The Trial of Derek Chauvin

[WillUSAF 226]

13 hours ago, SKJ said:

Is he in GenPop on a yard that's not in good standing? there are 3 or 4 in the feds... those are the yards they send all the molesters,  rapists,  high profile snitches,  and cops  to...

 

In the feds they have the resources to develop yards like that,  for gang dropouts, check-ins and such. 

Trust me,  he's not walking a main line above low security being both a skin beef and a cop

oh im not sure. she just told me that he was in general pop....its a low security prison also

[SquishMitten 10414]

12 hours ago, SquishMitten said:

Because he would’ve been cross examined and destroyed. You think someone who murdered a guy while knowing he was being filmed is capable of coming across as something even remotely human?

 

12 hours ago, SquishMitten said:

100% agree. And I’d bet that’s what his attorney told him to do. But it was Chauvin’s choice in the end, and he’s now 0 for 2 on the biggest decisions in his life

I guess I kind of contradicted myself here.

12 hours ago, cabowabo said:

Lol. There is 0% chance his attorney told him to take the stand. 

What I should've said is that his attorney likely said something like this: "You have two options. 1) You testify. You apologize your ass off, say you found God, you pray for Floyd's family every day, and every moment of your life is consumed by wishing you could get a do-over on that day. But unless you're a gotdamned wizard up there, there's a 100% chance they find you guilty of, at minimum, the manslaughter charge, or 2) You don't testify, and it's very likely they find you guilty of second degree unintentional murder. If it were me, I would accept that I'm going to be found guilty of at least one of these charges. Because of that, I would take the stand, try to get some sympathy, and hope for the lowest charge."

But to my first quoted post above, I have zero confidence that he wouldn't be absolutely decimated on the stand. Hindsight and all that, but taking the stand couldn't have caused a worse outcome with regard to the verdict. I suppose it could eventually have played a factor in sentencing though. This is one of many reasons I don't practice criminal law though. I wouldn't want to be in the position to make such a recommendation to a client.

[SquishMitten 10414]

1 hour ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Y'all need to stop engaging that CR troll. He clearly has no intent of faithfully discussing events here and is instead trying to make it all about his political beliefs while making a fool of himself.

Fucking this. He's making a bunch of us agree with Johnny fucking Sack for Christ's sake. 

[GW Hayduke 1953]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

Silly take. 2d Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with it. The only legal issue is the reasonableness, or lack thereof, of the decision to shoot in light of the totality of the circumstances. 

And how can we remove the 2nd amendment from the totality of the circumstances.  The officer is working in the US. The US has a second amendment. The US has about 120 firearms for every 100 people.  Every door an officer knocks on, every vehicle he pulls over has the potential to encounter an armed individual.  If an officer is threatened by the presence of a firearm, they should move to Thailand or Canada where there are only about 15 firearms per 100 people or Japan where there are only about 0.06 firearms per 100 people.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country

If the presence of a firearm is threatening for any officer, especially when coupled with a lack of violent or threatening actions by the victim, then that officer should be working in another country.  If an officer chooses to work in the US, they need to have some level of comfort with firearms.  Their presence should not be deemed an automatic threat that justifies the use of deadly force.  

[SKJ 1311]

59 minutes ago, WillUSAF said:

oh im not sure. she just told me that he was in general pop....its a low security prison also

Yeah,  baby rapers always get the best treatment by the bureau. 

That's why the rest of the prisoners shit on them so hard.  Well,  that and they rape kids and shouldn't be breathing 

[Gil Bang 25975]

Holy shit...if recruits took a look at the texags politics board, I don't think they'd ever get another black kid to commit there.  

What a bunch of racist moron fuckheads. 

 

 

[Gatorubet 30246]

And how can we remove the 2nd amendment from the totality of the circumstances. 

You need a couple working synapses firing.

[fattyflattie 4639]

35 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Holy shit...if recruits took a look at the texags politics board, I don't think they'd ever get another black kid to commit there.  

What a bunch of racist moron fuckheads. 

 

 

Bags of cash out front should have told you this won’t be an issue. 

[J.R. Juniors Junior Jr. 1084]

1 hour ago, Gil Bang said:

Holy shit...if recruits took a look at the texags politics board, I don't think they'd ever get another black kid to commit there.  

What a bunch of racist moron fuckheads. 

 

 

That incident about the statues should have done the trick alreaduy.

[Jkwellborn 6708]

And do we have any indication the cop knew this kids age?  Not that it is that important as a 13 year old is old enough to pull a trigger.  But nothing I have seen indicates the cop knew how old he was.  

The fact that the kid was 13 has fuck all to do with it other than eliciting emotions.

[WhatTheBuck 28788]

4 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

There are obvious examples of bad policing out there but from the video I saw, you're picking a bad scenario. The cop didn't shoot a fleeing person. He shot a stationary person that was quickly turning around in a dark alley and there was a gun in view. A hardcore criminal would say this kid acted poorly in brandishing a weapon in this case. The act of throwing the weapon meant it was in his hand at some point. In a dark alley, only illuminated by a flashlight. 

This story is almost the polar opposite of the George Floyd case. It's easy to freeze the video and show how the gun is on the ground .3 seconds after it was in his hand.

There was no gun in his hand. The cop ordered him to drop it and he dropped it. His hands were empty and raised in the air in the universal gesture of, “I give up.” He wasn’t in the dark, the cop was shining a light on him.

Adam should’ve kept running. When I was his age no cop ever would’ve caught me because I knew every yard, fence row, tree line, and back alley way better than he did. 

[Armybrat 40850]

4 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

There was no gun in his hand. The cop ordered him to drop it and he dropped it. His hands were empty and raised in the air in the universal gesture of, “I give up.” He wasn’t in the dark, the cop was shining a light on him.

Adam should’ve kept running. When I was his age no cop ever would’ve caught me because I knew every yard, fence row, tree line, and back alley way better than he did. 

Were you a hurdler on your high school track team?

[TwiceHorn 31495]

3 hours ago, SquishMitten said:

 

I guess I kind of contradicted myself here.

What I should've said is that his attorney likely said something like this: "You have two options. 1) You testify. You apologize your ass off, say you found God, you pray for Floyd's family every day, and every moment of your life is consumed by wishing you could get a do-over on that day. But unless you're a gotdamned wizard up there, there's a 100% chance they find you guilty of, at minimum, the manslaughter charge, or 2) You don't testify, and it's very likely they find you guilty of second degree unintentional murder. If it were me, I would accept that I'm going to be found guilty of at least one of these charges. Because of that, I would take the stand, try to get some sympathy, and hope for the lowest charge."

But to my first quoted post above, I have zero confidence that he wouldn't be absolutely decimated on the stand. Hindsight and all that, but taking the stand couldn't have caused a worse outcome with regard to the verdict. I suppose it could eventually have played a factor in sentencing though. This is one of many reasons I don't practice criminal law though. I wouldn't want to be in the position to make such a recommendation to a client.

Yep.  I couldn't imagine being a criminal lawyer where the stakes are death or a goodly portion of a lifetime in prison.  I think that would wear me slick really quick.

I've been involved in some financially very high stakes stuff, tens and hundreds of millions on the line, and tensions ran high everywhere.  But if you ever needed a reminder that "it's just money," compare that to defending a capital case.

[WillUSAF 226]

2 hours ago, SKJ said:

Yeah,  baby rapers always get the best treatment by the bureau. 

That's why the rest of the prisoners shit on them so hard.  Well,  that and they rape kids and shouldn't be breathing 

agree!

[SHOOTER12 8810]

18 hours ago, Gourmand said:

No question this is a justified use of lethal force. The teen with the knife was about to plunge it into the other girl. 

I agree, and it was hard to tell in the video even with slowmo, but it appeared that she tried to stab the first girl who fell down.  It looked like she fell down trying to dodge getting stabbed/sliced whatever.

[Guest Lobo]

so is it tonight then, all the looting, rioting, mass murder, arson, tearing down the great American cities?  That's what I was promised either way after the Chauvin trial.  I have it on good authority that 'those people' are going to destroy their own towns.  Are we punting this until the weekend because if I recall, none of those people have jobs, so they can start tonight if need be---no need to get up for the back half of the work-week, amirite?  

Somebody let me know when it's starting.  I'm available, along with Hannity, to monitor police bands on my home radio setup so we can link every single misdemeanor to the Chauvin verdict.  I'm sure, somewhere, somebody in American just broke a window.  What anarchical group can we pin that on?  

Gonna be fucking lame if this shit doesn't stoke up until next week.  I got CVS shit I gotta get. 

Edited April 21, 2021 by Lobo

[Enchubben 5510]

10 hours ago, Lobo said:

Whew, long night of rioting.  Just getting caught up.  Where was the night of insane calamity and anarchy I was promised? 

I read a second headline on foxnews.com that says a Portland police officer was punched last night (major news that police in big cities sometimes get hit by assholes).  

What about looting?  Arson?  Collapse of law and order in multiple cities and jurisdictions?  This is fucking lame America, just another Wednesday morning?  Boring!

We’re all glad that didn’t happen last night, but I wouldn’t be celebrating just yet. There could be an appeal at some point thanks to dipshit Maxine Waters. 

[GopherRock 1765]

12 hours ago, Enchubben said:

We’re all glad that didn’t happen last night, but I wouldn’t be celebrating just yet. There could be an appeal at some point thanks to dipshit Maxine Waters. 

What little chance he has on appeal is from incompetent counsel, not from external factors. That jury was one that didn't need much convincing.

[Guest Lobo]

I did not have on 2021 bingo, that LeBron James, not Derek Chauvin, would be causing angry protests in the Midwest last night.  Minneapolis seems to be relative calm despite what else is happening there right now.  Meanwhile, Columbus is having what local residents refer to as "Wednesday", which means fucking chaos.  But it appears completely unrelated to the Chauvin/Floyd trial.  

[po elvis 2073]

At what point does Black Lives Matter need to legitimize using George Floyd as their bellwether case by proving racism in this specific case? And what does it say when their bellwether case involves zero evidence of racism? Is evidence needed or are assumptions good enough?

[mchookem 16336]

i don't think at any point? his death was obviously a catalyst for many last summer, and it did seem to galvanize more white people to join/support the movement. the fact that his murderer was actually tried and convicted is certainly novel. but BLM was around long before his death. 

[Eskimohorn 5635]

At what point does Black Lives Matter need to legitimize using George Floyd as their bellwether case by proving racism in this specific case? And what does it say when their bellwether case involves zero evidence of racism? Is evidence needed or are assumptions good enough?

Again, the mean police man was not seen taking off his white hood and confederate flag hat before the murder. The prosecutor to my knowledge did not introduce evidence of racism as a motive.

BLM is armed with plenty of evidence of systemic racism and inequity in our justice system, as well as plenty of current examples where miscarriages of justice occurred.

Citing the GF case as proof justice was served is intellectually dishonest even if you were just asking questions like some kind of unfrozen caveman lawyer.

[GopherRock 1765]

One of the jurors is talking.

 

Quote

 

Brandon Mitchell is the first juror that deliberated in Derek Chauvin's trial to talk publicly about his experience. An alternate juror who was dismissed before deliberations, Lisa Christensen, spoke to reporters last week, saying she would have voted to convict Chauvin.

"I felt like it should have been 20 minutes," Mitchell, 31, said of the deliberations, which led to Chauvin's conviction April 20 on all counts: second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter.

 

 

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

15 minutes ago, GopherRock said:

One of the jurors is talking.

 

 

Interesting, do these comments do much for the appeals process?

[Captainant 27680]

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Interesting, do these comments do much for the appeals process?

The comments aren't really all that salacious, the most specific thing was about why deliberation took as long as it did was because one juror "wanted to make sure they got it right". The interview did not give even a hint of bias or prejudice to their deliberations

[Brisketexan 105154]

50 minutes ago, Captainant said:

the most specific thing was about why deliberation took as long as it did was because one juror "wanted to make sure they got it right".

Had that happen to me in a case many years ago.  The jury was out for hours.  Came back with a verdict in our favor, which was a simple and easy path.  When we talked to jurors afterwards to ask why it took so long, it was because of one juror who took that exact approach -- "whoa, fellas, let's talk through ALL of the evidence, just to be sure."

A little vindication for me, as I had pushed to strike that juror, but the partner I was working for really wanted him, and he was the biggest impediment to our quick win.

[Gourmand 7774]

35 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Had that happen to me in a case many years ago.  The jury was out for hours.  Came back with a verdict in our favor, which was a simple and easy path.  When we talked to jurors afterwards to ask why it took so long, it was because of one juror who took that exact approach -- "whoa, fellas, let's talk through ALL of the evidence, just to be sure."

A little vindication for me, as I had pushed to strike that juror, but the partner I was working for really wanted him, and he was the biggest impediment to our quick win.

Just out of curiosity but what percentage of jurors are typically open to talking to counsel after?

I've only served on one jury (personal injury liability lawsuit involving a cyclist and driver) and we deliberated for a long time before reaching a verdict for the defense. I think I was one of the few jurors to actually stay and talk to the plaintiff's attorneys and I spoke to them at length to explain our decision. I felt terrible for them because I could tell they were devastated by the verdict. It was a very tough case that was ultimately decided by the reading of the jury instructions. It was small in the grand scheme of our court system but it meant everything to that plaintiff and her attorneys. I still think about her often and how she's doing today. 

[Brisketexan 105154]

1 minute ago, Gourmand said:

Just out of curiosity but what percentage of jurors are typically open to talking to counsel after?

I've only served on one jury (personal injury liability lawsuit involving a cyclist and driver) and we deliberated for a long time before reaching a verdict for the defense. I think I was one of the few jurors to actually stay and talk to the plaintiff's attorneys and I spoke to them at length to explain our decision. I felt terrible for them because I could tell they were devastated by the verdict. It was a very tough case that was ultimately decided by the reading of the jury instructions. It was small in the grand scheme of our court system but it meant everything to that plaintiff and her attorneys. I still think about her often and how she's doing today. 

Depends on the case, and how emotional it was -- which cuts both ways.  Generally, it's only 2-3 per jury, but that's enough.

[Baconboy 135]

51 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Had that happen to me in a case many years ago.  The jury was out for hours.  Came back with a verdict in our favor, which was a simple and easy path.  When we talked to jurors afterwards to ask why it took so long, it was because of one juror who took that exact approach -- "whoa, fellas, let's talk through ALL of the evidence, just to be sure."

A little vindication for me, as I had pushed to strike that juror, but the partner I was working for really wanted him, and he was the biggest impediment to our quick win.

I get that you'd prefer to be out of there sooner rather than later, but isn't this what we should all want from jurors? Deliberately evaluating all evidence seems like a good thing to me, especially if it leads to a just verdict.

[Brisketexan 105154]

Just now, Baconboy said:

I get that you'd prefer to be out of there sooner rather than later, but isn't this what we should all want from jurors? Deliberately evaluating all evidence seems like a good thing to me, especially if it leads to a just verdict.

Oh, in general, it's not a bad thing.  But as an ADVOCATE, when I have the jury leaning so hard my way, I want them to finish and issue a verdict for me fast, before they hem and haw and maybe decide to equivocate on some finding.  Again, that's my perspective as an advocate.

[Dahobbs 17625]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, in general, it's not a bad thing.  But as an ADVOCATE, when I have the jury leaning so hard my way, I want them to finish and issue a verdict for me fast, before they hem and haw and maybe decide to equivocate on some finding.  Again, that's my perspective as an advocate.

It also depends on your side of the aisle. For plaintiffs, a quick verdict almost certainly means you've lost. Generally, even if the jury is 100% with you, putting a number on paper is going to take time. If they come back fast, that means they didn't need to get into any of that because they are pouring you out on something. 

Edited April 28, 2021 by Dahobbs

[Brisketexan 105154]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It also depends on your side of the aisle. For plaintiffs, a quick verdict almost certainly means you've lost. Generally, even if the jury is 100% with you, putting a number on paper is going to take time. If they come back fast, that means they didn't need to get into any of that because they are pouring you out on something. 

Generally true.  As a defendant though, I had a jury take a LONG time, because emotionally, they wanted to answer YES on liability.....but when they came back to the evidence and the charge instructions, they had to find an agonizing NO.  So, defense won, but the deliberations were long because the jury was trying to find a reason to find for a sympathetic plaintiff.

[Dahobbs 17625]

22 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Generally true.  As a defendant though, I had a jury take a LONG time, because emotionally, they wanted to answer YES on liability.....but when they came back to the evidence and the charge instructions, they had to find an agonizing NO.  So, defense won, but the deliberations were long because the jury was trying to find a reason to find for a sympathetic plaintiff.

Yep, that definitely happens too. But in general the odds are better for the plaintiff if the jury takes some time. 

Back to the discussion, something to keep in mind is that some jurisdictions don't allow the lawyers to talk with jurors at all (or there may be a specific post trial procedure you have to jump through). 

Edited April 28, 2021 by Dahobbs

[hornmpa96 2618]

This morning the juror was interviewed on GMA and was asked a question about Chauvin invoking his 5th Amendment rights and impact on the jury’s decision. His answer seemed to indicate that it was at least considered. Does that go against the jury instructions and have any impact on potential appeals?

I was fairly annoyed at Robin Roberts for even asking the question.

[Captainant 27680]

2 minutes ago, hornmpa96 said:

This morning the juror was interviewed on GMA and was asked a question about Chauvin invoking his 5th Amendment rights and impact on the jury’s decision. His answer seemed to indicate that it was at least considered. Does that go against the jury instructions and have any impact on potential appeals?

I was fairly annoyed at Robin Roberts for even asking the question.

From the Star Tribune article above he said the following on Chauvin not taking the stand:

Quote

It probably was to his detriment that he didn't take the stand because people were curious on what his thoughts were throughout the entire incident

So I wouldn't characterize it as "Chauvin not taking the stand was seen negatively", but rather "Chauvin missed out on an opportunity to share his internal reasoning for his actions". Bit of a difference there imo, and not an out-of-bounds question for the interview

[Brisketexan 105154]

Just now, Captainant said:

From the Star Tribune article above he said the following on Chauvin not taking the stand:

So I wouldn't characterize it as "Chauvin not taking the stand was seen negatively", but rather "Chauvin missed out on an opportunity to share his internal reasoning for his actions". Bit of a difference there imo, and not an out-of-bounds question for the interview

Agree with your take.

[DDD Dad 14339]

5 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Had that happen to me in a case many years ago.  The jury was out for hours.  Came back with a verdict in our favor, which was a simple and easy path.  When we talked to jurors afterwards to ask why it took so long, it was because of one juror who took that exact approach -- "whoa, fellas, let's talk through ALL of the evidence, just to be sure."

A little vindication for me, as I had pushed to strike that juror, but the partner I was working for really wanted him, and he was the biggest impediment to our quick win.

The partner understood you'd both be billing whilst waiting on that juror to "be sure."  Advantage partner.

[GopherRock 1765]

DoJ piling on. All officers involved are looking at deprivation of civil rights charges. What's crazy is that If Chauvin had been acquitted, the federales would have arrested him in the courthouse.

https://www.startribune.com/feds-plan-to-indict-chauvin-other-three-ex-officers-on-civil-rights-charges/600051374/

Quote

Under the contingency arrest plan, the Minnesota U.S. Attorney's Office would have charged Chauvin by criminal complaint — a quicker alternative for a federal charge that doesn't require a grand jury — so they could arrest him immediately, and then asked a grand jury for an indictment, according to sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly.

 

[High Plains Drifter 11050]

On 4/28/2021 at 8:54 AM, GopherRock said:

One of the jurors is talking.

 

 

 

 

Always someone who fancies themselves the twelfth angry man.

 

 

[Lechuza 31]

Gonna be interesting to see what happens when this conviction gets overturned.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html

[TwiceHorn 31495]

16 minutes ago, Lechuza said:

Gonna be interesting to see what happens when this conviction gets overturned.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html

That's not going to result in reversal.  And certainly not in acquittal.  And the headline is bullshit.

The only vulnerability this verdict may have is due to the "pretrial publicity" and change of venue/delay of trial issues.

And that's just going to get him a retrial, and another conviction.

[DanRydell 799]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's not going to result in reversal.  And certainly not in acquittal.  And the headline is bullshit.

The only vulnerability this verdict may have is due to the "pretrial publicity" and change of venue/delay of trial issues.

And that's just going to get him a retrial, and another conviction.

If there's a finding that he intentionally lied during voir dire to mislead the court and attorneys, that could be a valid basis to order a re-trial. 

[hayden_horn 11362]

yeah, that seems fairly significant to me. 

if you are a juror who wants to go public, make sure you haven't mislead the court at any point. it's age of social media - if you done something the world will see you done something.

[Guest Lobo]

Yeah, I think the judge would realize..."We have to have some black people on this jury.  The hard part will be finding a black person that hadn't participated in a march for George Floyd."  I don't think anybody would be shocked that a potential juror protested or bought BLM schwag.  The defense would blow through their preemptive strikes in 5 minutes.  But you can't lie to the judge about it, that's sort of a problem.  

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Looks unbiased to me

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

25 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's not going to result in reversal.  And certainly not in acquittal.  And the headline is bullshit.

The only vulnerability this verdict may have is due to the "pretrial publicity" and change of venue/delay of trial issues.

And that's just going to get him a retrial, and another conviction.

Disagree if they do a hearing and determine he lied during    voir dire.  
 

He said he was asked if he attended any rallies related to George Floyd or police brutality. He said no. He did, and it was months before. He said it was about voter registration but he is at a rally advertised as specifically about George Floyd and police brutality. He's even wearing the shirt. Sorry, he flat out lied. He later talks about needing to spark change. His lie and his motive are clear.

[cabowabo 4487]

And not surprisingly, he was the first to go public.  The guy is guilty, and is where he needs to be.  But, we can't have potential jurors blatantly lying to a Court during voire dire.  It's gonna get overturned, and we'll have to go through the trial again because this guy just had to have his 15 minutes of fame.

Edited May 4, 2021 by cabowabo

[TwiceHorn 31495]

There is zero evidence contained in that article that he lied about anything.  That headline is bullshit.  Daily Mail isn't usually partisan, but you can count on clickbait every time.

Here is a more balanced article.  https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2021/05/04/derek-chauvin-juror-brandon-mitchells-participation-in-d-c-march-could-help-appeal-legal-experts-say/

If he lied or misled attorneys during voir dire, that could be an issue, but if they failed to ask the right question, it absolutely is not.  There is currently no evidence that he lied.

Edited May 4, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[hayden_horn 11362]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There is zero evidence contained in that article that he lied about anything.  That headline is bullshit.  Daily Mail isn't usually partisan, but you can count on clickbait every time.

Here is a more balanced article.  https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2021/05/04/derek-chauvin-juror-brandon-mitchells-participation-in-d-c-march-could-help-appeal-legal-experts-say/

If he lied or misled attorneys during voir dire, that could be an issue, but if they failed to ask the right question, it absolutely is not.  There is currently no evidence that he lied.

well, the dailymail is absolutely partisan. and they dabble in some sensationalism. they are viewed as fairly far right in the uk.

but reading through the article, it looks like it was a mlk event, not necessarily a blm event, but he's in that picture with a shirt that says "get your knee off my neck."

but then again, i'm not sure how you find an unbiased black man to sit on a jury like this. 

and this idea that jurors need to be pure as the driven snow and come in with no preconceived notions or biases is kind of silly. you try to root out the most biased, sure, but you'll never have a jury that comes in out of the dark with a year long media and social circle blackout and no knowledge of the national event they are asked to judge. it's simply impossible with this case. this isn't "local vagrant killed in shootout with police" type media coverage. this was an international story.

[TwiceHorn 31495]

7 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

well, the dailymail is absolutely partisan. and they dabble in some sensationalism. they are viewed as fairly far right in the uk.

but reading through the article, it looks like it was a mlk event, not necessarily a blm event, but he's in that picture with a shirt that says "get your knee off my neck."

but then again, i'm not sure how you find an unbiased black man to sit on a jury like this. 

and this idea that jurors need to be pure as the driven snow and come in with no preconceived notions or biases is kind of silly. you try to root out the most biased, sure, but you'll never have a jury that comes in out of the dark with a year long media and social circle blackout and no knowledge of the national event they are asked to judge. it's simply impossible with this case. this isn't "local vagrant killed in shootout with police" type media coverage. this was an international story.

Good post.  I was ignorant, then of Daily Mail's poltical stance.  I only see sensationalism and tons of ads.