aggiehawg said:
Says the property damage as a result of the riots was a positive thing because it had to happen to get the word out so everyone would know.
Warning signs.
everytime I see the name Cahill, I think of this:aggiehawg said:
Morning recess.
That last juror was excruciating to listen to. She would pause for several seconds or longer after being asked a simple question.
She was evasive when Nelson was questioning her, even when the Judge tried to question her at first. But it was clear she had a very negative opinion of Chauvin and that nothing would change that opinion.
Good strike by Cahill.
No commentary here, just live stream..tamc1956ag said:
where are you guys watching this? channel?
I was surprised by that too. Frankly, I thought the defense might have struck him because of his answer about the media and discrimination but then Nelso questioned very closely as to how he arrived at his response and found that he was more critical of the media than he was of the justice system itself.Readzilla said:
Thanks you for all the updates hawg. Was in a meeting the pat two hours. Surprised the state didnt strike the guy who said floyd should have listened. Guess they are worried about running out of strikes too soon
Agree that is a good question and frankly it is one the Judge should ask before turning the questioning over to the attorneys. Would shorten the process considerably instead of tap dancing around a juror who has clearly made up her mind but is afraid to say she's not open minded enough to review her biases and pre-existing opinions.schwack schwack said:
Should the defesnse incorporate the Judge's question: Can you put aside your opinion & allow Chauvin the presumption of complete innocence when he walks into the courtroom?
Good question.
I think they referenced they may want to make a challenge after the recess. So they made their record on that challenge?schwack schwack said:
The state is questioning the release of the last lady? She said she could not presume he was innocent.
This is an odd procedure occasioned by covid protocols wherein the jurors are interviewed separately instead of in groups. So the challenges have to be made as they go.twk said:
Dumb question from someone who doesn't do criminal work, but I find it odd that they are exercising peremptory strikes as they go. Is this normal practice in criminal trials? Seems to me that they ought to go through the panel, strike for cause, then when they have a number that equals or slightly exceeds the number of jurors to be seated plus both sides peremptory strikes, you would then have the sides exercise their strikes (blindly, not knowing who the other side is striking).
Note: I have not been following this thread closely or watching any of the coverage, so it may already have been addressed.
Ultimately these proceedings are a matter of public record. They cannot be protected in perpetuity. It will happen at some point. I mean people are just going to disappear for a month. People will put two and two together.Good Poster said:
Aggiehawg, I believe at some point yesterday the judge said that after some duration once the trial will be completed that the jurors names will be released?
Is this standard? Seems like it could end really poorly if Chauvin is acquitted.
Yeah, I get that you aren't going to have them all assembled in the room like you would for a typical civil trial, but I still think you could do it the way I'm suggesting, holding the peremptory strikes until you have, say 45 who were not going to be struck for cause (16 for the jury, 24 for the combined peremptory strikes, and another 5 just for safety), then have them strike from the list.Quote:
This is an odd procedure occasioned by covid protocols wherein the jurors are interviewed separately instead of in groups. So the challenges have to be made as they go.
He's also a business owner. Not sure what the state will do.Dumb_Loggy said:
#38 appears to be a good pick for the defense. Neutral to conservative views, and neutral on his views towards Chauvin. Think the state will strike him?
While I would agree with your suggested procedure, the Judge was looking at nearly three weeks to seat the jury. That's a long time to keep prospective jurors locked up twiddling their thumbs.twk said:Yeah, I get that you aren't going to have them all assembled in the room like you would for a typical civil trial, but I still think you could do it the way I'm suggesting, holding the peremptory strikes until you have, say 45 who were not going to be struck for cause (16 for the jury, 24 for the combined peremptory strikes, and another 5 just for safety), then have them strike from the list.Quote:
This is an odd procedure occasioned by covid protocols wherein the jurors are interviewed separately instead of in groups. So the challenges have to be made as they go.
I think that is the state's 5th. And Nelson has also used 5. Cahill saved Nelson from using his sixth on the crazy lady with the two kids this morning by striking her for cause.Dumb_Loggy said:
That was their 4th strike, correct? Is so, then they only have 5 left. Defense has used 4 of their 15 strikes as well? Trying to keep score if you will.
They used two yesterday and two today. One was used on Tuesday. From what I have been able to glean, all of the state's excluded jurors were white. Defense might make a Batson challenge, if that is so.Readzilla said:
State used their 5th already sheesh. Not looking very good for then
