George Floyd Protests

CM189191 said:

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

static111 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

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. 

He said he’s praying for the right verdict, didn’t say what verdict he thinks that is.  I see nothing wrong with that.

mcgruff10 said:

Nice work by the jury.  Let’s hope the American public stays peaceful.