2021-05-05 16:44:51 –
Minneapolis — A jury convicted of a former Minneapolis police officer for the murder of George Floyd could affect his conviction when he attended a march in Washington, DC months before the trial. Is low, experts say.
However, this is not always the case. In rare cases, the conviction may be revoked or revisited after new information about the jury is discovered. Let’s take a look at this problem and what comes next.
After jury Brandon Mitchell told the media about his experience at Derek Chauvin’s trial, his at the March last August to commemorate Martin Luther King Jr.’s 1963 “I have a dream” speech. Photos have begun to spread online.
The photo shows Mitchell in a rally wearing a King-inspired T-shirt and the words “GET YOUR KNEE OF FOUR NECKS” and “BLM” by Black Lives Matter.
Mitchell did not talk about the march during the jury selection for Chauvin’s trial. But he told Star Tribune that he answered “no” to a jury survey question about whether he or anyone near him participated in a march against Floyd’s death and police atrocities. ..
He said the Washington rally was a “not 100%” march for Floyd. He said: “It was literally called the March on Washington for Jobs.”
Members of Floyd’s family spoke at the event with other relatives shot by the police.
Can this affect the verdict?
Experts say it’s unlikely. Minneapolis defense lawyer Mike Brant, who was not involved in the case, said the revelation alone was not enough to overturn Chauvin’s conviction, but he appealed that Chauvin was denied a fair trial. He said it could be combined with other issues.
“Judges don’t want to do anything with this verdict,” said Alan Turkuheimer, a Chicago-based lawyer and jury consultant.
Do you have any precedents?
The 1984 decision of the United States Supreme Court set a precedent for the issue of jury disclosure.
McDonough Power Equipment v. Greenwood was an incident involving a boy’s injury from the blade of a riding lawn mower. The boy’s parents lost and sought a new trial after learning of a jury whose son broke his leg when the tire exploded, but to retrieve information about the injury that caused disability and long-term distress to his immediate family. I didn’t answer “yes” to the question.
The Supreme Court has ruled that parents are not eligible for a new trial unless a fair jury’s rights are denied because the jury did not disclose it. The answer to the question is to insist on something closer to perfection than you can expect from our judicial system. “
The judge had to show that the parties did not answer the question honestly in order to receive a new trial, and the correct answer provided a valid basis for dismissing the jury. I said I would.
Did this issue affect other cases?
In 2015, a Tennessee judge admitted suspicion to two former Vanderbilt football players convicted of rape in a student dorm room in 2013. The judge found that one of the jury’s foremen deliberately withheld information during the jury’s question that he was a victim of sexual assault.
During the hearing, the jury testified that he did not withhold the information because he did not consider himself a victim of rape. He was 16 at the time and said the relationship had reached an agreement. His parents accused the perpetrator.
However, the judge found that “the actual prejudice was clearly shown” and admitted the suspicion. The two former soccer players were again convicted in a subsequent trial.
In California, lower courts are currently considering whether to order a new trial in the attention-grabbing case of Scott Peterson, who was convicted in 2004 for murdering his eight-month-pregnant wife Laci. The Supreme Court of California ordered Peterson’s conviction to be revisited last fall after a jury who neglected to disclose information discovered that he had committed “unfavorable illegal activity.”
Larsi Peterson, 27, disappeared on Christmas Eve in 2002, and her body was later washed ashore in San Francisco Bay.
According to court documents, the jury answered no to the question as to whether she was a victim of a crime or had been involved in a proceeding. In fact, she filed a proceeding in 2000 to obtain a detention order against her boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend. The woman said she harassed her during pregnancy and was afraid of her fetal life.
What’s next for Chauvin?
Defendant lawyer Eric Nelson asks Judge Peter Carhill for a hearing to impeach the verdict, for example because the jury has committed an illegal act and / or felt racial pressure. I did. Nelson’s request did not include details, nor did it mention recent information about Mitchell.
Nelson is expected to submit a more detailed brief outlining his claim.
Tulle Kheimer said holding a hearing was within the authority of Kay Hill and each side could present witnesses. Mitchell may be summoned to answer a question. Kay Hill would then have to decide if Mitchell’s participation in the march was important.
“No one knows if that made a difference. If this jury is beaten, no one knows who the jury is. He participated in this MLK Junior March That’s the case, “says Tuerkheimer. He also said that Mitchell might have remained a jury anyway, even if his presence on the march was known.
If Kay Hill opposes Nelson, it is another issue he may raise in his appeal.
“It’s at the heart of a fair and impartial jury, and if there are juries who are prejudiced and not completely close, it’s an issue that must be considered,” Tuerkheimer said.
Will juror’s march presence impact Chauvin case? – Twin Cities Source link Will juror’s march presence impact Chauvin case? – Twin Cities