Catch 22: Ban release of videos and evidence and get blamed for a cover up or post them everywhere and you can't get an impartial jury.
|
|
|
Chauvin going to jail?
- Thread starter timtune
- Start date
It would be interesting to see what happened if a widely circulated video of a crime was excluded from the trial by a judge. Could they find jurors that hadnt seen it? I know of the chauvin tape and have seen clips of it and a description of the rest on the news but I have not watched the whole thing.
For practical purposes, I think the line needs to be drawn at attempting to select impartial jurors. The local pool should be sufficient to meet that bar otherwise you are arguing that <10% of jurors are impartial in which case the system has failed and maybe we need to do trials before a judge alone (who has sworn to be impartial and has a documented track record). With news/video travelling so rapidly and widely now, imo bumping a trial to another location does very little to enhance fairness it is just an allowable obstructionist tactic by defense lawyers.
Yeah we do, he committed murder.
pfbmgd
Well-known member
One juror already outed as biased .
That's yet to be determined.
He admitted prior to trial that he supported BLM. The forms he signed were filled out truthfully. Both sides knew going in who and what he was.
Do you see a young lady or an old hag?
A lot depends on mind set and someone pointing out features to you.
I say it's an old hag because swirls in the top right quarter of the picture don't fit in with the young girl option. It's not her hair and doesn't look like a hat. It does fit in as a scarf for the old hag.
Give me an argument that says differently.
While the press could be stopped from distributing videos and pictures I don't know about FB and other social media. Texting can spread like wildfire as well. Hey Joey watch this and Joey sends it to 10 friends who send to to ten friends etc.
My thought would be to shut down the video as much as possible and especially publicly but immediately allow high profile, in this case BLM, leaders see it. The family too but warn them it is ugly. Explain that a release of the video could jeopardize a conviction on a juror selection basis. Let the concerned parties know the prosecutor's intentions and keep them advised of progress.
Ask the leaders to advise their followers that they have seen the videos and have agreed that justice will be better served by keeping it confidential until the trial is over.
Does the family want to see the video replayed every time the media has a slow day and finds an excuse to replay?
I hear a lot of "The public has the right to know" talk. Do they?
Isn't it more like "The press needs something to sell papers or score viewers".
I guess you're still betting on BLM to be the savior.
I don't know why you would want BLM to see the video unless you're happy with the actions over the last yr
It doesn't have to be BLM but the black community needs reassurance the case doesn't get buried. Pick some people that can be trusted to push non violence.
I have long had an issue with the police/press releasing info on people charged and then having minimal or no coverage for the vast majority of those people that do not get convicted of the charges that were presented. In general, I would prefer age, location, charge to be published now and fill in the details after conviction. Obviously there would be some exceptions but even those could be done with some discretion (eg. if you went to xxx pool during 2014-2019 and believe you saw or experienced inappropriate behaviour, please contact police regarding an active investigation).
For video, suppression is likely impossible. It would be nice if the headlines now were "a video is available" and after the trial (whether guilty or not-guilty), the video comes out.
pfbmgd
Well-known member
Truthfully you say . I guess my truth and yours differ greatly .
That statement just makes me shake my head.
How ****** is that. And they still allowed the person on the jury. Nothing rigged here
Both legal teams approved all jurors. That's the way jury selection works.
All jurors had to agree upon the guilty verdict. If that one particular juror had a dissenting view, (A) he was not able to convince the other jurors of that view, and (B) the other jurors obviously convinced that juror to go along with the majority. If someone's dissenting view is so strong that they cannot be convinced to go along with the majority, that's called a "hung jury", and that did not happen.
Furthermore, the fact that jury deliberations took a fairly short time, suggests that there wasn't anybody that needed any appreciable amount of convincing to go along with the verdict.
Having someone that is a BLM supporter in the jury may have been an intentional choice. Justice must not only be delivered, but must also be seen to be delivered.
All jurors had to agree upon the guilty verdict. If that one particular juror had a dissenting view, (A) he was not able to convince the other jurors of that view, and (B) the other jurors obviously convinced that juror to go along with the majority. If someone's dissenting view is so strong that they cannot be convinced to go along with the majority, that's called a "hung jury", and that did not happen.
Furthermore, the fact that jury deliberations took a fairly short time, suggests that there wasn't anybody that needed any appreciable amount of convincing to go along with the verdict.
Having someone that is a BLM supporter in the jury may have been an intentional choice. Justice must not only be delivered, but must also be seen to be delivered.
Do black lives not matter?
Do white lives matter?
Did the BLM guy say they didn’t?
LOL BLM have been screaming it for the last few yrs, Didn't you listen
|
|
|
|
|