Quote:

---

Defendant, Benjamin Matthew Logan, appeals from judgment of conviction of two counts of first-degree murder in the killing of two clerks during an armed robbery of a Minneapolis gun store on the evening of June 23, 1992. The decisive issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying a defense challenge for cause of one of the jurors, who candidly said he would be more inclined to believe the testimony of police officers than of other witnesses. If the trial court erred in allowing this juror to serve, then defendant was deprived of a fair trial by an impartial jury of 12 people and he is entitled to a new trial. Concluding that the trial court erred and that defendant was denied a fair trial by an impartial jury, we reverse the judgment of conviction and remand for a new trial.

---

Mr. AGSPRT04 said:

---

That's BS. State should've had to burn one there.

---

Mr. AGSPRT04 said:

---

Check out the disclaimer on this page:
https://www.minnesotadivorce.com/

---

Mr. AGSPRT04 said:

---

Check out the disclaimer on this page:
https://www.minnesotadivorce.com/

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Im 35 and never have been called for jury duty. That is weird, isnt it?

---

I'm 62 and have only been called four times. Being a lawyer, I was never selected.

---

Quote:

---

Top line: Not a single juror was seated today, leaving the number seated at nine. A total of fourteen are required, for 12 jurors and 2 alternates.

One of the outstanding issues in the jury selection process in this case so far is that the measure of what constitutes unacceptable bias seems so overwhelmingly in favor of the prosecution.

One could imagine a standard that favored the defense. For example, if the standard were that any prospective juror who has so much as a hint of bias towards the defendant were excluded for cause, such that one could be certain the jury was as free as bias as possible, obviously that would be a standard that favored the defense.

In other words, if a juror expressed in their juror questionnaire words to the effect that they cannot unsee what they saw in the video, or that the video is seared in their mind, or that Chauvin murdered Floyd, or that it would be extremely hard for them to be unbiased, fair, and impartialone can imagine a court in which each and every one of these jurors is excused for cause, no matter what else they say to the contrary afterwards.

---

Quote:

---

The next prospective juror was #73, the last of the day.

#73 was a self-employed male in the real estate business. He frankly seemed a perfectly reasonable juror for this case, which meant of course that the state had to find a way to get rid of him.

The door to accomplish that revealed itself when #73 indicated that he had a friend who was a policeman, and an inclination to trust the word of a police officer more than he would trust the word of a bystander.
That was enough for #73 to get dismissed for cause, despite his protestations that he could put that aside to be fair and impartial for the state. It seems that when the bias in question is against the state, a mere whiff is sufficient to dismiss for cause. (I'll also note that this hyper-sensitivity to the prospect of jurors favoring police testimony is usually applied in favor of, not against, criminal defendants.)

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Nelson is up. #63 is a substitute teacher.

Describes herself as "outgoing and charismatic" Loves to work with kids. Recent college grad and just got her first job.

Was shocked and in disbelief that she has never served on a jury and here she is being called for such a huge case.

The fortifications at the courthouse produced mixed feelings, feeling secure inside but the level of security being needed gave her pause.

---

Does the calls for jury duty often try to weed out those who haven't served on a jury?

Or is the surprise that someone can recently graduate from college without having served on a jury? I would think that this is the norm, not the exception.

---

Im 35 and never have been called for jury duty. That is weird, isnt it?

---

Readzilla said:

---

Did you not get dismissed for knowing one of the attorneys well?

---

fka ftc said:

---

Always been dismissed before but randomly had made it to voir dire on two occasions. Business owner and CPA for reference.

The first was a misdemeanor weed possession. Replied I think it should be legal and have partook. Easy out.

Second was for a civil suit over a car wreck. Told them I had been sued before frivolously over a minor car wreck and then again, with pending litigation, for a frivolous suit regarding work performed. I was first cut in that one.

Point being, don't be am obvious arse on getting out. But use an example *ideally truthful" related to case.

And Hawg could offer better perspective, they don't go for intellectuals or professionals in these instances. If you were on the panel for Bernie Madhoff and you were a business professional, you may get picked from basis of your ability to understand.

It is supposed to be a jury of your peers, in that case, then the jury for Chauvin should.middle aged, law enforcement types. Think of military court marshall they don't select the cashier from Piggly Wiggly to determine a persons fate.

---

30wedge said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Always been dismissed before but randomly had made it to voir dire on two occasions. Business owner and CPA for reference.

The first was a misdemeanor weed possession. Replied I think it should be legal and have partook. Easy out.

Second was for a civil suit over a car wreck. Told them I had been sued before frivolously over a minor car wreck and then again, with pending litigation, for a frivolous suit regarding work performed. I was first cut in that one.

Point being, don't be am obvious arse on getting out. But use an example *ideally truthful" related to case.

And Hawg could offer better perspective, they don't go for intellectuals or professionals in these instances. If you were on the panel for Bernie Madhoff and you were a business professional, you may get picked from basis of your ability to understand.

It is supposed to be a jury of your peers, in that case, then the jury for Chauvin should.middle aged, law enforcement types. Think of military court marshall they don't select the cashier from Piggly Wiggly to determine a persons fate.

---

But that isn't what is meant by a jury of your peers.

---

fka ftc said:

---

It is supposed to be a jury of your peers, in that case, then the jury for Chauvin should be middle aged, law enforcement types. Think of military court marshall they don't select the cashier from Piggly Wiggly to determine a persons fate.

---