wbt5845 said: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.
And the OJ jury should have been Tony Dorsett, Eric Dickerson, Barry Sanders, Jim Brown, etc?
schwack schwack said:
The question they ask potential jurors "Can you follow the law even if you think it's wrong or should be changed?" seems so simple & everybody answers yes.
To be clear here. The Floyd Family's wrongful death case was in federal court. The city asked a state district court judge, one who is the Chief Judge over the district in which Cahill is on the bench. He's not exactly Cahill's boss as courts don't work that way but Barnette, as Chief Judge, has administrative supervision. It should be obvious a state court judge can't tell a federal court what to do.Quote:
Although precisely no jurors were seated, the day proved interesting and eventful in its own way. Judge Cahill announced that he would himself conduct voir dire of the seven jurors selected last week to ascertain their awareness of the $27 million wrongful death settlement in the related civil litigation. As I understood the arrangements, he will briefly examine each available juror via Zoom tomorrow.
He has also taken defense motions for a continuance and change of venue under advisement. He should have something to say about these motions soon, if not today.
Nelson also raised the issue of pretrial publicity in the context of the wrongful death settlement. He cited the March 12 Washington Post story in which an unnamed city official expressed his awareness of the possible impact of the settlement on the criminal case and spoke with Chief Hennepin County District Judge Toddrick Barnette. Nelson referred to this passage in the Post story:Having taken up the issue with Judge Barnette, Judge Cahill disputed the accuracy of "the official's" account of his conversation. Judge Barnette was said to have advised the city that he had no control over its handling of the federal wrongful death case. Judge Cahill quoted him as saying words to the effect that "We can't tell you what to do," not as authorizing the announcement of the settlement.Quote:
A Minneapolis official said the city had been concerned that the announcement could affect the trial.
The official, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said the city consulted with Hennepin County Chief District Judge Toddrick S. Barnette, who told the city it could proceed. Barnette did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Expressing his annoyance, Judge Cahill observed, "I think the city is trying to dump their responsibility back on the court, where it does not belong." My notes reflect that Judge Cahill said he would deal with this today, but I'm not sure what that means.
My recollection is that Cahill went a little farther saying in effect he would more closely scrutinize jurors having knowledge of both the 27 million settlement and the story of the failed plea deal. Cahill (correctly) views these as the most prejudicial to Chauvin in that both suggest guilt. Restating that ultimately the decision on whether to seat a particular juror is the judge's, Cahill denied that there was a litmus test restricting challenges for cause to when a juror utters the words, "I can't be impartial." IMO,Quote:
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison was, as usual, in the courtroom yesterday. His office is handling the prosecution of Chauvin with the assistance of an all-star team of outside attorneys who are contributing their services. The Star Tribune reports that Ellison was guarded on the settlement. He "declined to comment when asked by a reporter whether he or the court knew that a settlement had been reached before it was announced Friday. His son Jeremiah Ellison is a Minneapolis City Council member and voted for the settlement."
Judge Cahill also expressed particular concern about Tim Arango's February 10 New York Times story on the negotiations of a guilty plea in this case based on unnamed law enforcement sources.
I think that last sentence isn't technically correct as Nelson was trying to reclaim his peremptory because he was making the case that the juror should have been dismissed for cause but it is what it is.Quote:
Judge Cahill denied Nelson's attempted reclamation of his peremptory, but his remarks revealed the misguided constraints Nelson seems to have imposed on himself in voir dire. Judge Cahill stated that he would exercise discretion in making the judgment whether a prospective juror could in fact be fair and impartial. He can't presume prejudice, he said, and he did not see juror 69 to be lying, but some jurors "lack the introspection" to acknowledge they can't be fair. He will make the judgment based on his reading of juror under the circumstances. My translation is that Nelson should at the least have moved to strike juror 69 (and others) for cause.
Logically speaking, they are asking if you can follow the law, not will you follow the law.wbt5845 said:schwack schwack said:
The question they ask potential jurors "Can you follow the law even if you think it's wrong or should be changed?" seems so simple & everybody answers yes.
Well, that's really more tricky than you think. I always answer "no". When I'm asked why, I reply I believe in the concept of jury nullification. I am usually dismissed on the spot.
We have a long history of jury nullification in the US. During slavery, northern juries routinely used it to forgo conviction under the Fugitive Slave Act.
I truly believe if 12 people think a law is unjust, they should be free to acquit. Hell, the OJ jury acquitted him because they were mad about Rodney King. If that jury is free to go renegade over something so unrelated, I am too.
I don't guess there is any way to charge the city of Minneapolis with attempting to improperly influence the jury, is there?aggiehawg said:
Cahill is pissed! Seems the media have been revealing the security precautions in detail on the 18th Floor of the courthouse! And trying to take pictures of notes and computer screens at counsel's tables.
Juror #2 on zoom now. Says his girlfriend told him there were "new developments" but was not specific. Says he can still be impartial.
Juror #36: Knows about the settlement and a large amount of money over twenty million. Says he will impact him a lot. Hispanic male but the settlement reinforces his earlier opinion negative to Chauvin. Cahill dismisses him from the jury.
Down one.
aggiehawg said:
Juror #20. Says his computer is frozen but he has audio. They proceed anyway.
Male he did see the headline twenty million being paid. The dollar amount suggested the City believed something was wrong. Does it move you off the fair and impartial?
He's excused. Down two.
my take at this point is that the case is a procedural dumpster fire that could never produce a jury verdict that will stand up on appeal.aggiehawg said:
Cahill is pissed! Seems the media have been revealing the security precautions in detail on the 18th Floor of the courthouse! And trying to take pictures of notes and computer screens at counsel's tables.
Juror #2 on zoom now. Says his girlfriend told him there were "new developments" but was not specific. Says he can still be impartial.
Juror #36: Knows about the settlement and a large amount of money over twenty million. Says he will impact him a lot. Hispanic male but the settlement reinforces his earlier opinion negative to Chauvin. Cahill dismisses him from the jury.
Down one.
Quote:
Juror #9.
Female, the eager beaver
aggiehawg said:
Ten minute recess. Need to check if they have called enough jurors for today.
Losing two of the nine jurors is bad but not as bad as I had thought it would be. Thought is be three or four.
Before recess, Cahill said the motion for change of venue and continuance are still under advisement and he will announce his decision on those Friday. Ditto for the scope to be admissible on the May 2019 arrest of Floyd. (Some aspects admissible others not.) He also indicated there are still some issues with a state expert witness, Dr. Vincent that will be briefed and argued tomorrow.
And Cahill forgot to remind her she was still under oath. Nelson let it slide, though and stipulated there was no need to call her back and clarify that point. Personally, I thought she was lying.schwack schwack said:Quote:
Juror #9.
Female, the eager beaver
No way she was gonna say anything to get off this jury...... AWESOME!
Quote:
Personally, I thought she was lying.
Yes. It is the clusterf*** I expected and Cahill feared it would become. My prediction is if they go 0-for seated jurors today like yesterday, Cahill will have to really think about the venue and a continuance as this trial is costing s crap ton of money and it may already be riddled with prejudice and reversible error.aginlakeway said:aggiehawg said:
Ten minute recess. Need to check if they have called enough jurors for today.
Losing two of the nine jurors is bad but not as bad as I had thought it would be. Thought is be three or four.
Before recess, Cahill said the motion for change of venue and continuance are still under advisement and he will announce his decision on those Friday. Ditto for the scope to be admissible on the May 2019 arrest of Floyd. (Some aspects admissible others not.) He also indicated there are still some issues with a state expert witness, Dr. Vincent that will be briefed and argued tomorrow.
This sounds like a mess. Is it?
Not really. Short of an audio or text messages between AG Ellison and his son who is on the City Council to make the announcement to torpedo the criminal case, not much that can be done.eric76 said:I don't guess there is any way to charge the city of Minneapolis with attempting to improperly influence the jury, is there?aggiehawg said:
Cahill is pissed! Seems the media have been revealing the security precautions in detail on the 18th Floor of the courthouse! And trying to take pictures of notes and computer screens at counsel's tables.
Juror #2 on zoom now. Says his girlfriend told him there were "new developments" but was not specific. Says he can still be impartial.
Juror #36: Knows about the settlement and a large amount of money over twenty million. Says he will impact him a lot. Hispanic male but the settlement reinforces his earlier opinion negative to Chauvin. Cahill dismisses him from the jury.
Down one.
third coast.. said:someone hasn't been reading the threadaginlakeway said:aggiehawg said:
Ten minute recess. Need to check if they have called enough jurors for today.
Losing two of the nine jurors is bad but not as bad as I had thought it would be. Thought is be three or four.
Before recess, Cahill said the motion for change of venue and continuance are still under advisement and he will announce his decision on those Friday. Ditto for the scope to be admissible on the May 2019 arrest of Floyd. (Some aspects admissible others not.) He also indicated there are still some issues with a state expert witness, Dr. Vincent that will be briefed and argued tomorrow.
This sounds like a mess. Is it?
third coast.. said:same, but asking if it is a mess reads as if you haven't read anything on this thread. this whole thing is a Charlie Foxtrot of epic proportions.aginlakeway said:third coast.. said:someone hasn't been reading the threadaginlakeway said:aggiehawg said:
Ten minute recess. Need to check if they have called enough jurors for today.
Losing two of the nine jurors is bad but not as bad as I had thought it would be. Thought is be three or four.
Before recess, Cahill said the motion for change of venue and continuance are still under advisement and he will announce his decision on those Friday. Ditto for the scope to be admissible on the May 2019 arrest of Floyd. (Some aspects admissible others not.) He also indicated there are still some issues with a state expert witness, Dr. Vincent that will be briefed and argued tomorrow.
This sounds like a mess. Is it?
Who? I have been on the thread since beginning. Just seems to be getting messier every day.
Not satisfied with Cahill's damage control efforts. He seemed originally reluctant to call back the 7 jurors seated before the Friday bombshell. That's a no brainer, he had to do it and failing to do so would have been reversible error in all likelihood, in my view. Nelson was understandably pitching a fit about it.schwack schwack said:
They should bring in the other jurors again, too, to question them as directly as the judge just did the others. Specifically what do they know about it. They were still dancing around it this week in questioning.
When Cahill did start being a bit more specific yesterday, it seems that a couple said that they did not hear or see anything related on the general question, but when he asked them about RECENT news, IIRC a couple then backpedaled a bit & said well....yeah.... I saw/heard that.
Yes - I'm watching & understand that those were the seated jurors from last week pre- the settlement announcement.Quote:
they asked the seated jurors this AM about it and two were dismissed. are you wanting them to go further than that?
