Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DriveInDriѵeOut" data-source="post: 4851969" data-attributes="member: 44954">[URL unfurl=&quot;true&quot;]https://lawofselfdefense.com/breaking-chauvin-files-for-new-trial-citing-juror-misconduct-and-other-grounds/[/URL]<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The failure of the court to allow a change of venue</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The failure of the court to recognize that pre-trial publicity made a fair trial impossible.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The failure of the court to sequester the jury for the duration of the trial.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The State’s pervasive prosecutorial misconduct.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The failure of the court to order Floyd’s purported drug dealer Morries Hall, present with Floyd at the time of his arrest, to testify.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The claim that the court improperly instructed the jury on second-degree unintentional murder.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The failure of the court to prevent the State from presenting prejudicial cumulative evidence.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The failure of the court to prevent the State’s leading questioning of their witnesses.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The failure of the court to not require a record to be made of the many sidebars.</li>
</ul>Further, the defense moved for what’s called a Schwartz hearing, where the verdict could be impeached (shown to be invalid) on the grounds of jury misconduct. This hearing would involve direct questioning of the jurors, usually by the judge with defense counsel and prosecutors in attendance but not directly participating in this questioning.Presumably this jury misconduct claim is based upon recent revelations that juror #52, Brandon Mitchell, shown in the feature image, concealed his activist impartiality, including participation at George Floyd protests, from the court during his voir dire (jury selection).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DriveInDriѵeOut, post: 4851969, member: 44954"] [URL unfurl="true"]https://lawofselfdefense.com/breaking-chauvin-files-for-new-trial-citing-juror-misconduct-and-other-grounds/[/URL] [LIST] [*]The failure of the court to allow a change of venue [*]The failure of the court to recognize that pre-trial publicity made a fair trial impossible. [*]The failure of the court to sequester the jury for the duration of the trial. [*]The State’s pervasive prosecutorial misconduct. [*]The failure of the court to order Floyd’s purported drug dealer Morries Hall, present with Floyd at the time of his arrest, to testify. [*]The claim that the court improperly instructed the jury on second-degree unintentional murder. [*]The failure of the court to prevent the State from presenting prejudicial cumulative evidence. [*]The failure of the court to prevent the State’s leading questioning of their witnesses. [*]The failure of the court to not require a record to be made of the many sidebars. [/LIST] Further, the defense moved for what’s called a Schwartz hearing, where the verdict could be impeached (shown to be invalid) on the grounds of jury misconduct. This hearing would involve direct questioning of the jurors, usually by the judge with defense counsel and prosecutors in attendance but not directly participating in this questioning. Presumably this jury misconduct claim is based upon recent revelations that juror #52, Brandon Mitchell, shown in the feature image, concealed his activist impartiality, including participation at George Floyd protests, from the court during his voir dire (jury selection). [/QUOTE]

Verification