Chauvin juror: I didn't want to go thru the rioting

[Leo123]

My conclusion is supported by the results of the outcome. It is your contention that is not supported by her statements nor the outcome from those whose necks were unduly put at risk.

This is typical Trump thinking. Just like thinking that Trump lost because the democrats cheated. Rather than the simple fact that Biden got more votes. 81 to 74 million and 306 to 232 electoral votes.
Chauvin was found guilty because like the alternate juror said, the prosecution put on a much better case.

That is not what the alternate juror said

"Christensen admitted that, before serving, she was concerned for her safety -- and the court did not inform the jurors who would serve as an alternate."

Alternate juror in Chauvin trial describes experience: 'I felt he was guilty on some level'

One of the alternate jurors to sit on the trial for Derek Chauvin described what it was like to take part in one of the most prominent police brutality trials in decades.

abcnews.go.com

Why would she even say that? In most trials, that is NEVER a factor for jurors to worry about. You seem to want to ignore that for the sake of making yet another useless argument.

 

[meaner gene]

You just want to argue. You speculate that this alternate juror represents the feelings of the jury. By all accounts she felt intimidated by what was going on around this trial. I am saying that IF you believe she represents the feelings of the jury you must also take into account the intimidation factors surrounding the case.

She said she felt Chauvin was guilty of second degree manslaughter. She also said the prosecution put on a much better case, and the defense failed to deliver on the defense they claimed. So you can presume the other jurors seeing the same testimony felt the same about the facts.

We don't know how many jurors felt intimidated by the riots, but they certainly wouldn't have unanimously agreed the solution was to convict on all counts, when one guilty count would do.

 

[WEATHER53]

The need for change of venue was stunningly obvious but Mob did not want it
The need for change of venue was stunningly confirmed by the post trial comments and will be principal reason for the forthcoming appeal

 

[struth]

your second paragraph is all speculation and the Consitutional rights of the defendant can’t be risked over speculation. Hence why a new trial will likely be granted

A new trial can't be granted unless the errors in the first trial are "fixable". When they select jurors, they do so based on people who have no knowledge of the case, but those who have the least knowledge, and who haven't already formed an opinion.

After the trial of the decade, you won't be able to find a jury as unprejudiced as the one they already had. Any appeal would have to be based on an error in law, and not the prejudices of the jury.

i haha where are you getting this? you think the court will allow an unfair trial verdict to stand unless it’s fixable?

are you really now just making things up?

 

[meaner gene]

Chauvin was found guilty because like the alternate juror said, the prosecution put on a much better case.

That is not what the alternate juror said

Alternate juror talks about the Chauvin trial verdict and the testimony that "really got to me"

Lisa Christensen was one of two alternate jurors in the trial of Derek Chauvin.

www.cbsnews.com

"Why did you think he was guilty? What led you to that belief?" Yuccas asked.

"I just felt like the prosecution made a really good, strong argument.

Christensen said in reference to Chauvin's defense team.

"I think he over-promised in the beginning and didn't live up to what he said he was going to do,"

 

[meaner gene]

i haha where are you getting this? you think the court will allow an unfair trial verdict to stand unless it’s fixable?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/10/28/death-sentence-reinstated-in-sleeping-lawyer-case/b363fbc3-11e3-4ef3-81c8-70f188a414da/

Relying on a legal precedent long criticized by execution opponents, a divided federal appeals court panel today reinstated the death sentence of a defendant whose murder case gained notoriety as one of several in Texas in which court-appointed lawyers slept through stretches of testimony.

Burdine's court-appointed trial lawyer, Joe Frank Cannon, who died in 1998, was notorious in Houston for nodding off in courtrooms.





Death Sentence Reinstated in 'Sleeping Lawyer' Case

By Paul Duggan
October 28, 2000
Relying on a legal precedent long criticized by execution opponents, a divided federal appeals court panel today reinstated the death sentence of a defendant whose murder case gained notoriety as one of several in Texas in which court-appointed lawyers slept through stretches of testimony.

Two members of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit voted to reinstate the death sentence. One of them was Judge Edith Jones, whom many legal observers see as a possible Supreme Court nominee if Texas Gov. George W. Bush (R) wins the presidency. Jones, named to the appeals court by President Ronald Reagan, was considered for a Supreme Court appointment by Bush's father in 1990.

Today's ruling came in the case of Calvin Jerold Burdine, 47, who was sentenced to death by a Houston jury in 1984 for the stabbing death of a former roommate. Burdine's court-appointed trial lawyer, Joe Frank Cannon, who died in 1998, was notorious in Houston for nodding off in courtrooms. By one law professor's count, a dozen of Cannon's indigent clients went to Texas's death row in a 10-year span before judges stopped assigning him to capital cases in the late 1980s.

During Burdine's appeal, lawyers for the state did not dispute that Cannon slept during parts of the trial. But the Supreme Court has held that in cases like Burdine's, the appellant must show that his lawyer's napping had an impact on the trial's outcome.

At a hearing in 1995, several participants in the 1984 trial testified that they had seen Cannon napping at the defense table for up to 15 minutes. But they could not recall specifically at what points in the trial he nodded off.

Even a sleeping lawyer, provided the defendant a fair trial.

 

[MadChemist]

She thought he was guilty and would have voted that way, but she was an alternate and did not participate in the decision. The actual jurors' names have not been released.

Before the trial, she was asked if she wanted to be a juror, and said her feelings were mixed....but after she had sat through the trial she would have voted guilty anyway. So why a retrial?

Read her statement.

 

[MadChemist]

One juror: "I did not want to go through rioting and destruction again and I was concerned about people coming to my house if they were not happy with the verdict."

Appeal on the way.

'I Didn't Want to Go Through the Rioting': Juror in Chauvin Trial Makes Stunning Admission over 'Guilty' Verdict - Becker News

On Tuesday, a jury found Derek Chauvin guilty of second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter in a case that had sparked nationwide riots: The death of George Floyd. During the course of the trial, Judge Peter Cahill mentioned that the court case was getting...

beckernews.com

Do you think we are that dumb.

Kyle is a writer and producer for Fox News' #1 cable primetime show Hannity. He is a veteran of award-winning digital news startup Independent Journal Review. He was one of the initial hires as a freelance Content Creator and quickly became Senior Managing Editor and then Director of Viral Media.
Kyle Becker’s Biography | Muck Rack

Do we think you are dumb?

View attachment 483010

Yes.

Next question.

Really, all that is needed here is blabbering Maxine Waters threatening the world along with her side kicks Biden and Obama for an appeal.

The judge also chose not to sequester the jury, so they saw all of it.

You must think we , the democrats, are stupid.

Every waking minute of the day.

And we don't think you are....we know you are.

 

[struth]

i haha where are you getting this? you think the court will allow an unfair trial verdict to stand unless it’s fixable?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/10/28/death-sentence-reinstated-in-sleeping-lawyer-case/b363fbc3-11e3-4ef3-81c8-70f188a414da/

Relying on a legal precedent long criticized by execution opponents, a divided federal appeals court panel today reinstated the death sentence of a defendant whose murder case gained notoriety as one of several in Texas in which court-appointed lawyers slept through stretches of testimony.

Burdine's court-appointed trial lawyer, Joe Frank Cannon, who died in 1998, was notorious in Houston for nodding off in courtrooms.





Death Sentence Reinstated in 'Sleeping Lawyer' Case

By Paul Duggan
October 28, 2000
Relying on a legal precedent long criticized by execution opponents, a divided federal appeals court panel today reinstated the death sentence of a defendant whose murder case gained notoriety as one of several in Texas in which court-appointed lawyers slept through stretches of testimony.

Two members of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit voted to reinstate the death sentence. One of them was Judge Edith Jones, whom many legal observers see as a possible Supreme Court nominee if Texas Gov. George W. Bush (R) wins the presidency. Jones, named to the appeals court by President Ronald Reagan, was considered for a Supreme Court appointment by Bush's father in 1990.

Today's ruling came in the case of Calvin Jerold Burdine, 47, who was sentenced to death by a Houston jury in 1984 for the stabbing death of a former roommate. Burdine's court-appointed trial lawyer, Joe Frank Cannon, who died in 1998, was notorious in Houston for nodding off in courtrooms. By one law professor's count, a dozen of Cannon's indigent clients went to Texas's death row in a 10-year span before judges stopped assigning him to capital cases in the late 1980s.

During Burdine's appeal, lawyers for the state did not dispute that Cannon slept during parts of the trial. But the Supreme Court has held that in cases like Burdine's, the appellant must show that his lawyer's napping had an impact on the trial's outcome.

At a hearing in 1995, several participants in the 1984 trial testified that they had seen Cannon napping at the defense table for up to 15 minutes. But they could not recall specifically at what points in the trial he nodded off.

Even a sleeping lawyer, provided the defendant a fair trial.

yep that case dealt with the issue of infective council not a tainted jury. two different things. In that case they have to show the outcome would be different not the same situation with a tainted jury

 

[meaner gene]

yep that case dealt with the issue of infective council not a tainted jury. two different things. In that case they have to show the outcome would be different not the same situation with a tainted jury

The only proof of a tainted jury is that of an alternate juror, who did not participate in the deliberations. 1 of 14 is not proof of 12 of 12.

 

[Godboy]

Thats what she said about herself, but what about the other jurors?

We know from hat she said, that she would have found Chauvin guilty of second degree manslaughter only.

That differs from the jury that deliberated and found Chauvin guilty of all charges.

Of the jurors that found him guilty, how many of them came to that decision based on fear of retaliation from vengeful democrats?

ZERO.

Stop making excuses for this guy. He is guilty as sin. It doesn't matter that Floyd was a crook or a drug addict. It doesn't matter that there were riots last summer over it, or what Maxine Waters said. This is more crap just like the election fraud conspiracy theories. WHAT IFs DO NOT WORK IN COURT.

How do you know its zero?

 

[Leo123]

She said she felt Chauvin was guilty of second degree manslaughter. She also said the prosecution put on a much better case, and the defense failed to deliver on the defense they claimed. So you can presume the other jurors seeing the same testimony felt the same about the facts.

We don't know how many jurors felt intimidated by the riots, but they certainly wouldn't have unanimously agreed the solution was to convict on all counts, when one guilty count would do.

Yeah she also said she was concerned for her safety. That is not normal or typical in a criminal trial. We can also 'presume' that the jurors were concerned for their safety.

 

[Leo123]

The only proof of a tainted jury is that of an alternate juror, who did not participate in the deliberations. 1 of 14 is not proof of 12 of 12.

You were using her words to support your POV too, hypocrite.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

The need for change of venue was stunningly obvious but Mob did not want it
The need for change of venue was stunningly confirmed by the post trial comments and will be principal reason for the forthcoming appeal

Where did you want them to move it to? A pretty much predominately white community.

 

[Leo123]

How do you know its zero?

Obviously she 'feels' so and we all know, feelings supplant facts for these lefty loons.

 

[meaner gene]

How do you know its zero?

How do you know it's not.

The judge told them not to listen to the news, or pay attention to outside influences.

Cahill told jurors they must not let bias, prejudice, passion, sympathy or public opinion influence their decision, and they must not consider any consequences or penalties. He said the verdict must be unanimous and based only on the evidence presented in court and the law as he provides.

 

[struth]

yep that case dealt with the issue of infective council not a tainted jury. two different things. In that case they have to show the outcome would be different not the same situation with a tainted jury

The only proof of a tainted jury is that of an alternate juror, who did not participate in the deliberations. 1 of 14 is not proof of 12 of 12.

hahaa yeah the only proof is the word of a juror!!!

 

[Godboy]

How do you know its zero?

How do you know it's not.

The judge told them not to listen to the news, or pay attention to outside influences.

Cahill told jurors they must not let bias, prejudice, passion, sympathy or public opinion influence their decision, and they must not consider any consequences or penalties. He said the verdict must be unanimous and based only on the evidence presented in court and the law as he provides.

So if i tell you not to be scared when i knife wielding maniac is coming after you, you wont be?

 

[Leo123]

How do you know its zero?

How do you know it's not.

The judge told them not to listen to the news, or pay attention to outside influences.

Cahill told jurors they must not let bias, prejudice, passion, sympathy or public opinion influence their decision, and they must not consider any consequences or penalties. He said the verdict must be unanimous and based only on the evidence presented in court and the law as he provides.

So....Where in Cahill's statement did he say jurors should base their decision on their feelings of the facts and not the actual facts? Have you ever been empaneled as a juror?

 

[StormAl]

Yes, an appeal is on the way.

It will be denied.