Update on the jury selection process in the Chauvin/George Floyd trial.
Judge is now questioning a 19-year-old man about serving on the George Floyd jury. He seems terrified to be there, wrote that he does not want to serve on the jury.
— Jack Poso ?? (@JackPosobiec) March 9, 2021
Juror #10 asks not to serve on the George Floyd jury due to safety concerns of becoming a target. Judge dismisses him for these and work reasons.
— Jack Poso ?? (@JackPosobiec) March 9, 2021
BREAKING: Juror #8 says he is concerned rioters will attack his house if he serves on the jury and his name is released in George Floyd trial
— Jack Poso ?? (@JackPosobiec) March 9, 2021
I don’t blame them for feeling this way.
The problem is that means that the only people who would be willing to sit on a jury are those who are prejudiced on the side of the mob.
This isn’t any more just than a mob lynching, only in this case the mob gets the jury to do the lynching under the color of law.
Move it to another venue. I’ll serve as a juror. And I will fairly render a verdict.
“Lynching under the color of law” was a specialty of the later Jim Crow South, after all, and brought less negative attention.
You could solve this by simply stating ‘any attempt to influence or assault jurors, during or after the trial, will be prosecuted with unlimited sanction’.
Make it clear it won’t be tolerated.
But they won’t do that.
Yes, but jury intimidation is already a crime. It doesn’t look like that judge has any interest in enforcing that law. Somewhat more surprising is that counsel for the defense is (at least judging by these reports) not raising that issue. Perhaps that will come later, to set up an appeal asking for dismissal with prejudice.
The only way to make this fair is to change the venue. Period.
That may or may not help. Unfortunately, the national media picked up on this case and reported half-truths and biased narratives immediately, and many of those early reports proven to be false still haven’t been retracted or corrected.
With that level of national coverage, you’d be hard-pressed to find 14 people (12 jurors and 2 alternates) anywhere who haven’t heard of this case or formed some opinion on it.
It’s a state case, tried under state law, in state courts. Where in Minnesota do you move it to? The only real option would be way up north in a very rural county. And given that the prosecution is the State AG’s office, with its pull and resources, that’s never going to happen.
Result is that this is a legal lynching.
Heck I volunteer just don’t ask about the uhaul, entrenching tools, and the faint sound of giggling coming a suspicious looking walking Douglas fir tree.
Where are the Marshals on this, protecting high profile legal process, where’s the State County Mounties who have super special secret squirrel budget for VIP protective service details.
Oh wait. We can’t let the normies see what has become of the judicial process and just how blatant and emboldened the enemy has become.
An artificial difficulty with the “what is a good venue” question is the insistence that jurors have to be ignorant. There is no basis in law or constitution for that requirement. The requirement is that jurors make an honest and unbiased judgment of the case. Being ignorant of the matter is neither necessary nor sufficient for that.
The trouble is that court procedure and tradition has established ignorance as a requirement and I don’t see that bogus assumption being challenged.
For the case we have here, it’s unlikely you can find an ignorant juror, but it is perfectly reasonable to expect there to be thousands of honest and unbiased potential jurors. It would help for them to be somewhat removed from the source of jury intimidation (meaning, not residing in greater Minneapolis) and it’s also very helpful for them to be well armed.