Chauvin found guilty of murder, manslaughter in George Floyd's death

[Zeedox]

That picture doesn't show much more then him in a t-shirt and quite frankly doesn't even show much around him except out of focus lights.
When did standing on a sidewalk, while wearing a t-shirt with your town's name on it, and waving at the annual passing parade make you a member of said parade?

 

[Gomez Adams]

The news showed the whole thing. It's a bunch of his friends in a bar together pretty much stomping on Chauvin in effigy.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz]

I don't see it happening. Wearing a t-shirt in a bar isn't taking part in a mass demonstration. It is pretty fucking stupid he didn't mention it knowing he posted it on fucking Facebook though.

 

[Gomez Adams]

I hope you're right.

 

[Zeedox]

The news showed the whole thing. It's a bunch of his friends in a bar together pretty much stomping on Chauvin in effigy.

Thanks. I had tried to find something up here but was stymied.

Effigy? - did they have an actual mannequin or something?

But if it is just him and his friends in a bar that doesn't sound like a protest.

 

[Gomez Adams]

My fault for using effigy. More figuratively than anything else.

Still, wearing that shirt, talking smack about the case, then not admitting it when you should have so you can get on that jury, is about as bad as it gets.

If it were you and you found out someone that hated your guts had convicted you, would you simply accept that as a fair and impartial jury of your peers?

Probably not. And rightly so, regardless how obviously guilty you are.

 

[Zeedox]

My fault for using effigy. More figuratively than anything else.

Still, wearing that shirt, talking smack about the case, then not admitting it when you should have so you can get on that jury, is about as bad as it gets.

Some people are very literal. Ask a Irishman if he knows how to get to "X" and he'll say "yes" and they'll be no directions.

If it were you and you found out someone that hated your guts had convicted you, would you simply accept that as a fair and impartial jury of your peers?

Probably not. And rightly so, regardless how obviously guilty you are.

Those are the chances with juries.

 

[Gomez Adams]

Those are the chances with juries.

Not in the United States.

Or at least it's not supposed to be, hence jury misconduct hearings. It happens more often than you think.

 

[Zeedox]

Not in the United States.

Or at least it's not supposed to be, hence jury misconduct hearings. It happens more often than you think.

Isn't there a limit on the amount of jurors you can say "no" to during jury selection?

 

[Gomez Adams]

Yes. It depends on jurisdiction and number of jurors.

Example: for a small trial with 6 jurors in Georgia you will have 10 jurors for voir dire with each side able to exclude 2.

 

[Gomez Adams]

There is another possibility I hadn't considered: the judge COULD (although highly unlikely) disqualify that particular juror and have an alternate render verdict.

They had two alternate jurors on this case. They could simply disqualify the juror in question and go with an alternate.

I'm sure the defense would appeal that too, but at this stage you can bet they're going to appeal everything.

 

[Zeedox]

If there's a limit on the number of potential jury members you can exclude then the possibility of a bad juror is always there.