George Floyd Protests

Ledbetterman10

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

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.

Ledbetterman10

So Biden said today that he’s praying for “the right verdict” in the Chauvin trial, and that he called Floyd’s family after the jury began its deliberations.

What the hell is he doing? Should he really be commenting on trials like this or reaching out to the family BEFORE the verdict? And it's not just him. Politicians have been commenting on both trails and active investigations for some time now, and I don't think they should. Especially not the politicians at the very top. Like Trump defending Kyle Rittenshouse without any knowledge or what happened. Or Kamala Harris calling Jacob Blake and telling him she's proud of how he's fighting through the pain with no regard for his alleged sexual assault victim. 

Ledbetterman10

Verdict has been reached. Verdict will be read between 4:30 and 5. 

dignin

So a verdict has been reached, fast. Doesn't look good for the defense.

Lerxst1992

Ledbetterman10 said:

Verdict has been reached. Verdict will be read between 4:30 and 5. 

Pretty quick, Sounds like guilty on one of the top 2 murder charges.

Ledbetterman10

Lerxst1992 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Verdict has been reached. Verdict will be read between 4:30 and 5. 

Pretty quick, Sounds like guilty on one of the top 2 murder charges.

Yeah I think so too. 

CM189191

Ledbetterman10 said:

Verdict has been reached. Verdict will be read between 4:30 and 5. 

Whelp, here we go!

Wish me luck!

Lerxst1992

Ledbetterman10 said:

So Biden said today that he’s praying for “the right verdict” in the Chauvin trial, and that he called Floyd’s family after the jury began its deliberations.

What the hell is he doing? Should he really be commenting on trials like this or reaching out to the family BEFORE the verdict? And it's not just him. Politicians have been commenting on both trails and active investigations for some time now, and I don't think they should. Especially not the politicians at the very top. Like Trump defending Kyle Rittenshouse without any knowledge or what happened. Or Kamala Harris calling Jacob Blake and telling him she's proud of how he's fighting through the pain with no regard for his alleged sexual assault victim. 

I think Waters put mistrial as a real possibility. As I’ve been saying too much, the left has been out of control lately, especially with the Wright incident. Chauvin is guilty as sin IMO, but the left lost the ability to speak rationally on these terrible matters. Wright was night and day entirely different. Seems we’ve learned nothing since trump nearly got reelected on three words, defund the police.

g under p

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

mace1229

Ledbetterman10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

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?

Ledbetterman10

mace1229 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

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. 

Halifax2TheMax

g under p said:

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.

cblock4life

Ledbetterman10 said:

mace1229 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

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.” 

Ledbetterman10

cblock4life said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mace1229 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

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. 

Poncier

dignin said:

So a verdict has been reached, fast. Doesn't look good for the defense.

Yep, usually quick deliberations favor prosecution.

static111

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.

g under p

Halifax2TheMax said:

g under p said:

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

CM189191

Ledbetterman10 said:

cblock4life said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mace1229 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

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

Halifax2TheMax

g under p said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

g under p said:

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."

Ledbetterman10

static111 said:

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.