Chauvin Verdict

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by Xan » Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:29 am

Does all this juror blabbing run any risk of a mistrial?

I read that one juror said that he didn't see any remorse in Chauvin's face. Is that a valid reason to convict?

Now here another says "she never doubted that Mr. Chauvin was guilty". Isn't an open mind required?
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by vnatale » Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:35 pm

Xan wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:29 am

Does all this juror blabbing run any risk of a mistrial?

I read that one juror said that he didn't see any remorse in Chauvin's face. Is that a valid reason to convict?

Now here another says "she never doubted that Mr. Chauvin was guilty". Isn't an open mind required?


The remorse? I never read that anywhere. Where did you read it? According this article the only people who have spoken about the trial were an alternate juror. I'm not remembering reading what you state. Plus, she had no part in the verdict since she was dismissed prior to the jury conducting deliberations.

The exact quote from the article was: "One of the two alternate jurors, who attended the trial but was excused before deliberations began, has spoken publicly, saying she never doubted that Mr. Chauvin was guilty."

It's not totally clear from that statement whether her never doubting started from when the trial started or after she'd heard all the testimony. However, again, as a dismissed alternate, she had no part in the actual verdicts.

Finally, this juror's statements reveals not a hint of what was alleged in this forum....that they came to their verdict based upon external pressures unrelated to just deciding based upon the testimony provided to them during the trial.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
flyingpylon
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1102
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:04 am

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by flyingpylon » Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:48 pm

vnatale wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:35 pm
According this article the only people who have spoken about the trial were an alternate juror.
One of the actual jurors also spoke about it.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_break ... 94357.html
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by Xan » Fri Apr 30, 2021 1:01 pm

flyingpylon wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:48 pm
vnatale wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:35 pm
According this article the only people who have spoken about the trial were an alternate juror.
One of the actual jurors also spoke about it.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_break ... 94357.html
Yes, it was apparently the same guy:

First Chauvin Juror Speaks Out: I Saw No Remorse in His Face
https://www.thedailybeast.com/derek-cha ... -cops-face
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by Tortoise » Fri Apr 30, 2021 2:16 pm

Xan wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 1:01 pm
First Chauvin Juror Speaks Out: I Saw No Remorse in His Face
https://www.thedailybeast.com/derek-cha ... -cops-face
Isn't it difficult to accurately discern certain facial expressions like remorse (whatever that's supposed to look like) when most of the person's face is covered by a mask at all times?
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by Xan » Fri Apr 30, 2021 2:21 pm

Tortoise wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 2:16 pm
Xan wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 1:01 pm
First Chauvin Juror Speaks Out: I Saw No Remorse in His Face
https://www.thedailybeast.com/derek-cha ... -cops-face
Isn't it difficult to accurately discern certain facial expressions like remorse (whatever that's supposed to look like) when most of the person's face is covered by a mask at all times?
Totally.

The juror didn't quite say that this lack of perceived remorse figured into his decision. But he's walking a fine line. If a juror were to openly admit that he convicted because he didn't like the look of the defendant, that's grounds for a mistrial, isn't it?
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by glennds » Fri Apr 30, 2021 2:39 pm

Xan wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 2:21 pm
Tortoise wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 2:16 pm
Xan wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 1:01 pm
First Chauvin Juror Speaks Out: I Saw No Remorse in His Face
https://www.thedailybeast.com/derek-cha ... -cops-face
Isn't it difficult to accurately discern certain facial expressions like remorse (whatever that's supposed to look like) when most of the person's face is covered by a mask at all times?
Totally.

The juror didn't quite say that this lack of perceived remorse figured into his decision. But he's walking a fine line. If a juror were to openly admit that he convicted because he didn't like the look of the defendant, that's grounds for a mistrial, isn't it?
If the reason for convicting was that the juror simply didn't like the look of the defendant, then I absolutely agree with you.

I have heard commentary from others (not jurors) that the compelling thing for them was the look of indifference on Chauvin's face while his knee was on GF's neck, and this is relevant because it factors directly into the statute i.e. the third degree murder charge applies to an act "..... eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life".
If Chauvin had not looked so casual with his hand in his pocket and maybe looked more attentive to GF, examining his condition, focusing on him more than just casually looking around, it might have been different.
I wonder if Chauvin's defense attorney spent much time coaching him on body language in the courtroom. While it might not be legally relevant, every little bit counts. I have been involved in commercial litigation as a party, and even though it was a bench trial without a jury, my attorney spent time talking about how to dress, how to act, body language, what to do what not to do.

Personally I don't think there is any upside to jurors speaking out and giving interviews, but if they do, choice of words is critical because so many people are biased in one way or another and wanting to hear what they want to hear.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by vnatale » Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:18 pm

Xan wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 1:01 pm

flyingpylon wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:48 pm

vnatale wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:35 pm

According this article the only people who have spoken about the trial were an alternate juror.


One of the actual jurors also spoke about it.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_break ... 94357.html


Yes, it was apparently the same guy:

First Chauvin Juror Speaks Out: I Saw No Remorse in His Face
https://www.thedailybeast.com/derek-cha ... -cops-face


This seems to be the most salient portion of the article you provided above:

Mitchell said he noticed a sharp change in Chauvin's demeanor over the course of the trial.

"To me, (Chauvin) started out really confident," he said. "The first week, for sure -- I felt like he was confident, his lawyers were confident. I could feel the confidence for sure."

But "as the case went on, his demeanor kind of changed to more of a confused look -- (like) this isn't how it's supposed to go," Mitchell said.

"I didn't see any remorse."

The trial took a toll on the jurors. Mitchell said he hadn't watched the full video of Floyd's death before the trial because "it was too gruesome."

He said he was moved to tears by the testimony of Floyd's brother, Philonise Floyd. Mitchell said there were a few times he broke down after court.

Another poignant moment came when pulmonary expert Martin J. Tobin testified about Floyd's last moments, explaining when he lost consciousness and when he says the video shows Floyd losing his life.

"Once Dr. Tobin was finished with his testimony, I felt like the trial was done," Mitchell said. "He spoke everything in layman's terms, and it made sense."

Tobin testified that restraints on Floyd continued for about three minutes, even after he stopped breathing.

That testimony helped solidify the decision for Mitchell, who said he had an open mind at the beginning of the trial.

"During the opening statements, I was curious to find out what the defense was going to bring to the table and convince us jurors," he said. "I didn't see any avenues to which they could go."
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by vnatale » Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:22 pm

Xan wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 2:21 pm

Tortoise wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 2:16 pm

Xan wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 1:01 pm

First Chauvin Juror Speaks Out: I Saw No Remorse in His Face
https://www.thedailybeast.com/derek-cha ... -cops-face


Isn't it difficult to accurately discern certain facial expressions like remorse (whatever that's supposed to look like) when most of the person's face is covered by a mask at all times?


Totally.

The juror didn't quite say that this lack of perceived remorse figured into his decision. But he's walking a fine line. If a juror were to openly admit that he convicted because he didn't like the look of the defendant, that's grounds for a mistrial, isn't it?


It's obvious each of us have a bias in reading the article which you provided.

My bias reads his describing of the lack of remorse being strictly related to his assessment of the confidence level of Chauvin and his defense team and had nothing at all to do with his verdict decision.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by moda0306 » Sun May 02, 2021 5:25 pm

MangoMan wrote:
Sun May 02, 2021 12:05 pm
Even When Residents Call For Their Help, Minneapolis Police Won’t Go Near 38th & Chicago
While the city tries to figure out what to do, residents say they are forced to continue living in a warzone.

“Who wants to live somewhere where you can be a victim of crime and nobody comes to help,”
How's that workin' out for you Moda?
I live outside city limits, but our cops in Bloomington are shitheads too, but not as bad as Minneapolis... but I'm sure it's not great for certain citizens who are asking for help and not getting it from police who think they should still be getting paid even when they're not willing to answer calls (unwanted interactions, of course, are still happening). I'm sure if a landlord called they'd get their ass in gear, but alas it was just some poor woman who was never going to be able to wrangle enough resources to be a threat to the protection racket, much less have the incentive to apply those resources.

I don't know if showing me an article how police aren't answering calls while they still continue to collect a paycheck was supposed to be some sort of "gotcha," as I can think of few things that more justify taking a wrecking ball to these institutions.

Now if you want to find me an article about police quitting on mass, and a community realizing their alternative criminal justice models aren't working the way they planned, maybe you'd have a point. Right now you're just showing me more on what coward assholes police are. My pizza delivery job was more dangerous than theirs yet they LARP as heroes every day. It's disgusting.

If you need other examples, but with white people, google Duncan Lemp, Daniel Shaver or the more recent Karen Garner, just to name a few. Not just the incidents themselves, but the following treatment of the officers involved. Dick cops do terrible shit, and their gang in blue defends them at every turn.
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by I Shrugged » Sun May 02, 2021 6:17 pm

There is a thread buried somewhere here, "When police are the problem."

I'll agree that we have a police problem. But not a racist or white supremicist police problem. I'm paraphrasing John McWhorter on that.
SomeDude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:45 am

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by SomeDude » Sun May 02, 2021 8:08 pm

Tortoise wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 2:16 pm
Xan wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 1:01 pm
First Chauvin Juror Speaks Out: I Saw No Remorse in His Face
https://www.thedailybeast.com/derek-cha ... -cops-face
Isn't it difficult to accurately discern certain facial expressions like remorse (whatever that's supposed to look like) when most of the person's face is covered by a mask at all times?
Why would an innocent person be remorseful? Trial by jury is about as useful as voting. Since it relies on the public being somewhat intelligent there is no hope.

The statements imply his only chance at being found not guilty would have been to be remorseful about a crime he didnt commit
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by moda0306 » Sun May 02, 2021 8:56 pm

MangoMan wrote:
Sun May 02, 2021 8:27 pm
moda0306 wrote:
Sun May 02, 2021 5:25 pm
MangoMan wrote:
Sun May 02, 2021 12:05 pm
Even When Residents Call For Their Help, Minneapolis Police Won’t Go Near 38th & Chicago
While the city tries to figure out what to do, residents say they are forced to continue living in a warzone.

“Who wants to live somewhere where you can be a victim of crime and nobody comes to help,”
How's that workin' out for you Moda?
I live outside city limits, but our cops in Bloomington are shitheads too, but not as bad as Minneapolis... but I'm sure it's not great for certain citizens who are asking for help and not getting it from police who think they should still be getting paid even when they're not willing to answer calls (unwanted interactions, of course, are still happening). I'm sure if a landlord called they'd get their ass in gear, but alas it was just some poor woman who was never going to be able to wrangle enough resources to be a threat to the protection racket, much less have the incentive to apply those resources.

I don't know if showing me an article how police aren't answering calls while they still continue to collect a paycheck was supposed to be some sort of "gotcha," as I can think of few things that more justify taking a wrecking ball to these institutions.

Now if you want to find me an article about police quitting on mass, and a community realizing their alternative criminal justice models aren't working the way they planned, maybe you'd have a point. Right now you're just showing me more on what coward assholes police are. My pizza delivery job was more dangerous than theirs yet they LARP as heroes every day. It's disgusting.

If you need other examples, but with white people, google Duncan Lemp, Daniel Shaver or the more recent Karen Garner, just to name a few. Not just the incidents themselves, but the following treatment of the officers involved. Dick cops do terrible shit, and their gang in blue defends them at every turn.
Are you a troll, or do you actually believe the nonsense you spew?
https://www.independentsentinel.com/pol ... rd-levels/
https://www.bluelinesupport.net/news-bl ... rd-numbers
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/16/us/us-po ... index.html
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states ... n-protests
https://www.newsweek.com/police-officer ... es-1524648
You sure have a lot of work ahead of you if you're going to try another own.

Police absolutely have been quitting. Good. They fucking should. Hopefully we also can raid their pensions for all these court cases. Beyond that, we'd have to see if that's causing (not just correlating with) a meaningful increase in crime that the community believes will be a permanent off-set to the benefits of fewer police. Hence the part that you conveniently didn't bold but was crucial to my point... that the community sees a downside that they have to work on.

But even still, I said "maybe you'd have a point." Maybe... and just a point. That doesn't mean you'd certainly have a cohesive analysis. Trumpanzees are incapable of such things.

A community would have to see cops quitting, realize it's a problem worse than having them on, and that they can't mitigate it through other community policing models, before you'd really have something resembling a point. But overall, that is the community's prerogative. Not someone who doesn't live in the community unless they want to come for a concert or a sportsball game. Minneapolotians have every right to shit-can the whole lot of police... or half of them... or just ask for strict accountability... or disarm them... or reduce their pay. And if downsides develop it's THEIR right and THEIR responsibility, not some fuck-wit from Derp County MN who has no connection to Minneapolis, to adjust accordingly, rather than just simply be asked to act as subjects to be dominated by an occupying force.

Another point... the crimes police commit rarely-if-ever get reported statistically. Their incomes are earned by extortion/theft... never reported. Their illegal arrests are kidnapping... never reported as such. Their excessive force and violence are assault and murder... not reported as such. So even if crime rates as-reported go up, and we can form a causal connection to fewer police (rather than ones being paid not doing their job), this is just reported crime, thus all-but immune from the crime the police commit on a daily basis... never mind the way they throw the threat of all that crime around in ways that

Further, it's entirely enlightening that knuckle-dragging fashy cop-cucks think that cops have the right to just not do their job AND continue to get paid, and, somehow, they feel justified in making jokes about it, rather than it being yet more proof that their blue gang members are exactly what I say they are.

All your work is still ahead of you if you're actually trying to make a point, but being that you've already made an ass out of yourself by defending cops simply choosing not to do their job while they collect a paycheck, then you might want to shoot for a little more than that.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by Xan » Mon May 03, 2021 9:45 pm

Xan wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 1:01 pm
flyingpylon wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:48 pm
vnatale wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:35 pm
According this article the only people who have spoken about the trial were an alternate juror.
One of the actual jurors also spoke about it.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_break ... 94357.html
Yes, it was apparently the same guy:

First Chauvin Juror Speaks Out: I Saw No Remorse in His Face
https://www.thedailybeast.com/derek-cha ... -cops-face

And now he may have lied during jury selection:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... attended-/
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by moda0306 » Wed May 05, 2021 9:33 am

Xan wrote:
Mon May 03, 2021 9:45 pm
Xan wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 1:01 pm
flyingpylon wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:48 pm
vnatale wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:35 pm
According this article the only people who have spoken about the trial were an alternate juror.
One of the actual jurors also spoke about it.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_break ... 94357.html
Yes, it was apparently the same guy:

First Chauvin Juror Speaks Out: I Saw No Remorse in His Face
https://www.thedailybeast.com/derek-cha ... -cops-face

And now he may have lied during jury selection:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... attended-/
It's really odd seeing people on the right side of the isle finally dog-pile on the inadequacy of our justice system to establish guilt effectively. It's just odd that it's the one of a handful of times in a couple decades that it was a cop at the receiving end of it. It's sort of like seeing R's finally dog on the "Deep State" that existed for almost a century, and slaughtered/tortured millions of people along the way. But only when their Don was under some level of Deep State ire was it an issue worth getting upset about.

Jurors have a host of flaws and biases that they bring into the process. So do judges, of course, but their better at either burying them, or pretending they do by papering over their biases with poetic language.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by Xan » Wed May 05, 2021 10:19 am

moda0306 wrote:
Wed May 05, 2021 9:33 am
Xan wrote:
Mon May 03, 2021 9:45 pm
Xan wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 1:01 pm
flyingpylon wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:48 pm
vnatale wrote:
Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:35 pm
According this article the only people who have spoken about the trial were an alternate juror.
One of the actual jurors also spoke about it.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_break ... 94357.html
Yes, it was apparently the same guy:

First Chauvin Juror Speaks Out: I Saw No Remorse in His Face
https://www.thedailybeast.com/derek-cha ... -cops-face

And now he may have lied during jury selection:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... attended-/
It's really odd seeing people on the right side of the isle finally dog-pile on the inadequacy of our justice system to establish guilt effectively. It's just odd that it's the one of a handful of times in a couple decades that it was a cop at the receiving end of it. It's sort of like seeing R's finally dog on the "Deep State" that existed for almost a century, and slaughtered/tortured millions of people along the way. But only when their Don was under some level of Deep State ire was it an issue worth getting upset about.

Jurors have a host of flaws and biases that they bring into the process. So do judges, of course, but their better at either burying them, or pretending they do by papering over their biases with poetic language.
You're missing a chance here, Moda: for example when "R's" bring up the Deep State, instead of saying what hypocrites and morons they are, you can say yes, and here's what else the Deep State has been up to. When it's pointed out that a juror in a case is speaking up about how he convicted based on pre-existing biases and by interpreting the defendant's face, you can say yes he shouldn't have done that, and also here are some other similar problems/issues, and what can we do to do better going forward.

Instead your response seems to be rooted in tribalism, whataboutism, and owning the "R's". You'd get a lot more traction a different way.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by vnatale » Wed May 05, 2021 11:35 am

I asked a lawyer his opinion regarding that juror. This is what I received in return:

"In order to win an appeal, it’s not enough for the trial court that make mistake(s). The errors have to be ones that would have changed the outcome of the trial.



So in this case, even if it was a mistake to allow this juror to sit, Chauvin still would have been convicted even if this juror was replaced by someone else in the pool. Any reasonable jury would have convicted based on the evidence. So that would mean that a jury minus him, and with someone else, would have also convicted.



Since it would not have changed the outcome, it would be harmless error.



It is very common for an appellate court to say there were errors at trial, but they were all harmless errors and the verdict stands. In fact, most errors at trial are classified as harmless."
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by glennds » Wed May 05, 2021 12:04 pm

vnatale wrote:
Wed May 05, 2021 11:35 am
I asked a lawyer his opinion regarding that juror. This is what I received in return:

"In order to win an appeal, it’s not enough for the trial court that make mistake(s). The errors have to be ones that would have changed the outcome of the trial.



So in this case, even if it was a mistake to allow this juror to sit, Chauvin still would have been convicted even if this juror was replaced by someone else in the pool. Any reasonable jury would have convicted based on the evidence. So that would mean that a jury minus him, and with someone else, would have also convicted.



Since it would not have changed the outcome, it would be harmless error.



It is very common for an appellate court to say there were errors at trial, but they were all harmless errors and the verdict stands. In fact, most errors at trial are classified as harmless."
I agree with Vinny here. But stating it a different way, you have to appreciate the room for error built into the system. IOW, the jury has to convict unanimously, so even if there were a bad juror or two, the balance of the non-biased jury would still have to convict. This after attorney voir dire examination from both sides. Where it would fail is if more than half the jurors were biased and still got through the process, and the odds of that happening get lower and lower with each incremental biased juror. Even then, the minority non-biased contingent would still have to convict.

So again, you have to admire that the system was not built with a zero defect assumption, but rather it was built to accommodate defects should they occur while maintaining a presumption of innocence and a bias against convicting.

I can completely understand the sentiments of those who simply don't like the verdict for whatever reasons, but to point to the system as being broken is harder for me to accept.
flyingpylon
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1102
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:04 am

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by flyingpylon » Wed May 05, 2021 3:15 pm

Have you guys never seen "Twelve Angry Men"? One juror could make a difference. And they don't have to be "biased" to do so, they just have to have a different perspective.

This line from the lawyer in Vinny's post above seems awfully presumptuous: "So in this case, even if it was a mistake to allow this juror to sit, Chauvin still would have been convicted even if this juror was replaced by someone else in the pool. Any reasonable jury would have convicted based on the evidence. So that would mean that a jury minus him, and with someone else, would have also convicted."

I don't have a firm opinion on the Chauvin verdict itself or the juror in question but I do think that every individual juror matters.
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by Tortoise » Wed May 05, 2021 3:23 pm

Yes, one juror can definitely make a difference that’s much larger than their 1/12 fraction of the jury.

For example, if most of the jurors go into deliberations on the fence, but one of them is very biased and also very persuasive, it’s possible that the very biased and persuasive juror could ultimately sway the decision one way or the other.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by glennds » Wed May 05, 2021 3:36 pm

Tortoise wrote:
Wed May 05, 2021 3:23 pm
Yes, one juror can definitely make a difference that’s much larger than their 1/12 fraction of the jury.

For example, if most of the jurors go into deliberations on the fence, but one of them is very biased and also very persuasive, it’s possible that the very biased and persuasive juror could ultimately sway the decision one way or the other.

I don't see that as a problem. The persuasion of the one individual in your example does not necessarily have to be negative. What if that person is persuading another to look at the case from a different perspective that would not have occurred to them on their own. The general idea is the collective power of crowd wisdom, which has now been shown to result in better outcomes than individual judgment. This is why good companies have functioning Boards.
What's a better alternative?
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by Tortoise » Wed May 05, 2021 3:49 pm

I wasn't claiming there's a problem with the existing jury system. (There very well may be, but that wasn't my point.)

My point was that because even a single biased juror can sway the decision one way or the other, then if a biased juror lied in order to avoid getting eliminated during jury selection, I see that as a problem. Not a problem with the verdict -- a problem with the fact that a juror who lied to get on the jury may have potentially swayed the verdict.

If a biased juror did not lie to get on the jury, then I agree that his or her potential swaying of the verdict is just a built-in feature of the system.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by glennds » Wed May 05, 2021 4:10 pm

Tortoise wrote:
Wed May 05, 2021 3:49 pm
I wasn't claiming there's a problem with the existing jury system. (There very well may be, but that wasn't my point.)

My point was that because even a single biased juror can sway the decision one way or the other, then if a biased juror lied in order to avoid getting eliminated during jury selection, I see that as a problem. Not a problem with the verdict -- a problem with the fact that a juror who lied to get on the jury may have potentially swayed the verdict.

If a biased juror did not lie to get on the jury, then I agree that his or her potential swaying of the verdict is just a built-in feature of the system.
I think we're in agreement. Yes, any juror lying in the process of getting appointed to a jury is a bad thing. Technically I think it would be the crime of perjury since the lie is being told in court. Maybe contempt of court, or obstruction of justice.
But let's say this lying juror is biased in favor of guilty and then gets on the jury fraudulently. If the other 11 were on the fence, he's have to be a very persuasive character to be able to tilt them all, enough to get a unanimous vote that otherwise would not have happened. But it is possible. Ever see a very good movie with Gene Hackman and John Cusack called Runaway Jury based on the John Grisham novel?

This is interesting enough to me that I did some quick googling and learned there is a term for this - stealth juror. It seems to be limited to high profile cases. Allegedly three jurors told lies in order to get on the jury of the Scott Peterson trial. Peterson's lawyers argued that these three jurors were motivated by the opportunity to work their jury service into book deals, or other lucrative opportunities.
Martha Stewart's lawyers argued that something similar was going on in her criminal trial with one particular juror who gave interviews after the verdict.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by vnatale » Wed May 05, 2021 4:34 pm

glennds wrote:
Wed May 05, 2021 3:36 pm

Tortoise wrote:
Wed May 05, 2021 3:23 pm

Yes, one juror can definitely make a difference that’s much larger than their 1/12 fraction of the jury.

For example, if most of the jurors go into deliberations on the fence, but one of them is very biased and also very persuasive, it’s possible that the very biased and persuasive juror could ultimately sway the decision one way or the other.


I don't see that as a problem. The persuasion of the one individual in your example does not necessarily have to be negative. What if that person is persuading another to look at the case from a different perspective that would not have occurred to them on their own. The general idea is the collective power of crowd wisdom, which has now been shown to result in better outcomes than individual judgment. This is why good companies have functioning Boards.
What's a better alternative?



Wasn't that one of those things that sounded good when it was first pronounced to the world but then later found out it was not all it was made out to be?

Vinny

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

"Crowds tend to work best when there is a correct answer to the question being posed, such as a question about geography or mathematics.[33] When there is not a precise answer crowds can come to arbitrary conclusions.[34]

The wisdom of the crowd effect is easily undermined. Social influence can cause the average of the crowd answers to be wildly inaccurate, while the geometric mean and the median are far more robust.[35]

Experiments run by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology found that when a group of people were asked to answer a question together they would attempt to come to a consensus which would frequently cause the accuracy of the answer to decrease. i.e. what is the length of a border between two countries? One suggestion to counter this effect is to ensure that the group contains a population with diverse backgrounds."
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by vnatale » Wed May 05, 2021 4:36 pm

glennds wrote:
Wed May 05, 2021 4:10 pm

Tortoise wrote:
Wed May 05, 2021 3:49 pm

I wasn't claiming there's a problem with the existing jury system. (There very well may be, but that wasn't my point.)

My point was that because even a single biased juror can sway the decision one way or the other, then if a biased juror lied in order to avoid getting eliminated during jury selection, I see that as a problem. Not a problem with the verdict -- a problem with the fact that a juror who lied to get on the jury may have potentially swayed the verdict.

If a biased juror did not lie to get on the jury, then I agree that his or her potential swaying of the verdict is just a built-in feature of the system.


I think we're in agreement. Yes, any juror lying in the process of getting appointed to a jury is a bad thing. Technically I think it would be the crime of perjury since the lie is being told in court. Maybe contempt of court, or obstruction of justice.
But let's say this lying juror is biased in favor of guilty and then gets on the jury fraudulently. If the other 11 were on the fence, he's have to be a very persuasive character to be able to tilt them all, enough to get a unanimous vote that otherwise would not have happened. But it is possible. Ever see a very good movie with Gene Hackman and John Cusack called Runaway Jury based on the John Grisham novel?

This is interesting enough to me that I did some quick googling and learned there is a term for this - stealth juror. It seems to be limited to high profile cases. Allegedly three jurors told lies in order to get on the jury of the Scott Peterson trial. Peterson's lawyers argued that these three jurors were motivated by the opportunity to work their jury service into book deals, or other lucrative opportunities.
Martha Stewart's lawyers argued that something similar was going on in her criminal trial with one particular juror who gave interviews after the verdict.


I do not remember ever reading that any of the jurors in her criminal trial benefitted financially from being a juror. Is there any evidence of this?
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Post Reply