The US policing crisis thread

Started by Eamonnca1, April 28, 2015, 07:10:37 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

J70

Quote from: Gmac on May 05, 2021, 09:08:19 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 05, 2021, 06:33:58 PM
Quote from: Gmac on May 05, 2021, 06:08:41 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on May 05, 2021, 07:06:40 AM
Quote from: Gmac on May 05, 2021, 12:24:54 AMybut this guys admission means chauvin didn't get a fair trial

(i) Do you think it affected the result?
(ii) Do you think the result was the wrong one?
yes and that's irrelevant

Why do you think it affected the result in what was a very swift, unanimous decision?
the jury was compromised by the juror who lied therefore the decision is compromised.

That's not an answer.

Affecting the result means the result could or would have been different.

whitey

If the guy lied the verdict is invalid (whether it was the right or wrong verdict)

David McKeown

I suppose it depends on the role the juror played in deliberations. The defence will obviously argue that we could never know and therefore natural justice dictates a retrial necessary. The prosecution will obviously point to the strength of the evidence, the speed of conviction etc and say the conviction is safe. A tough one to call I'd say and I wouldn't like to call it. My gut would say that the decision will be it's not enough on its own for a retrial but I'm not an expert on Minnesota law
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

Gmac

Quote from: David McKeown on May 05, 2021, 10:23:27 PM
I suppose it depends on the role the juror played in deliberations. The defence will obviously argue that we could never know and therefore natural justice dictates a retrial necessary. The prosecution will obviously point to the strength of the evidence, the speed of conviction etc and say the conviction is safe. A tough one to call I'd say and I wouldn't like to call it. My gut would say that the decision will be it's not enough on its own for a retrial but I'm not an expert on Minnesota law
the verdict has to be unanimous so couldn't the defense say maybe a different juror would have had a different opinion and that on its own is grounds for a mistrial/retrial

whitey

Quote from: Gmac on May 05, 2021, 10:50:16 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on May 05, 2021, 10:23:27 PM
I suppose it depends on the role the juror played in deliberations. The defence will obviously argue that we could never know and therefore natural justice dictates a retrial necessary. The prosecution will obviously point to the strength of the evidence, the speed of conviction etc and say the conviction is safe. A tough one to call I'd say and I wouldn't like to call it. My gut would say that the decision will be it's not enough on its own for a retrial but I'm not an expert on Minnesota law
the verdict has to be unanimous so couldn't the defense say maybe a different juror would have had a different opinion and that on its own is grounds for a mistrial/retrial

So let's say Chauvin got off because of one juror. And it was later discovered that one juror had lied when asked  about attending " back the blue" events.

Not only had they gone all the way to DC to attend an event,  but had worn a pro police tee shirt at the rally.

Do people think that acquittal should be accepted?

David McKeown

Quote from: Gmac on May 05, 2021, 10:50:16 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on May 05, 2021, 10:23:27 PM
I suppose it depends on the role the juror played in deliberations. The defence will obviously argue that we could never know and therefore natural justice dictates a retrial necessary. The prosecution will obviously point to the strength of the evidence, the speed of conviction etc and say the conviction is safe. A tough one to call I'd say and I wouldn't like to call it. My gut would say that the decision will be it's not enough on its own for a retrial but I'm not an expert on Minnesota law
the verdict has to be unanimous so couldn't the defense say maybe a different juror would have had a different opinion and that on its own is grounds for a mistrial/retrial

Yeah that would certainly be their argument and there's a relatively recent Supreme Court decision on that Ramos v Louisiana but I think strictly that only applies to Federal cases. Again I'm not an expert on Minnesota law but if we used here the appeal court wouldn't necessarily overturn a verdict just because there was a concern over one juror they would look to see if they were concerned about the safety of the verdict generally. To do that they'd look at the strength of the evidence, how long the jury took to decide etc and they'd only order a retrial in limited circumstances. It's not every technicality that leads to a retrial. That said I accept the point this was a pretty fundamental issue and therefore may result in a retrial. I didn't see enough of the trial to know if it should result in a retrial. The more though I read I think it will be a close decision and a retrial will be ordered. It will be interesting to see. I think this has a while to go yet.
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

J70

Quote from: whitey on May 05, 2021, 09:27:39 PM
If the guy lied the verdict is invalid (whether it was the right or wrong verdict)

He said "affected the result".

That implies the juror in some way influenced or had a decisive say on the outcome.

I'm not arguing the legal technicalities.

whitey

Quote from: J70 on May 06, 2021, 11:45:57 AM
Quote from: whitey on May 05, 2021, 09:27:39 PM
If the guy lied the verdict is invalid (whether it was the right or wrong verdict)

He said "affected the result".

That implies the juror in some way influenced or had a decisive say on the outcome.

I'm not arguing the legal technicalities.

I don't think it matters if it "affected the result"

It was no longer an impartial jury once the guy lied on the questionnaire


J70

Quote from: whitey on May 06, 2021, 12:12:24 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 06, 2021, 11:45:57 AM
Quote from: whitey on May 05, 2021, 09:27:39 PM
If the guy lied the verdict is invalid (whether it was the right or wrong verdict)

He said "affected the result".

That implies the juror in some way influenced or had a decisive say on the outcome.

I'm not arguing the legal technicalities.

I don't think it matters if it "affected the result"

It was no longer an impartial jury once the guy lied on the questionnaire

My understanding was that Gmac somehow thought Chauvin could have been acquitted, based on the presented evidence, except for this guy.

That is all I'm asking about.

I fully accept and I'm not arguing against the fact that the verdict could be found unsafe on the legal technicality this idiot juror has injected into the proceedings.

whitey

#1149
Quote from: J70 on May 06, 2021, 12:18:41 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 06, 2021, 12:12:24 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 06, 2021, 11:45:57 AM
Quote from: whitey on May 05, 2021, 09:27:39 PM
If the guy lied the verdict is invalid (whether it was the right or wrong verdict)

He said "affected the result".

That implies the juror in some way influenced or had a decisive say on the outcome.

I'm not arguing the legal technicalities.

I don't think it matters if it "affected the result"

It was no longer an impartial jury once the guy lied on the questionnaire

My understanding was that Gmac somehow thought Chauvin could have been acquitted, based on the presented evidence, except for this guy.

That is all I'm asking about.

I fully accept and I'm not arguing against the fact that the verdict could be found unsafe on the legal technicality this idiot juror has injected into the proceedings.

Maybe it was a tongue in cheek comment

It would be accurate to say that had this juror answered truthfully he probably would not have been selected to serve on the jury...... someone else would have taken his place.  There is no way of knowing how this other person would have voted.....we can assume he/she would have voted to convict, but that's not how juries work

David McKeown

Quote from: whitey on May 06, 2021, 12:23:23 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 06, 2021, 12:18:41 PM
Quote from: whitey on May 06, 2021, 12:12:24 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 06, 2021, 11:45:57 AM
Quote from: whitey on May 05, 2021, 09:27:39 PM
If the guy lied the verdict is invalid (whether it was the right or wrong verdict)

He said "affected the result".

That implies the juror in some way influenced or had a decisive say on the outcome.

I'm not arguing the legal technicalities.

I don't think it matters if it "affected the result"

It was no longer an impartial jury once the guy lied on the questionnaire

My understanding was that Gmac somehow thought Chauvin could have been acquitted, based on the presented evidence, except for this guy.

That is all I'm asking about.

I fully accept and I'm not arguing against the fact that the verdict could be found unsafe on the legal technicality this idiot juror has injected into the proceedings.

Maybe it was a tongue in cheek comment

It would be accurate to say that had this juror answered truthfully he probably would not have been selected to serve on the jury...... someone else would have taken his place.  There is no way of knowing how this other person would have voted.....we can assume he/she would have voted to convict, but that's not how juries work

Yeah that's true but in some places like the UK it is kind of how appeals work but as I have said the whole jury system is somewhat different so I'm intrigued to see how Minnesota operates
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

Eamonnca1

Of the people killed by police in the US every year, about half are deaf or have some other disability or impairment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Rkctxo_LQI

Gabriel_Hurl


StPatsAbu

Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on June 25, 2021, 08:57:53 PM
22.5 years for Derek Chauvin

No doubt will be snuck out on a new career touring Iraq or Afghanistan

armaghniac

A New York Times investigation last fall revealed that in the previous five years police officers pulling over cars had killed more than 400 motorists who were neither wielding a gun or knife nor under pursuit for a violent crime — a rate of more than one a week.
If at first you don't succeed, then goto Plan B