#73 sounds bored by this whole thing.
George Floyd case-latest developments
125,766 Views |
1866 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by Bondag
Says he's seen clips but not the entire video four to five times.
His general impression of Floyd and Chauvin are somewhat negative. Chauvin's reputation that he was hard ass.
And heard of Floyd's drug use.
Says he "definitely can" set aside everything other than what is presented in court. Doesn't watch much news just weather and sports.
His general impression of Floyd and Chauvin are somewhat negative. Chauvin's reputation that he was hard ass.
And heard of Floyd's drug use.
Says he "definitely can" set aside everything other than what is presented in court. Doesn't watch much news just weather and sports.
Particularly sensitive matter so audio cut off.
ETA: Has to do with an arrest of someone.
ETA: Has to do with an arrest of someone.
We're back.
He strongly disagrees with defunding the police. That's like a Bat Signal to the attorneys for the state.
Nelson confers and then passes for cause.
State's up.
He strongly disagrees with defunding the police. That's like a Bat Signal to the attorneys for the state.
Nelson confers and then passes for cause.
State's up.
State guy did not like him, trying to get him to admit to something to get his striked for cause
Since his best friend is a cop and Juror #73 has been on ride alongs with his buddy, my bet is state strikes him.
Nelson requests a sidebar.
State asks if he take the word of a police officer over a bystander?
He says he would believe the police officer more.
He's toast.
He says he would believe the police officer more.
He's toast.
State confers.
Comes back and then asks about the financial hardship again. Then state says they want to make a record in a sidebar.
Nelson is back up. Asking about his police buddy again. And then goes to one event about which both an officer and bystander looking would he defer to the police? If it is about police matters.
Cahill dismisses him pursuant to state's motion. Did not use a peremptory.
Comes back and then asks about the financial hardship again. Then state says they want to make a record in a sidebar.
Nelson is back up. Asking about his police buddy again. And then goes to one event about which both an officer and bystander looking would he defer to the police? If it is about police matters.
Cahill dismisses him pursuant to state's motion. Did not use a peremptory.
That's BS. State should've had to burn one there.
Check out the disclaimer on this page:
https://www.minnesotadivorce.com/
https://www.minnesotadivorce.com/
Judge cites the Logan case as the reason.
Court is in recess until 8:45 tomorrow morning. (When Cahill will have the zoom meeting the first 7 jurors to ask them about their views on the 27 million dollar settlement.)
Cahill and the attorneys have some housekeeping matters that need to be addressed in camera and so that is what they are doing now.
LINKQuote:
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.
Court is in recess until 8:45 tomorrow morning. (When Cahill will have the zoom meeting the first 7 jurors to ask them about their views on the 27 million dollar settlement.)
Cahill and the attorneys have some housekeeping matters that need to be addressed in camera and so that is what they are doing now.
Case law in Minnesota that I posted above.Mr. AGSPRT04 said:
That's BS. State should've had to burn one there.
S*** happens.Mr. AGSPRT04 said:
Check out the disclaimer on this page:
https://www.minnesotadivorce.com/
Haha! Almost didn't click because I thought I would be disappointed. That is hilarious!Mr. AGSPRT04 said:
Check out the disclaimer on this page:
https://www.minnesotadivorce.com/
In DC, they'd never get a jury seated if they excluded all the lawyers. I had one friend get chosen who was not only a lawyer, but was seated on a burglery trial even though she'd recently been a victim of a burglery. (The burglery in question was of a Domino's pizza - two stoners went for pizza and when they found out the store was closed, they broke in and stole a giant pepperoni and pushed it down the street in a (also stolen) grocery cart.)aggiehawg said:I'm 62 and have only been called four times. Being a lawyer, I was never selected.Quote:
Im 35 and never have been called for jury duty. That is weird, isnt it?
FTR: No jurors were selected today. Either dismissed for cause or defense using two peremptories.
Bump for the evening crowd.
Branca, Read the restQuote:
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.
Branca. again.
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.)
One more day of whiffs and they need to move venues.
I am nearly 68 and been called a dozen times. A couple of times I didn't show, all but twice I worked to get struck. One of the two times I served was because the judge was a Vietnam vet and was a great attorney prior to going to the bench (most I know were not) and I didn't want to be an ******* in his court, the other time one of the attorneys was a friend of my son, and of mine. She is an Aggie, in fact I took her to her first Aggie football game!BadMoonRisin said:Im 35 and never have been called for jury duty. That is weird, isnt it?eric76 said:Does the calls for jury duty often try to weed out those who haven't served on a jury?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.
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.
Did you not get dismissed for knowing one of the attorneys well?
Trials are weird like that.
One time I was called to jury duty and was dismissed because I knew how to read a contract. The next time I served because I knew how to read a contract.
Same courtroom.
Plaintiff lost both cases.
One time I was called to jury duty and was dismissed because I knew how to read a contract. The next time I served because I knew how to read a contract.
Same courtroom.
Plaintiff lost both cases.
53yo male. Been summoned for jury duty three times in my life, all in the last 20 years. Never got to vior dire. I'm a clinical psychologist, and have heard from colleagues we never get selected. Any confirmation from aggiehawg or other trial attorneys? My wife is the same (clinical psychologist also), other than she would have caregiver exemption when our kids were young. She has been summoned three times and never selected (last time was 2 years ago and it was a federal case, but called for five days and never had to go in.
Dismissed for cause or struck by the prosecution/defense
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.
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.
CNN is an enemy of the state and should be treated as such.
That case was in a municipal court and she was fresh out of law school and did not participate anyway, her boss handled the matter. But I knew the firm she worked for was involved so I didn't skip out. I know her boss as well, just not as well. They did not ask any of the questions like you get in district court regarding a case therein.Readzilla said:
Did you not get dismissed for knowing one of the attorneys well?
It is a small town and even in regular court I'd bet a fourth to a half of the jury pool knows the attorneys and the judge. I am a CPA, but retired now, and the knowing the judges and such worked great because if I got a summons when I was busy I would just call and ask them to put me on another one after tax season and they always would or wouldn't even bother with it.
But that isn't what is meant by a jury of your peers.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.
Rittenhouse & Chauvin going to get railroaded. Temper your expectations.
You are referring to a long standing interpretation.
It's intent to mean "equal", but is interpreted as all available jurors or similar to who can vote.
If I am up against a very complex trial such as understanding correlating data on effects of chemicals in RoundUp and trying to sort through expert testimony, interpreting peers as anyone who managed to make the age of 18 and not be a convicted felon vs a chemical engineer or other professionals with post graduate degrees, are those truly "equal" when your life or livelihood is on the line?
Think of the George Carlin quotes regarding the "average American", most jurors trend below the line of average.
It's intent to mean "equal", but is interpreted as all available jurors or similar to who can vote.
If I am up against a very complex trial such as understanding correlating data on effects of chemicals in RoundUp and trying to sort through expert testimony, interpreting peers as anyone who managed to make the age of 18 and not be a convicted felon vs a chemical engineer or other professionals with post graduate degrees, are those truly "equal" when your life or livelihood is on the line?
Think of the George Carlin quotes regarding the "average American", most jurors trend below the line of average.
Engineer, 42, been called I believe 4 times in SC. 3 were local, one was county court. Out of the local ones I only actually had to show up once (you call in the night before and they tell you if you even need to bother to come in). With that one it was all traffic stuff IIRC and people just pled out beforehand.
The county one was a little more interesting because you have to show up in person. I got to the point where you're with a group of other potential jurors in the courtroom but they agreed upon enough so that we weren't needed. I didn't mind, I had free parking downtown and a day off from work. Might as well make the most of it!
edit: ex wife got a notice for whatever federal one there is that meets in Columbia, but she had an easy out because that was right when the younger kid was due to be born. Someone over there had a little common sense and excused her way beforehand. That one would've been ugly even without the kid because it's 90 miles away.
The county one was a little more interesting because you have to show up in person. I got to the point where you're with a group of other potential jurors in the courtroom but they agreed upon enough so that we weren't needed. I didn't mind, I had free parking downtown and a day off from work. Might as well make the most of it!
edit: ex wife got a notice for whatever federal one there is that meets in Columbia, but she had an easy out because that was right when the younger kid was due to be born. Someone over there had a little common sense and excused her way beforehand. That one would've been ugly even without the kid because it's 90 miles away.
I've been summoned every other year for past 8 years, decided to go to this last one. Waste of time, never again.
I doubt that he thought about it long enough to realize that If his view was correct, then only drug dealers and drug users would be able to sit on a jury for someone charged with drug offenses.30wedge said:But that isn't what is meant by a jury of your peers.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.
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?
Featured Stories
See All
Players to Watch: No. 15 Texas A&M vs. New Mexico State
by Olin Buchanan
8:22
3h ago
1.1k
33:54
1h ago
612
18:34
2h ago
619
33:59
1d ago
1.9k
Pick 'Em & Rip 'Em sponsored by PrizePicks: Week 12
by Matthew Dawson
ConfidentAg
Michigan to Offer 5 Star LSU QB Commit 8 Figure Deal
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
113
ElkoSZN
Instead of scheduling tough non-conference games like ND...
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
82
Cm214
Thoughts Thread - Dan Campbell for College Gameday Guest Picker?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
54
LosAngelesAg00
Instead of scheduling tough non-conference games like ND...
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
53