Well that's interesting. I've never heard of that being done before, but maybe it has in high-profile cases. I remember knowing the races of the OJ jurors, but nothing more.
Jury selection is an open process whereby both sides get to ask questions. All of which is recorded by the court stenographer. Seeing how this trial has been televised, cameras were in the courtroom. However, they have never been shown on tv, as far as I can tell. Same with the OJ trial, I believe, as I never saw tv images of the jurors. Artists renderings but not tv coverage. Typically, potential jurors are asked their age, occupation, maybe if they've ever been arrested, etc. Both sides are trying to find reasons for dismissal or for them to be struck. Why some are not opposed or seated and why others are struck, you'd have to ask the prosecutors and defense attorneys.
Yeah I'm somewhat familiar with the process because I've been a potential juror twice. But I said I have a short attention span and "would struggle to stay focused listening to boring testimony," and was dismissed by the judge each time. I've just never seen Q&A between counsel and potential jurors be published, though I'm guessing it probably has been, but it was a case I wasn't following or something.
I'm surprised the defense didn't push hard (or maybe they did and failed) for the dismissal of the woman that said she "expressed a positive view of the Black Lives Matter movement, saying: “I am Black. My life matters.”" Good luck planting the seed of "reasonable doubt" in her.
During selection can’t they dismiss for any reason? They wouldn’t have to push hard for dismissal, they just say “we release juror # x” and move on. Or do they actually need a reason and to be approved by the judge?
I'm not positive but I think the judge has to approve it.
I'm surprised it's been reached so soon which to me means that the verdict does not look good for Chauvin. I wonder if he will be stone faced like how he had his knee on George Floyd???
Well that's interesting. I've never heard of that being done before, but maybe it has in high-profile cases. I remember knowing the races of the OJ jurors, but nothing more.
Jury selection is an open process whereby both sides get to ask questions. All of which is recorded by the court stenographer. Seeing how this trial has been televised, cameras were in the courtroom. However, they have never been shown on tv, as far as I can tell. Same with the OJ trial, I believe, as I never saw tv images of the jurors. Artists renderings but not tv coverage. Typically, potential jurors are asked their age, occupation, maybe if they've ever been arrested, etc. Both sides are trying to find reasons for dismissal or for them to be struck. Why some are not opposed or seated and why others are struck, you'd have to ask the prosecutors and defense attorneys.
Yeah I'm somewhat familiar with the process because I've been a potential juror twice. But I said I have a short attention span and "would struggle to stay focused listening to boring testimony," and was dismissed by the judge each time. I've just never seen Q&A between counsel and potential jurors be published, though I'm guessing it probably has been, but it was a case I wasn't following or something.
I'm surprised the defense didn't push hard (or maybe they did and failed) for the dismissal of the woman that said she "expressed a positive view of the Black Lives Matter movement, saying: “I am Black. My life matters.”" Good luck planting the seed of "reasonable doubt" in her.
During selection can’t they dismiss for any reason? They wouldn’t have to push hard for dismissal, they just say “we release juror # x” and move on. Or do they actually need a reason and to be approved by the judge?
I'm not positive but I think the judge has to approve it.
From American Bar Association
“Each lawyer may request the dismissalof an unlimited number of jurors for cause. ... These challenges permit a lawyer to excuse a potential jurorwithout stating a cause. In effect, they allow a lawyer to dismiss a jurorbecause of a belief that the juror willnot serve the best interests of the client.”
Well that's interesting. I've never heard of that being done before, but maybe it has in high-profile cases. I remember knowing the races of the OJ jurors, but nothing more.
Jury selection is an open process whereby both sides get to ask questions. All of which is recorded by the court stenographer. Seeing how this trial has been televised, cameras were in the courtroom. However, they have never been shown on tv, as far as I can tell. Same with the OJ trial, I believe, as I never saw tv images of the jurors. Artists renderings but not tv coverage. Typically, potential jurors are asked their age, occupation, maybe if they've ever been arrested, etc. Both sides are trying to find reasons for dismissal or for them to be struck. Why some are not opposed or seated and why others are struck, you'd have to ask the prosecutors and defense attorneys.
Yeah I'm somewhat familiar with the process because I've been a potential juror twice. But I said I have a short attention span and "would struggle to stay focused listening to boring testimony," and was dismissed by the judge each time. I've just never seen Q&A between counsel and potential jurors be published, though I'm guessing it probably has been, but it was a case I wasn't following or something.
I'm surprised the defense didn't push hard (or maybe they did and failed) for the dismissal of the woman that said she "expressed a positive view of the Black Lives Matter movement, saying: “I am Black. My life matters.”" Good luck planting the seed of "reasonable doubt" in her.
During selection can’t they dismiss for any reason? They wouldn’t have to push hard for dismissal, they just say “we release juror # x” and move on. Or do they actually need a reason and to be approved by the judge?
I'm not positive but I think the judge has to approve it.
From American Bar Association
“Each lawyer may request the dismissalof an unlimited number of jurors for cause. ... These challenges permit a lawyer to excuse a potential jurorwithout stating a cause. In effect, they allow a lawyer to dismiss a jurorbecause of a belief that the juror willnot serve the best interests of the client.”
Well there ya have it, Chauvin's attorneys are morons....which was pretty evident from the few clips of examination/cross-examination I've seen.
Good for Biden making a public comment on the verdict, this is a make or break moment for America and it is good to have a president weighing in and talking with the family of the victim. Let’s hope the jurors are on the right side of history.
Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
0
Options
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,122
I'm surprised it's been reached so soon which to me means that the verdict does not look good for Chauvin. I wonder if he will be stone faced like how he had his knee on George Floyd???
Peace
Stone faced? He smirked.
Actually you are correct he did smirk then but when its read (guilty) I hope he'll breakdown. Just to show how weak minded he is.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Well that's interesting. I've never heard of that being done before, but maybe it has in high-profile cases. I remember knowing the races of the OJ jurors, but nothing more.
Jury selection is an open process whereby both sides get to ask questions. All of which is recorded by the court stenographer. Seeing how this trial has been televised, cameras were in the courtroom. However, they have never been shown on tv, as far as I can tell. Same with the OJ trial, I believe, as I never saw tv images of the jurors. Artists renderings but not tv coverage. Typically, potential jurors are asked their age, occupation, maybe if they've ever been arrested, etc. Both sides are trying to find reasons for dismissal or for them to be struck. Why some are not opposed or seated and why others are struck, you'd have to ask the prosecutors and defense attorneys.
Yeah I'm somewhat familiar with the process because I've been a potential juror twice. But I said I have a short attention span and "would struggle to stay focused listening to boring testimony," and was dismissed by the judge each time. I've just never seen Q&A between counsel and potential jurors be published, though I'm guessing it probably has been, but it was a case I wasn't following or something.
I'm surprised the defense didn't push hard (or maybe they did and failed) for the dismissal of the woman that said she "expressed a positive view of the Black Lives Matter movement, saying: “I am Black. My life matters.”" Good luck planting the seed of "reasonable doubt" in her.
During selection can’t they dismiss for any reason? They wouldn’t have to push hard for dismissal, they just say “we release juror # x” and move on. Or do they actually need a reason and to be approved by the judge?
I'm not positive but I think the judge has to approve it.
From American Bar Association
“Each lawyer may request the dismissalof an unlimited number of jurors for cause. ... These challenges permit a lawyer to excuse a potential jurorwithout stating a cause. In effect, they allow a lawyer to dismiss a jurorbecause of a belief that the juror willnot serve the best interests of the client.”
Well there ya have it, Chauvin's attorneys are morons....which was pretty evident from the few clips of examination/cross-examination I've seen.
attorney
oddly enough, he only had one lone attorney, which I read was unusual
so was the 3.5+ hour closing defense argument
which basically amounted to: we don't have a defense for his actions, so we're going to argue technicalities ad nauseum to create reasonable doubt
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
I'm surprised it's been reached so soon which to me means that the verdict does not look good for Chauvin. I wonder if he will be stone faced like how he had his knee on George Floyd???
Peace
Stone faced? He smirked.
Actually you are correct he did smirk then but when its read (guilty) I hope he'll breakdown. Just to show how weak minded he is.
Peace
He also smirked when he was asked if he was exercising his Fifth Amendment rights. "Only the guilty plea the Fifth."
Good for Biden making a public comment on the verdict, this is a make or break moment for America and it is good to have a president weighing in and talking with the family of the victim. Let’s hope the jurors are on the right side of history.
No he commented on what he wants the verdict to be. Commenting on the verdict would be commenting after it's given. Not that I care about Chauvin in this particular case. But any country's leader commenting what he wants the verdict of a trial to be isn't exactly a great thing for democracy.
Well that's interesting. I've never heard of that being done before, but maybe it has in high-profile cases. I remember knowing the races of the OJ jurors, but nothing more.
Jury selection is an open process whereby both sides get to ask questions. All of which is recorded by the court stenographer. Seeing how this trial has been televised, cameras were in the courtroom. However, they have never been shown on tv, as far as I can tell. Same with the OJ trial, I believe, as I never saw tv images of the jurors. Artists renderings but not tv coverage. Typically, potential jurors are asked their age, occupation, maybe if they've ever been arrested, etc. Both sides are trying to find reasons for dismissal or for them to be struck. Why some are not opposed or seated and why others are struck, you'd have to ask the prosecutors and defense attorneys.
Yeah I'm somewhat familiar with the process because I've been a potential juror twice. But I said I have a short attention span and "would struggle to stay focused listening to boring testimony," and was dismissed by the judge each time. I've just never seen Q&A between counsel and potential jurors be published, though I'm guessing it probably has been, but it was a case I wasn't following or something.
I'm surprised the defense didn't push hard (or maybe they did and failed) for the dismissal of the woman that said she "expressed a positive view of the Black Lives Matter movement, saying: “I am Black. My life matters.”" Good luck planting the seed of "reasonable doubt" in her.
During selection can’t they dismiss for any reason? They wouldn’t have to push hard for dismissal, they just say “we release juror # x” and move on. Or do they actually need a reason and to be approved by the judge?
I'm not positive but I think the judge has to approve it.
From American Bar Association
“Each lawyer may request the dismissalof an unlimited number of jurors for cause. ... These challenges permit a lawyer to excuse a potential jurorwithout stating a cause. In effect, they allow a lawyer to dismiss a jurorbecause of a belief that the juror willnot serve the best interests of the client.”
Well there ya have it, Chauvin's attorneys are morons....which was pretty evident from the few clips of examination/cross-examination I've seen.
attorney
oddly enough, he only had one lone attorney, which I read was unusual
so was the 3.5+ hour closing defense argument
which basically amounted to: we don't have a defense for his actions, so we're going to argue technicalities ad nauseum to create reasonable doubt
Well I guess that's a matter of attorneys being expensive, as well as this case being a hard one to defend. Probably wasn't a lot of lawyers looking to make a splash on the national scene representing Chauvin.
Good for Biden making a public comment on the verdict, this is a make or break moment for America and it is good to have a president weighing in and talking with the family of the victim. Let’s hope the jurors are on the right side of history.
No he commented on what he wants the verdict to be. Commenting on the verdict would be commenting after it's given. Not that I care about Chauvin in this particular case. But any country's leader commenting what he wants the verdict of a trial to be isn't exactly a great thing for democracy.
He said he’s praying for the right verdict, didn’t say what verdict he thinks that is. I see nothing wrong with that.
Good for Biden making a public comment on the verdict, this is a make or break moment for America and it is good to have a president weighing in and talking with the family of the victim. Let’s hope the jurors are on the right side of history.
No he commented on what he wants the verdict to be. Commenting on the verdict would be commenting after it's given. Not that I care about Chauvin in this particular case. But any country's leader commenting what he wants the verdict of a trial to be isn't exactly a great thing for democracy.
He said he’s praying for the right verdict, didn’t say what verdict he thinks that is. I see nothing wrong with that.
Good for Biden making a public comment on the verdict, this is a make or break moment for America and it is good to have a president weighing in and talking with the family of the victim. Let’s hope the jurors are on the right side of history.
No he commented on what he wants the verdict to be. Commenting on the verdict would be commenting after it's given. Not that I care about Chauvin in this particular case. But any country's leader commenting what he wants the verdict of a trial to be isn't exactly a great thing for democracy.
He said he’s praying for the right verdict, didn’t say what verdict he thinks that is. I see nothing wrong with that.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,781
Bail is revoked. Sentencing in 2 months after other procedural hearings
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Good for Biden making a public comment on the verdict, this is a make or break moment for America and it is good to have a president weighing in and talking with the family of the victim. Let’s hope the jurors are on the right side of history.
No he commented on what he wants the verdict to be. Commenting on the verdict would be commenting after it's given. Not that I care about Chauvin in this particular case. But any country's leader commenting what he wants the verdict of a trial to be isn't exactly a great thing for democracy.
He said he’s praying for the right verdict, didn’t say what verdict he thinks that is. I see nothing wrong with that.
Lol
Right prayers are only ok for gun violence
I’m laughing at you suggesting that it’s unclear what Biden might think the “right verdict” is because he didn’t specifically say it.
But onto the current state of affairs....guilty on all counts. The bad cop gets held accountable in front of the entire world. So that’s good.
Comments
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
oddly enough, he only had one lone attorney, which I read was unusual
so was the 3.5+ hour closing defense argument
which basically amounted to: we don't have a defense for his actions, so we're going to argue technicalities ad nauseum to create reasonable doubt
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Good.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com