Chauvin Juror Admits Participating In Pre-Trial Protest, Photographed In “Knee Off Our Necks” T-Shirt
Juror No. 52, Brandon Mitchell, answered “no” to two questions in the juror questionnaire that asked about participation in demonstrations.
I can’t say I’m the least bit surprised that the jury in the Derek Chauvin case was compromised. Whether Chauvin could get a fair and impartial jury was doubtful, as Andrew Branca and I explained in detail during our post-verdict online event.
The problem was a combination of pre-trial and ongoing threats of violence if there was a not guilty verdict, and an underlying lack of aggressiveness by the defense and the judge in weeding out biased jurors.
Now there is evidence that at least one juror was tainted beyond repair, calling into question the legal viability of the verdict.
The Post-Millenial was the first to reveal a pre-trial photo of Juror No. 52, Brandon Mitchell, in a T-shirt the words “Get Your Knee Off Our Necks.” As you may recall from the trial, the assertion that pressure from Chauvin’s knee to Floyd’s neck caused Floyd’s death was not the theory put forward by the prosecution’s medical experts, who asserted that Floyd died from positional asphyxiation resulting from being held face down in the prone position with pressure from three officers on his back and legs. The prosecution’s own experts acknowledged that Chauvin’s knee was mostly on Floyd’s upper back and back of the neck, and he did not die from damage to the structures of the neck, of which there was none.
The Post-Millenial posted this Facebook screengrab:It also turns out that Mitchell attended a rally about Floyd’s death, though he is spinning it as a more neutral protest. The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports:
A juror in the Derek Chauvin murder trial is defending his attendance at the March on Washington anniversary last summer in light of online speculation about his motives on the jury.
In recent days, a photo of Brandon Mitchell that was originally posted on social media around the Aug. 28 event commemorating Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech began circulating online and on multiple news sites. Many commentators online questioned his motive and its potential to fuel an appeal in Chauvin’s case.
Mitchell, who is Black, was one of 12 jurors who convicted Chauvin two weeks ago on all counts against him — second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter — in the May 25 killing of George Floyd, who is also Black. Mitchell was the first juror to go public about his role, and spoke to several media outlets last week.
“I’d never been to [Washington] D.C.,” Mitchell said Monday of his reasons for attending the event. “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.”
The Star Tribune notes that this participation was contrary to Mitchell’s jury questionaire answers:
Mitchell said the social media post was made by his uncle, who is the father of one of the cousins pictured, and appears to be “a partial real post.” However, he said, he has no recollection of wearing or owning the shirt.
Mitchell said the event was commemorating the 57th anniversary of King’s famous speech, which advocated for civil and economic rights for Blacks, and is credited with helping to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The event was “100% not” a march for Floyd, Mitchell said, adding, “It was directly related to MLK’s March on Washington from the ’60s … The date of the March on Washington is the date.”
The event had several components, including: advocating for racial justice, increasing voter registration, pushing for a new version of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and urging participation in the 2020 census.
It also focused on police use-of-force. Floyd’s brother and sister, Philonise and Bridgett Floyd, and family members of others who have been shot by police addressed the crowd. It served as a rallying point for the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, a federal police reform bill.
Mitchell said he answered “no” to two questions in the juror questionnaire sent out before jury selection that asked about participation in demonstrations.
The first question asked, “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?”
The second 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?”
You can read the form of jury questionaire here. Since the protest Mitchell admits to attending was in D.C., not Minneapolis, he may have an out on Question No. 7
But it’s hard to see a justification for answering Question No. 12 in the negative:
I would not be surprised if more information comes out about Mitchell being involved in protests.
So Mitchell lied under any reasonable interpretation of the jury questions and his participation in the protest. This could result in a mistrial:
A number of legal sources, including those familiar with the trial, told WCCO this juror at minimum will have to be questioned in what’s called a Schwartz hearing. And depending on his answers, a mistrial could be declared.
WCCO spoke with law professor Rachel Moran from the University of St. Thomas about what this photo could mean for the case.
“Did the juror speak the truth? Or alternatively, did the juror say something untrue during questioning?” Moran said. “But the other thing to keep in mind is did the lawyers do their job in investigating the juror?” Moran said.
The Star Tribune quotes from this void dire questioning of Mitchell:
Nelson asked Mitchell several questions during jury selection, and Mitchell told him: He had watched clips of bystander video of the incident; he had talked about the case with his family, friends and co-workers; he had wondered why three other officers at the scene didn’t stop Chauvin; and he had a “very favorable” opinion of Black Lives Matter.
Mitchell also told Nelson he knew some police officers at his gym who were “great guys,” and that he felt neutral about Blue Lives Matter, a pro-police group. He said he could be neutral at trial.
Mitchell was questioned on Day 6 of jury selection. Here is Andrew Branca’s coverage at the time:
JUROR #52: SEATED ON THE JURY
Juror #52 presented as a youngish male. Obviously, the jurors are not being shown on camera, but if I had to speculate based on the audio, I would guess that #52 was black.
Juror #52 was described as working in the banking industry in a customer-focused job, and separately being engaged in coaching children’s sports.
There was nothing much remarkable about the voir dire of #52. He professed he’d be willing to be fair to both sides, judge the case only on the evidence and law presented in court—even if he thought the law was wrong or should be changed—and that he could provide the defendant with a fair and impartial hearing.
Interestingly, #52 had written in his juror questionnaire that he didn’t believe anyone intended for Floyd to die that day, but nevertheless the fact that Floyd did die suggested that something ought to be changed moving forward. He also recognized that there could be a thought process on the part of the officers that made their conduct reasonable, despite the negative outcome.
This juror also wrote in his questionnaire that he wondered why the other officers involved had not intervened. When pressed by the defense to explore whether this meant he assumed Chauvin had acted wrongfully, #52 indicated not necessarily so. He compared it to if he (#52) were driving somewhat thoughtlessly, and a passenger prompted him to pay more attention. Someone can intervene even if what they are correcting is not done with malice.
The juror also noted in his questionnaire that he’d been arrested once himself, for having a “bad license,” but that the officers involved had treated him professionally. He also somewhat agreed that the officers in his community made him feel safe.
The defense also asked if the juror would be able to arrive at a not guilty verdict, knowing that he’d have to explain his decision to the kids he coached in sports. He said he would.
The defense passed for cause, meaning that #52 was acceptable to the defense as a juror.
Here is the full voir dire:
The jury was tainted, no doubt. This is just the first shoe to drop. Let’s see what the judge does.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Never lie to a judge, it’s almost inevitable that it will come back to bite you. In this case, Chauvin may go free because of Mitchell not being truthful on his questions; a result he quite likely didn’t want.
“Never lie to a judge, it’s almost inevitable that it will come back to bite you.”
I don’t agree – the – f b i – does it all the time and nothing happens !
Very good. And here is NO WAY this gets a mistrial. The court is nothing more than a formalized mob. It’s purpose is to dispose of a man already found to be guilty by the mob in such a way that preserves public peace and a patina of due process and respectability.
And the left wonders why NC won’t release video of the Andrew Brown incident.
It is not the mob’s purpose to determine guilt or innocence as they’ve already shown their interpretations are partial and emotionally driven, and capable of destroying due process.
Let’s expend a lot of effort getting Chauvin a mistrial, so the FBI can swoop him up and drop him from a helicopter somewhere between Minneapolis and DC.
“There I no need for a trial, I saw the video”
They will not let Chauvin go free or find a mistrial under any circumstances. Both because of fear of riots, and because the law and Constitution no longer hold in any Democrat controlled polity.
BLM SAID CHAUVIN WAS A RACIST COP AND A POSTER-CHILD FOR WHY THE POLICE ARE SYSTEMICALLY RACIST AND NEED TO BE ABOLISHED.
>> BUT IF HE’S A RACIST – WHY DID THE PROSECUTION PRESENT ZERO EVIDENCE OF IT AT TRIAL ?
The problem is this. For 6 months we had riots and arson (and dozens died) JUSTIFIED – we were told – because Officer Chauvin was a racist and he’s an example of why the whole system is racist. Society and police had to be upended and “re-imagined”, we were told.
BUT WAIT. The prosecution did not present one shred of evidence that Chauvin was racist or that any of his actions were motivated by race. And YOU CAN BET that they would have highlighted any piece of race-related evidence – no matter how insignificant – if they had it.
I kept watching the trial – waiting for the moment they presented evidence that Chauvin was a racist. All America expected to see the evidence. BLM said he was. CNN, New York Times, MSNBC, ABC, WaPo, all the media outright said he was a racist copy and others implied it. Millions were moved by what they were told was a manifestation of pure evil racism. Some of my friends went so far as to say they hate Chauvin because he’s a MF’ing racist.
So the trial was instructive – MAINLY for what was NOT presented as opposed to what was presented.
It is apparent from what we NOW KNOW that Chauvin is NOT a racist and his actions were not motivated by race. Even the MN AG Ellison said Race was not a factor. So the entire BLM narrative is just built on a foundation of Bull Shit. They HAD to make Chauvin the poster boy for Cop Racism and yet they found nothing. You can be sure, they investigated every aspect of his life. They NEEDED to show Motive to make prove intent (intent is a necessary element of a charge of murder vs a charge of manslaughter which requires no intention). This is not the first time BLM has manipulated the public – but it was the most egregious. As a result of this propaganda, people are falsely calling the USA a “racist country”.
Remember in July when CNN was talking about Chauvin as an example of white supremacists. Yeah, they stopped that narrative when they discovered he was married to an Asian (for those who are not clear on this – people who think their race is superior don’t go marrying into other races). Even CNN realized that they look stupid trying to sell people on a guy being white supremacist while married to a person of a different race.
Having pushed for months the idea that Chavin is a racist – it’s now too late for BLM to walk that back. Unexplicably, City of Minneapolis paid out $27 million JUSTIFIED that large amount BEFORE TRIAL because they said Chauvin is a racist. BUT THEY LIED – they must have known what we know now – that there was NO EVIDENCE that Chauvin is a racist or that his actions were motivated by race. SO WHY PAY $27 MILLION ? ? ?
That’s why they needed to be sure Chauvin was convicted and sent away a long time. They don’t want reporters or the public to look back and start asking some hard questions (actually, the reporters today will not ask any hard questions). People might say “wait a second, weren’t we told that we have to DEFUND police because Chauvin is an example of racism inside the police ?” And “wasn’t Chauvin the poster child for police racism and white-supremacy inside the police – and therefore a compelling example of why we need to destroy policing as we know it and upend society as we know it?”
In hindsight, all that BLM told us was lies used to manipulate us.
THERE WILL BE A BACKLASH. As people slowly start to realize the truth. Progressives and BLMers will learn that once people realize they have been lied to by you – FOOLED BY YOU – they NEVER trust you again. BLM undermines black people and sets-back races relations by 20 years. They clearly care about black lives ONLY to the extent such lives can be used by them to manipulate people and to get more $$ for Progressives, Marxists and BLM.
All Americans should be OUTRAGED AND ANGRY that they have been so badly deceived. And that this deception is being used as a pretext for even more hard to our society. Changes in the way our kids are taught. Expansion of new-racist dogma that will lead to further race-based division. Forced indoctrination via CRT.
TRUTH WILL PREVAIL.
Sorry for typo…….. “hard to society” > should be “harm to society”
Whew! (I thought it was a sex thing…) 🙂
I have been pissed ever since the Zimmerman case. Case after case of endless lies. One unjust ghetto lottery after another. Threats of riots and riots, Looting, rape, assaults.
We have a group of people who regardless of law and punishment, consistently commit crime at very high rates. They feel entitled.
The dynamics of this has to change.
They are pushing to normalize their bad behavior,
As I see it, rioting and looting is where this starts to change, start shooting those who riot. Do so in large enough numbers that they understand they either stop or are stopped.
Barbarians are at the gate.
Wow. Twice now you state people should be killed. For lying and for rioting.
Lying to a judge is not a capital offense. Yes, it is wrong, but not punishable by death.
You are trying to usher in what the left screams at us.
This is offensive.
Andrew Branca has a class on when one should use deadly force.
Yes, his teaching is for self defense, so this is not a perfect match.
But he draws a line for when it is legal and ethical.
You should educate yourself.
I hate the rioting, the reshaping of our educational and economic systems in this country.
But to start killing people is the wrong path.
When exactly did it stop being standard procedure for looters to be shot on sight?
No, perjury is not itself a capital crime, but when it’s done to falsely convict a man of a crime it comes damn close, and if that conviction is likely to lead to his death then morally it does become a capital crime.
The Bible says that people who conspire to give false testimony should suffer the same harm that they would have had inflicted on their victim. I think an appropriate penalty in this case is for him to be imprisoned at a place where there is a known white supremacist gang, and let it be known what he’s in for.
When was it ever standard procedure to shoot looters. And even if that’s the case the reference is to rioters not looters. If your standard of morality is shoot them you’d better have a damn good reason and referencing the Bible is a pretty poor standard. It also says to turn the other cheek and love thy neighbour. You seem to have proven my point about the Bible having absolutely no value when it comes to moral decision making all in the space of a few days. What you are advocating is pretty abhorrent and entirely uncalled for.
Always, as far as I know.
Says you. You’ve already established that your peculiar opinions on morality are of no value. The Bible is the standard of right and wrong.
And your point is? BLM rioters and looters are not my fellows, and nothing in the Bible requires me to love them.
1) shooting looters
Never would be more accurate, there were stories of the cops being given powers after hurricane Katrina but there was a backlash from law enforcement itself on that point.
The only times law enforcement are allowed to shoot is when there is threat to life as far as I’m aware. The idea that a cop could shoot a looter for looting is contrary to the very notion of the rule of law.
2) Bible as moral framework
That’s the least thoughtful thing I’ve heard in a long time. To claim it’s the only way to derive morality beggars belief. Many religions claim to be able to provide moral frameworks and on that point alone your claim fails. Let alone when you look at other means of deriving morality. Utilitarianism and its many offshoots, Kantianism/deontology, social justice and contract theory, Virtue theory. There are masses of literature exploring the specifics of each of these theories and thought experiments teasing out how they operate. Some people actually think about these issues in a great deal of detail. Hell their are people who specialise in it from a number of different perspectives. Moral philosophers, moral psychologists, medical ethicists etc. It’s a deep subject and a lot of thought goes into these issues.
The point of my quote was to point out that if you can trivially derive multiple conclusions from the same source how on earth does it help you assess what’s moral. There has been thousands of years of evidence contradicting your statement because people use the Bible in whatever way they want to conclude what ever position to they want too. Spanish inquisition used it to justify burning people alive, the church used it to justify there treatment of Galileo, the protestants used to it justify killings in northern Island and vice versa. The list goes on and on. And now you are using it as justification to in effect have some one murdered.
It’s pretty clear to me that you don’t even know what morality is.
On and by the way the Bible in the new testament doesn’t differentiate between people’s. You don’t get to decide who your fellows are according to the Bible. That was the whole bloody point of the love thy neighbour aspect of the Bible passage.
that section of the Bible was written to the nation of Israel, i.e. a theocracy.
The US is *not* a theocracy.
To argue otherwise is bad logic.
Biblical hermeneutics calls us to interpret the principal and determine the application to the current situation.
We do not apply capital punishment for liars, even those under oath.
Also, on this website, i was excoriated for implying that someone should be transferred to a cell with a larger cell mate who could have his way with him.
I said it as a joke, but i recognize it was in poor taste. I wanted the person to be punished but to be abused to that extent is wrong
As far as looters who are endangering life, yes, shoot away.
I am not a lawyer (and i know you have a background in the law and i respect that) but show me where shooting looters is allowed or encouraged
“On and by the way the Bible in the new testament doesn’t differentiate between people’s. ”
I am not sure Millhouse gives much credence to the New Testament. He can certainly speak for himself, but I suspect it is not a guiding or governing authority as a matter of religious principle for him.
“There has been thousands of years of evidence contradicting your statement because people use the Bible in whatever way they want to conclude what ever position to they want too.”
Just because people misuse the biblical texts or misappropriate or abuse its teachings does not invalidate its authority. It just confirms a primary tenant of its teachings, that we are all imperfect and sinners, and but for the forgiving grace and salvation of God and Jesus we would all be condemned to the eternity of our, essentially, self-constructed Hell, and we shall continue to sin straight into the grave. Like Elmer Gantry, I have been saved 1,000 times, at least.
Both Millhouse and you are free to derive your moral compass from whatever source desired. I expect all people to properly apply and at times misapply or even ignore the bearings and guidance from that compass. It is human nature.
For the record, I do not think the police should shoot looters. I do think property owners should shoot them, however, with the caveat that every bullet fired in such a circumstance has a lawyer chasing right behind it. Everyone should take care that when using deadly force, make sure you do not end up in a jail cell while your attorney gets to buy a new Ferrari. But if someone wants to burn down my home or destroy my business, they get what they get, which may be 147 grains of .308, and if I am a policeman, DA, or member of a jury, the shooter walks.
“free to derive your moral compass from whatever source desired … “ seems to leave the notion of morality completely abandoned, kind of a “sui generis” standard, which is not a standard at all.
That the Bible sets a standard is not to say that other referents don’t exist. But with the 2500 yr-old Hebrew Bible and the New Testament 2000, it just doesn’t seem possible that succeeding efforts to define morality would not have to take those two documents into account, and not just in the West.
” seems to leave the notion of morality completely abandoned, kind of a “sui generis” standard, which is not a standard at all”
God gave us our moral freedom to choose what is right and what is wrong. He gave us guidance to follow as we may. He shall judge us and sort us in the end, but our path in life is the path we choose.
So, yes, we all choose our own compass. I shall steer steadfast by mine, but not presume all others’ courses are wrong. I claim the right to judge you on earth, but refuse to make a judgement about you thereafter, as that is the prerogative of God, and as much as I have thought differently, I have come reluctantly to realize I am not Him.
An interesting perspective thank you.
If you want to understand one of my issues with the bible as a moral frame work look up the Euthyphro dilemma. Its a thorny thought problem which i personally feel religion doesn’t answer well. But that my view and you may well be able to answer it to your own satisfaction.
There are several major moral frameworks that don’t reference the bible at all. Aristotle’s virtue theory was an early example, later you have competing theories in the basic form of Utilitarianism vs Kantian ethics. Both of these have a number of branches that take different directions but those are the base theories.
To those of you miffed about Justices’ post, note that 2 of 3 (or 3 of 4, depending on who you’re quoting) ‘boxes’ at our disposal have gotten us … nowhere.
That only leaves one (and given the current ammo scarcity, there’s a whole lot of folks thinking the same thing).
Indeed. The “proper” response to such savagery involves an impartial and functional justice system. It’s become entirely obvious to nearly everybody that we no longer have one of those on the national level, and in most large cities.
When a government defaults on both the social contract and the constitutional duties it was delegated, those powers devolve back upon the citizenry. It won’t be the first time Americans have had to invoke citizen justice, and history shows it was generally superior to the corrupt justice being meted out through official channels.
The idea that the judicial system is not functional seems to be based on it not giving you the result you wanted.
I love your comment I’ve heard NOTHING SO ACCURATE AS THE: “ghetto lottery’ They know a good thing when they get it, why does the black community NOT DISCOURAGE THEIR PEOPLE FROM RESISTING ARREST? WHY? BECAUSE IT PAYS BIG DIVIDENDS!
Recall that years ago, a potential juror — a card-carrying, Leftist activist with a social media trail a mile long — brazenly lied to the court when questioned by George Zimmerman’s attorney Don West, for the purpose of getting seated on the jury in the Zimmerman trial. Luckily for Zimmerman, Mark O’Mara, Don West and their team — O’Mara being truly one of the greatest practicing criminal defense attorneys in the U.S. — were alerted to this scoundrel and got him kicked out of the jury candidate pool.
Do a search for “Zimmerman juror E7” and you’ll find articles on the subject. This brazen mendacity and lack of personal ethics is par for the course, where vile Dhimmi-crats are concerned.
I looked to see if any charges were brought against that juror E7. Didn’t see even a misdemeanor criminal contempt. Since the questionnaire is an official court proceeding, can’t lying be prosecuted as a felony perjury or criminal contempt?
If we had an unbiased, functioning justice system… he would have been. QED.
What Henry said. That’s the answer.
The Judge is NOT going to do the right thing unless he plans on leaving the country permanently with house already sold, packed up and all finances sent over seas
Here in the Minneapolis area, the left controls government positions, elected officials, non-profits, etc. It was commonplace to hear laments from lefties that they wish they could be on the jury.
Uhg, why did he feel the need to lie. Stupid. It seems like a mistrial would be a fair thing to happen. It drags out the process but a retrial seems to be the only viable option right now. Are there other options?
Yes, ignore the malfeasance and just let things stand. It is, in my opinion, the likely outcome. I hope I am wrong.
Me too, a fair trial is important. These revelations would strongly indicate that this hasn’t happened.
It’s call “jury nullification”. Where a person commits perjury to get on a jury in order to influence the verdict in one way or another. In this case, a guilty verdict despite all evidence to the contrary. Though I suspect this is only the tip of the iceberg and the jury was compromised in more ways than this. Cahill seemed to believe the, “Yes, your honor I can be an impartial juror.” statement all to easily from some jurors who most likely should have been excused but weren’t.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Jury nullification happens when a juror or jury refuses to convict based on principle (e.g., the prosecution of the person is inherently unfair) or upon a belief the law itself should not be enforced (this is possible for a variety of reasons, such as a belief the law is unconstitutional).
Because jury nullification nullifies the law it can never result in a conviction, only in an acquittal or hung jury. Jury nullification rests on the foundation that a person is innocent until proven guilty under fair, reasonable, lawful, and just circumstances. What you’re suggesting is exactly the opposite. Whatever it is, it is not jury nullification.
@ Dave GinOly
That’s interesting thank you
Yeah there was plenty of evidence the issue is fairness and whether it reaches the required burden of proof. I don’t think characterising the verdict as “guilty despite all evidence to the contrary” is really a viable view.
Really? Despite all the evidence at the trial it only took this jury 10.5 hours to convict Chauvin. An honest, unbiased jury would have taken days to go through every piece of evidence at the very least.
Frankly, it probably only took hours for the #BLM activists* who lied their way onto the jury to intimidate the other jurors to go along with the charade or else.
*Go ahead and accuse me of racism. But the fact is the vast majority of #BLM activists I’ve seen are in fact white.
I don’t think 10hrs plus is a trivial amount of time to decide a conviction. I don’t think the trial was particularly complex the issues were pretty straight forward. It shingles around a judgement call on whether the medical testimony on one side or the other was better and the appropriateness of how Chauvin behaved ie the extended period of time using that restraint method.
No I don’t think you are racist , you are clearly angry which is fair enough.
The issues given that one juror has confirmed to have lied is now a valid one so certainly I don’t believe the juror was impartial and therefore the trial was fair.
Im guessing you are referring to Judy Munro-Leighton because it’s your evidence that ‘nothing’ happens to leftists. I’m not clear that citing one case when she is a 70 year loon is going to convince me of that particular point.
As I’ve said I’m sympathetic to the idea of a retrial. Im not sure I have an opinion on whether the left gets away with things or conservatives are targeted in any way. I just don’t have enough information to have a view.
With regard to Flynn and Papadopoulos I think we are likely to disagree. They both pled guilty to lying and they are considerably higher up the food chain that some old bat.
The trial lasted 7 weeks, the jury only “deliberated” for a little over 10 hours. That is a trivial amount of time for a fair, unbiased jury.
The issues only weren’t complex if the jurors had made up their minds ahead of time.
And I”m not angry at the verdict. Derek Chauvin means nothing to me; I never heard of him before a year or so ago. He may well have been guilty of something, but it’s clear he didn’t get fair trial. I’m angry because this whole show trial was a farce from the beginning.
Fair enough, entitled to your opinion. I don’t agree but can respect your view.
“With regard to Flynn and Papadopoulos I think we are likely to disagree. They both pled guilty to lying and they are considerably higher up the food chain that some old bat.”
Yes, we are likely to disagree. The feds have the resources to bankrupt people to the point where they can’t afford to defend themselves. They bankrupted Flynn, and they threatened to go after his son. Plus they withheld evidence. They never told Flynn the investigators (who sandbagged Flynn in his office; they never told him they were there to investigate him; they set up a perjury trap) originally didn’t think Flynn was lying to them.
But then former FBI agent Peter Strozk conspired with his FBI lawyer girlfriend Lisa Page to modify his FD-302 (informally known as a 302, to make it look like Flynn was lying.
I know FBI agents; when the text/instagram messages were made public, that Strozk was asking Page how he should change his 302 and she was advising him they were horrified. Not even an FBI agent’s direct supervisor tells an agent what to write in their report. At most the supervisor will tell the agent how to correct it for grammar and spelling.
Because, like Page, the agent’s supervisor wasn’t at the interview. Nobody who wasn’t there can ethically tell the investigator what content they should put in the report. But that’s exactly what Page was doing. It’s one of the many reasons the DoJ dropped the case.
I was a naval intelligence officer for 20 years. I know a little bit of how this works. I also know attorneys who specialize in national security cases. If I had been Flynn I never would have talked to those agents without a lawyer present. Even better, I would have had the agents contact my attorney who would have insisted they interview me in his/her office.
There are always two agents. One to conduct the interview. Another to listen and take notes. In Flynn’s case, the agent who accompanied Strozk was Joseph Pientka.
And when they arrived and started to interview me, my experienced attorney (I know a few of those, too) would pull out his/her tape recorder. And the agents would stop the interview. Because they never allow the interview to be recorded. And my attorney would say, “Then this interview is over.”
Without evidence of your own, you can’t dispute what makes it into their 302. If they know that you and your attorney know how the system works, if agents like Strozk and Plientka show up to railroad you, and they see the tape recorder, generally you won’t hear from you again.
Had Flynn known the two agents didn’t agree he had lied, that Strozk wrote multiple drafts of his 302 with his girlfriends help, if he hadn’t been bankrupted, and if the feds hadn’t threatened to go after his son, he never would have pled guilty.
Andrew Weissman, the lead prosecutor in the Enron case here in Texas, had most of his convictions overturned due to exactly the kind of prosecutorial misconduct that the government engaged in against Flynn. He intimidated witnesses by threatening to indict them if they didn’t tell them what he wanted to hear (as liberal Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz puts it, prosecutors like Weissman not only want witnesses to sing, they want them to compose). Weissman’s team would demand that the accused be held without bail, and put them in facilities as far away from their families as possible. Then threaten the accused that if they didn’t plead guilty he’d not only put them away, but go after their wives. They invented phantom crimes, and so intimidated some of the defendants that they plead guilty to them. One stunned judge asked a defendant if he knew the crime he was pleading guilty to was not in fact a crime. Nearly all of the convictions he and his team got were overturned. Including, most dramatically, the convictions they got against two of Enron’s clients. Meryll Lynch and Arthur Anderson.
The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Arthur Anderson conviction in 2005 due to “flawed jury instructions.” That’s a polite way of saying Weissmann and his prosecutors are such convincing liars that they convinced a judge to leave out part of the law. The part of the law that says the company could only be guilty of obstruction of justice if the company and its employees “knowingly” or “corruptly” destroyed the documents Weissmann and his team had demanded.
“Rehnquist wrote that jurors were not required to find that wrongdoers had “the requisite consciousness of wrongdoing. Indeed, it is striking how little culpability the instructions required.” He noted jurors were instructed they could convict even if Andersen “honestly and sincerely believed its conduct was lawful.””
Weissmann and his team knew perfectly well that the law at the time demanded the corporation had to have acted with criminal intent. But they convinced the judge to issue jury instructions saying otherwise.
In case you’re wondering why I’m going off on a tangent about Andrew Weissmann, it’s because I’m not. He was Robert Mueller’s deputy and knee deep in the prosecution of Flynn. So the fact that he and his fellow prosecutors got Flynn to plead guilty to a crime he didn’t commit is nothing new. Weissmann has been doing it his entire career.
One question; if the DoJ can railroad a 60 year old retired general for a crime he didn’t commit, why can’t they get around to prosecuting a 70 y.o. leftist activist for a crime she proudly admitted to committing?
Ahh interesting perspective, quite a bit to digest there. I don’t have time to look at all the detail right now but thank you. I appreciate the amount of detail and links you’ve provided. It’ll be interesting to read up more on that when I get the chance.
Just based on what you’ve written you’ve made a strong case, definitely given me something to think about.
You have written with some measure of insight and knowledge ON aspects of the law. You’ve also written with great clarity on the people & circumstances mentioned. I hope you have a blog, it would be great to follow your logic, reason & practical approach to common sense; of which there is NOT MUCH COMMON AROUND.
Oh, come on. He lied (and he wasn’t the only juror who did) because he wanted to make sure Chauvin was convicted. And as others pointed out so he could doxx any juror who didn’t agree. Things like this happen all the time. During the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings a leftist activist named Judy Munro-Leighton falsely claimed to have been raped by Kavanaugh. When Senate investigators tracked her down she admitted she was lying. That she wasn’t the Jane Doe in the anonymous letter Senator Harris tried to use to derail Kavanaugh’s confirmation. She claimed to be that Jane Doe as a “tactic,” a “ploy,” etc., and that she was opposed to him being on the Supreme Court.
Here’s a link to Sen. Grassley’s November 2, 2018 letter referring her to the DoJ for prosecution.
She claims she didn’t write the original anonymous letter (included as an enclosure to Grassley’s referral letter, as is Judy Munro-Leighton’s email). But really, should we believe her? By her own admission she was willing to falsely accuse Brett Kavanaugh of rape. In any case, whether she wrote the letter or not her own, demonstrable lies are enough to convict her lying to the Senate committee. The Senate investigators had to expend significant time and resources to track her down and question her. And she admitted, while claiming she didn’t write the original letter, she had written the email with the subject line “Subject: I am Jane Doe from Oceanside CA — Kavanaugh raped me.”
Under 18 U.S. Code § 1001 – Statements or entries generally she committed a felony which should get her 5 years in prison. There’s no question about the fact she knowingly made materially false statements. Note; under the statute I cited it doesn’t matter that she wasn’t under oath when she knowingly made those false statements.
Also, if you own a calendar then also note she hasn’t been prosecuted even though her crime is a felony and this is a slam dunk case. Trump associates Flynn and Papadopoulos were convicted of making false statements to investigators under far more questionable circumstances. So don’t tell me we don’t have a different system of justice for conservatives and another for leftist activists.
I’ll be proven right when nothing happens to this Brandon Mitchell. Of course he lied to get on the jury, but Cahill believed his B.S. when despite his obvious bias he obviously lied and said the “magic words” that he could be impartial. Just saying the “magic words” was enough for Cahill to allow jurors on the jury. That is, just so the obvious bias was against Chauvin. So when Cahill interviews Mitchell he’ll believe his new, obvious lies. That well, golly gee, he doesn’t recall that t-shirt and hat at all. He just went for the chance to visit Washington D.C. and as he puts it to be around a lot of other black people. And to commemorate MLK’s march on D.C. Just because that “commemoration” was centered on a George Floyd/police brutality protest where Floyd’s relatives spoke to a crowd that included him, that doesn’t mean he was there in full #BLM regalia to attend the protest. He was just there to sightsee and as a history buff to commemorate the 57th anniversary of that historical MLK event.
And Cahill will say, “Hey, good enough for me.”
+ he knows how much his book deal will get for him $$$, and of course, only the “blums” oops rhymes with dumbs, blm’s will read it and exploit it.
It’s the Democrat playbook. “Fair” is defined as whatever gets me what I want at the moment.
May the Schwartz be with you.
So to all the lawyers lurking here:
Would a motion for reconsideration on Cahill’s denial of Defense mistrial motion be in order?
Seems like the quickest remedy
(Note to self: Read the article before commenting) 🙂
Off topic but dang,
I don’t see why this is even a story. It is completely normal and very common for congressmen to share Washington digs even with congressmen of the opposite party, let alone neutral consultants.
The idea that McCarthy would waste money on hotel rooms is laughable. If he did that I’d either question his judgment or conclude that he had some deal going with the hotel owner. And sleeping in one’s office was Dick Armey’s shtick; that’s not McCarthy at all, and nobody in his right mind would expect it.
It’s a story because Luntz is a lobbyist for woke companies like Google who actively oppose conservatives. The idea Luntz is a neutral lobbyist is laughable. So when the only things conservatives like McCarthy can rouse themselves to conserve are the leftists’ accomplishments it’s important to know why.
“The idea that McCarthy would waste money on hotel rooms is laughable.”
So then you agree McCarthy has violated Congressional ethics rules against accepting gifts? Because his office claims he paid fair market value to rent a room at Luntz’s place. If he did, then it’s time to question his judgement as a motel room would have been cheaper even without cutting a deal with the proprietor. The Hampton Inn Washington DC NoMa Union Station is rated at 4 stars and rooms are currently $109/night. Considering congresscritters spend a lot of days in their districts even at those rates McCarthy would be paying a lot less when in D.C. than renting a room at Luntz’s swank apartment.
There are options between paying for a 4 star hotel room and sleeping on your office couch, so $109/night would be at the high end. Again, far less than paying to stay at Luntz’s.
Or, he didn’t pay fair market value. So therefore he must have had some kind of deal with Luntz.
And do you imagine for a moment that when McCarthy’s spokeswoman claimed McCarthy either rented hotel rooms or slept in his office do you imagine that she, and everyone else on McCarthy’s staff, didn’t know McCarthy never sleeps in his office?
Which raises the question; why should anybody believe this spokeswoman (and consequently McCarthy) when she says he pays full market value? How would this staffer know what kind of arrangements McCarthy has when she thought he was sleeping in his office and didn’t even know he wasn’t. Or, alternatively, she knew he wasn’t and was in on the lie. If she knew it was a lie but told a member of the press that he slept in his office anyway, it’s logical to conclude she could very well be lying now.
Huh?! How much do you think fair market value for one room in someone’s apartment is? How could you imagine it would be more than staying at hotels?
As I said, the idea is laughable. If she actually told Carlson’s people that, she must think they’re idiots.
“Huh?! How much do you think fair market value for one room in someone’s apartment is? How could you imagine it would be more than staying at hotels?”
I imagine staying with Luntz is more expensive than staying at a hotel because I checked with Air BnB and checked comparable rates. I checked the average price to rent a single room in Luntz’s “Hip · Fashionable · Historic Known for: Museums · Nightlife · Art gallery” Penn Quarter neighborhood. According to Air bnb the average nightly price for a single room in apartments/condos in Penn Quarter is $345/night.
And Frank Luntz doesn’t live in one of those average places. His condo is one of the most expensive in Penn Quarter. The kind of place that you don’t see listed on AirBnB.
As I said, McCarthy could stay at a four star hotel in the same area for $109/night. There are cheaper places with fewer stars. Far less expensive than the places on Air BnB listing single private rooms.
So I imagine, based on my research, that McCarthy could find cheaper accommodations if he is as he’s claiming he’s paying fair market value to stay in Luntz’s place. Especially if he’s paying Luntz by the month. As opposed to paying by the night if he stayed at a hotel.
Oh, and if McCarthy’s spokeswomen told Tucker Carlson what she told them thinking he’s an idiot, then she and her boss just found out he’s wrong.
You can negotiate significant discounts at hotels for long-term commitments. Rents in DC are very high. Even small places, studios, can cost a significant amount of money. The price of small suites under such arrangements are competitive with renting an apartment albeit of larger size, but when the amenities, such as electricity, water, cable, wifi, maid service and room cleaning, fitness room, pool, and often meals a couple nights a week and an open bar, it’s a better deal.
I think it is odd for a congressman to rent a room from a consultant or lobbyist, and raises some questions. If McCarthy has any say or authority over any business activity of his landlord, or can steer business in his direction, there are potential issues. There is no practical reason for this arrangement.
My bad, Milhouse. I went to Air bnb to do the real estate comps. And try to estimate how much “fair market value” would be to room with Luntz as opposed to get a $109/night room at a four star hotel. I compared that rate to the average rate for renting a single bedroom via Air bnb in Penn Quarter. It turns out the average rate is $345/night.
When I mentioned that Luntz doesn’t live in an average condo, but the kind of place you’d find listed on Air bnb, I didn’t realize how off I was. It turns out Luntz doesn’t live in A condo. He bought four condos and had them connected to create a 7000 square foot mansion on the penthouse of his extremely expensive building.
I was still right that you’ll never see Luntz list his place on Air bnb. But to live in a penthouse mansion in one of the priciest areas of DC (pricey because Penn Quarter is close to Capital Hill and the WH and lobbyists like Luntz would kill over that real estate) would be way more than $345/night. Especially when your landlord is your close friend who’ll give you full run of the place and use of all the amenities.
Like, the pool (I don’t know if Luntz has a pool at his penthouse but I bet the condo association does), the gym, the hot tub, the game room, the home theater, the open bar (the idea is laughable that Luntz makes McCarthy pay for his liquor that’s laughable, and if you believe it you’re the idiot), etc.
If McCarthy’s rental “room” at Luntz’s is just one of those four condos in his lobbyist friends penthouse mansion then McCarthy better be paying at least Tucker Carlson’s informed estimate of $5k a month or McCarthy is accepting gifts from lobbyists. But of course, he gets more than just that.
How funny to read a totally bullshit article “about a named juror” since the judge has ordered the jurors to be held as ANONOMOUS because their lives are in jeopardy. Wow. Way to go riling up the base, Comrades…
Another hint as to his motives is his seeking of publicity. If he wants the spot light, he gets a spotlight. Isn’t America great?
Chauvin responded to nonsense arguments in favor of an aggravated sentence
Just to be clear, this is a brief in OPPOSITION to the prosecution’s attempt to get the Court to consider aggravating conditions in sentencing of Mr. Chauvin. The prosecution wants a very long sentence for Mr. Chauvin.
Dear Mr. Jacobson:
You conclude: “Let’s see what the judge does.”
I predict “Nothing”.
Jusge Cahill to me seemed an extremely weak Judge. He was unwilling to take the steps necessary to ensure a fair trial (even apart from venue change, he refused a delay and to sequester the jury during the trial). Multiple times he warned the Prosecution that they risked a mistrial (redirect testimony on final day of prosecution case which called into question defence honesty comes immediately to mind, but also disclosure by ambush as well) but did nothing.
I always felt that Nelson lacked the aggressiveness needed to fight this case )I sometimes wondered if he believed in his own case) but regardless, he made the arguments and his client was entitled to a fair trial. This example of a tainted juror is an example of why Judge Cahill needed to be more astute in terms of delay and venue, but he wasn’t and isn’t. He is weak and I predict he will do nothing apart from utter some useless words (as after Rep Waters threats)..
I disagree. I think Judge Cahill was incredibly canny (that’s not the same thing as “moral ” or “ethical”). He knew the fix was in and there was no chance of Chauvin getting a fair trial. He all but handed Nelson multiple grounds for an appeal, and just in case Nelson didn’t get the message, he outright said that Maxine Waters’ incitement would be grounds for a successful appeal. So Cahill gets the best possible result (for Cahill): a guilty verdict that will be quietly overturned on appeal, long after the mob has moved on to its next victim. And the judge, jurors and defense attorney remain unburnt.
Agreed. There is so much for Chauvin to appeal that this juror is just the cherry on the top of the appeal sundae.
I can see this trial being over-turned, a new trial ordered, and a change in venue.
Yeah, the best of all possible worlds. Of course, the “optimal strategy for everybody” completely bankrupts Chauvin, requiring him to have some exhausted pro-bono dockwalloper defend him, but that’s a minor detail.
You have written with some measure of insight and knowledge ON aspects of the law. You’ve also written with great clarity on the people & circumstances mentioned. I hope you have a blog, it would be great to follow your logic, reason & practical approach to common sense; of which there is NOT MUCH COMMON SENSE AROUND.
oOPS, so sorry this was for Arminius! Copy n Paste not one of my strengths 🙁
This will be part of a motion and later appeal, and when the courts find that the wording of Q12 was poor, that it was reasonable (given the broader question 7) for the juror to think “protest” meant an event in opposition to a specific act, you’ll pretend they’re biased too.
If they make such a ridiculous finding that will be proof enough that they’re biased.
I no longer need more proof. We’ve all seen enough proof.
No Justice, No Peace?
Not a lawyer, but if Judge Cahill would have dismissed this juror if he had known these facts at the time it seems reasonable that Chauvin’s convictions should be overturned.
There is a 100% chance this juror participated in a George Floyd protest/AIr Jordan liberation event in Minneapolis. If he’s going to go to DC for one he sure as hell will go to one where he lives. It’s just a matter on time for the evidence to be found.
In isolation this juror’s actions may be enough for a mistrial. Coupled with all the other issues:
1. Reasonable fear of mob violence against the jury
2. Reasonable fear of mob violence against jury family/ business
3. Reasonable fear of general mob violence, arson, assault, looting against the local community and throughout the Nation
4. Continual gamesmanship by prosecution team in failing to provide evidence/witness/materials to defense in a timely manner
5. Prosecution brazenly attacked the integrity of the defense at close despite specific warning
6. Political pressure and ill advised statements from local, State and Federal officials
7. Relentless media framing of a pro prosecution narrative
8. Refusing to change venue
9. A split of 90/10 in Judges rulings, seemingly anyway, failure of Judge to rein in the antics of prosecution
All this AND a Juror who at best lied by omission and at worst by commission in selection?
So the problem here is a jury has found fact, made a decision to find guilt on the charges. Declare a mistrial? Do it all over? Not going to be good enough.
The pretrial media narrative, political pressure, societal pressure to convict and the very real and credible threat of almost certain mob violence in reaction to a not guilty verdict was bad enough.
Another jury will face all of those AND a widely published guilty verdict by the previous jury. Chauvin can not receive a fair trial under the collective weight of those circumstances, IMO.
The judge has no alternative to not only declare a mistrial and dismiss with prejudice, IMO. No rational person would look at the impossible burden, created in large part by the State and the actions of the Trial Judge, and believe that an unbiased jury capable of considering all the evidence fairly and dispassionately could be found.
Tough call? Not really. The Feds are ready to move on their own case. Not that the same obstacles won’t be present.
Nice post, but given all the above and no mistrial yet, why does this prompt a mistrial?
Judge still must question this Juror and potentially all Jurors to meet procedural standards. He can’t simply say ‘…well the media is reporting that Juror # 52 lied by omission or commission during selection so that’s good enough..’
As the remainder of the issues pretrial and during trial, personally I would have held the trial but slapped down the prosecution every time they even looked at the line much less crossing it.
This Judge seemingly made favorable rulings to the prosecution at nearly every turn. Does he have the stones to declare a mistrial? Maybe.
He made on the record statement that REP Waters statements were a likely grounds to overturn on Appeal. Can he really let a Juror who lied during selection off the hook? If he does that then he is, IMO, willingly undermining every future trial before him at minimum and before MN trial CT in general.
No judge likes to be overturned. On the other hand no one wants a mob to set their home on fire. It’s his integrity and safety on the line not ours. I know what I would do but he must decide which is more important long term.
How does this revelation prompt a mistrial when all else failed to do so?
Umm…a juror who was less than honest during selection when questioned about actual or perceived bias, preconceived ideas about the facts yet to be decided, attendance at events which were at least partisan in favor of prosecution….
That Juror would have been very likely been dismissed by the Judge without the Defense using a strike. Even using a strike the Juror would have been dismissed.
Adding this revelation on top of everything else? IMO a mistrial at this stage doesn’t serve the interest of Justice, another trial would be in front of a hopelessly comprised jury. The tooth paste is out of the tube.
Just as the Judge correctly decided, IMO, that the trial could proceed even against the backdrop of all the factors I stated originally. Why? The interest of Justice outweighed those pretrial factors and potential jury intimidation from outside forces.
Similarly at this point, IMO, the in tests of Justice requires not only na mistrial but also a dismissal of charges with prejudice. Chauvin can not receive an unbiased or minimally biased jury.
The notion that some kind of Silverado style ‘fair trial followed by a first class hanging’ is to be regarded as acceptable is bizarre.
The process must be just in order to have Due process. If not possible because of the weight of circumstances in part created by the trial court the system is supposed to recognize that and dismiss the charges.
The feds can get their bite at the apple as a separate Sovereign but the same barriers will mostly apply.
Even if the case is judged a mistrial and even if dismissed – DOJ has made clear they will persecute Chauvin.
In the eyes of DOJ – he is guilty until proven innocent.
Yes the Feds will move on their own case in the event of a dismissal. That’s what I stated in the post.
Consider what it meant to have a BLM juror beyond his automatic vote to convict.
First, his influence on the other jurors. All it takes for a hung jury is one “not guilty”.
Second, this is the guy who would have doxxed any juror voting “not guilty”. Since we don’t know what went on in the jury room, it might have been a factor. It’s up to the other jurors to speak up.
How can this NOT be a mistrial?
I agree with all that. The important question is what the Trial Judge decides.
Every time Nelson dismissed a juror of color the prosecution argued the dismissal was based on race. Nelson did have some social media posts of jurors and used them to impeach. He may not have had this one because it was posted by an uncle. I agree Nelson should have done more and the judge also could have dismissed for cause several times. His not doing so left the defense fewer challenges. Even though the prosecution did not have to prove intent other than for the assault in 2nd degree, I believe the idea that Chauvin was racist had already tainted the jury as it has the country. Biden said it showed “systemic racism” after the verdict. Somehow “systemic racism” does not require proof–it is taken as a given. By about 3 days after the incident had gone viral, the cake was baked. Ellison issued a med culpa after the fact. He should never have charged 2nd degree nor Freeman 3rd. They rushed the investigation to satisfy the mob and avert protests–but it just stoked them more.
Wait for it. This won’t be the only one with a verdict that quick.
Do we know what he answered for this question?
“13. How favorable or unfavorable are you about Black Lives Matter?
Very unfavorable. Please explain your choice: “
As soon as they put Cankles , Comey etal in jail, they will be on Chauvin’s mistrial like a duck on a june bug
He lied during voir dire when he said he was neutral about BLM. And there are other pictures being scrubbed right now. And he bullied at least one juror if you read his interviews. When the other jurors are eventually identified, you will see more evidence.
Speculation on the scrubbibg.
“Nelson asked Mitchell several questions during jury selection, and Mitchell told him: He had watched clips of bystander video of the incident; he had talked about the case with his family, friends and co-workers; he had wondered why three other officers at the scene didn’t stop Chauvin; and he had a “very favorable” opinion of Black Lives Matter.”
He did not lie about his opinion of BLM.
Nothing will come of this.
Things like this don’t matter when you live in a banana republic where the neo-Communists running the government have predetermined the verdict and only want a show trial. And the political opposition is voluntarily in see no evil, hear no evil mode.
Has anyone heard any elected GOP politician speak out against the treatment of the Jan 6 political prisoners the neo-Communists have imprisoned without bail? Me neither. The GOP is complicit in its silence.
Chauvin juror admits he had made his mind up before the trial and had already decided he would vote to find him guilty. I’m pretty sure he’s not the only one.
Judge will say “bad boy” but was harmless error and would not have changed the outcome.
Chauvin’s team has filed motion for new trial…
Chauvin just filed for a new trial
Defendant’s post verdict motions
Defendant’s post verdict motions
Without doubt #52 lied on question 12 and when he took to the stand he affirmed under oath that he answered the questionnaire truthfully and had no additions or changes to make. Had this new information had come to light during the trial Cahill would have no choice but to dismiss him so I don’t see how Cahill has any choice now but to declare a mistrial.
I watched the defenses voir dire and I am surprised that Nelson did not ask the juror if he took part in any BLM/social justice protests/demonstrations. Nelson really did a poor job in questioning him – no attempt was made to see if 52 was politically active in any way. Also what I don’t understand is the Defense knew the name of this juror and could have had ample opportunity to check out his social media. They should have known what this guy was all about before he took the stand.
To make a point made elsewhere, the photo in question wasn’t ever in “his” social media, but a relative’s.
Yes, but that might make this revelation even better for Chauvin’s case. It was posted by his Uncle Travis Mitchell.
Who bragged about “The next generation being socially active representing in D.C. my son Marzell, my nephew Brandon Rene Mitchell, and my brotha Maurice Jauntiness Johnson”
Questions 7 and 12 didn’t just ask about juror no. 52’s own protest/demonstration activity. The questions also asked about the protest activity of anyone/someone “close to you.” Do you imagine that Uncles Travis, Maurice, and cousin Marzell didn’t take part in any protests whether in Minneapolis? Should be easy to find out from their social media sites, which I’m sure of course they’re busy deleting. But I’m sure the juror from #BLM didn’t just lie about his own activities on those questions but his family as well.
And I doubt he can lie his way about not knowing where he got the t-shirt. He’ll try. But look at that pic and tell me those people aren’t close to him?
I can hardly wait for Ben Crump to run toward the next cluster of microphones and TV cameras and announce he’s now the Mitchell/Johnson family lawyer.
I’m going to post a link. People will think it’s a biased, right-wing site. And it is. But don’t read the comments. They have Brandon Mitchell’s full interview with a talk show host Erica Campbell, Get Up Mornings, embedded.
He says several problematic things (for him). In the interview. Ms Campbell and her co=host ask him several astounding questions, and he gives several astounding answers, at approximately the 5 minute mark. Such as he asks what it was like when they walked back into the jury room. She asks, “Did you have to hear both sides?” (WTF) He said, “It wasn’t like everyone was like, let’s get it done.” Apparently that’s because one guy didn’t want to deliver an immediate guilty verdict. As he recalls one guy was the hold out against convicting Chauvin immediately after they walked in the room. Mitchell recalls, “He was like, what about this, what about that? So we deliberated like four or five hours. Just going back and forth. I thought it should have been twenty minutes..”
My partial transcript may not have been 100% accurate but it’s close. But listen to the interview for yourself. They argued with the one guy who hadn’t pre-judged the case for a few hours, “Trying to get him on board with the others.” The others apparently being those who wanted to be on the jury, like Brandon Mitchell, “To spark social change” and deliver the “Historic” guilty verdict and deliver the verdict they wanted to get on that jury to deliver. Pace mark311, there’s no way anyone can claim this jury was unbiased or considered the evidence. Except for one guy apparently they had already made up their minds before they walked out of the courtroom.
Obviously, because they had already made up their minds before they set foot in the courtroom for jury selection.