the judge it negatively affected the jury. If he can't convince the judge then he can go to the applet court and try to convince them. None of this can happen until after Chauvin has been sentenced on June 25th.
It's a high bar for sure, but historically not insurmountable. The judge can (and most likely will) call any, or all, of the jurors back and ask them questions.
Yes, it can disqualify them if the prosecution is seeking the death penalty and they have strong religious convictions against it. That is the reason lawyers and judges are supposed to question all potential jurors.
On May 2nd Brandon Mitchell made these statements on a talk show "I mean it’s important if we wanna see some change, we wanna see some things going different, we gotta into these avenues, get into these rooms to try to spark some change. Jury duty is one of those things. Jury duty. Voting. All of those things we gotta do". Even though it's an after the fact interview his statements prove a desire for activism in the jury box. At this point I don't know how anyone could believe Mitchell was an unbiased juror.
Well, it sounds like the argument here is that political activism of any sort should DQ someone from jury duty. Haha, who would have guessed that my utter disdain for such a thing would make me qualified.
Yeah... ditto.
It sounds like the perfect way to avoid jury duty. Make yourself unpalatable to both sides, unless of course you want to sit for X length of time at trial.
I've been called for jury duty twice and never even had to show up let alone be questioned.
If it relates directly the case at hand it should. I doubt it would be a problem if it were Woman's Lib type stuff as it has nothing to do with the Chauvin case.