Chauvin’s defense filed for a new trial largely over Juror 52

By
M DOWLING
-
2
171

Derek Chauvin’s defense team filed yesterday for a new trial on a number of grounds including, and mostly due to juror misconduct.

On Monday, Juror 52 went viral in a photo taken in August wearing a Black Lives Matter t-shirt that read “Get your knee off our necks” and “BLM.” The juror, Brandon Mitchell admitted he attended a pre-trial march last year, wearing that shirt.

The Post Millennial reported that Juror #52 told the court that he had no prior knowledge of the George Floyd civil case.

On the jury questionnaire, Mr. Mitchell said he answered “no” when asked whether he had “participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality.”

He did admit to attending a rally in August but mischaracterized what was clearly a George Floyd march.

Along with that admission, the juror told the public during interviews that he sought social change through the jury process. Never did he mention whether he was concerned with Chauvin’s guilt or not.

He noted in his first interview that instead of 10 hours of deliberation on the verdict – which he said in another interview was a three-and-a-half-hour deliberation –  it should have been only 20 minutes.

THE MOTION

In a four-page motion, defense attorney Eric Nelson argued that the court “abused its discretion” by refusing to move the trial out of Minneapolis or sequester the jury, despite enormous publicity both before and after the high-profile trial last month in the death of George Floyd.

Mr. Nelson also requested a “Schwartz hearing” to impeach the verdict on jury-related grounds, including juror misconduct, which could focus on whether juror Brandon Mitchell tainted the jury by failing to disclose his participation in an Aug. 28 rally in Washington.

Juror 52 is the impetus for this motion and it’s a strong one, especially when one considers the failure to sequester.

It would seem that the judge must approve the motion, but this judge has not shown himself to be particularly courageous.

Lawyer Ben Crump, who represents the Floyd family and announced a huge settlement for the Floyd family just as the trial began, had the expected reaction. He tweeted: “No. No. No. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty.”

The rioters waiting to let loose outside the courtroom admitted upon hearing the conviction of all charges that they were disappointed they didn’t have the impetus to loot and destroy.

Despite the $27 million settlement with the Floyd family, riots, and other high-profile events like the shooting of Daunte Wright, and the threats and demands of Maxine Waters, a congresswoman, Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill’s refusal to sequester the jury seems strange.

Robert Barnes, a defense lawyer who represents accused Kenosha, Wisconsin, gunman Kyle Rittenhouse, described the juror’s participation in the rally as “definitely a basis for both a mistrial and an appeal.”

“The legal question is: Was this an impartial jury? The secondary legal question is: Did the juror lie to hide his bias?” said Mr. Barnes.

Mr. Barnes, who was not associated with the Chauvin trial, said in an email that Mr. Mitchell “had an obvious bias against the defendant, as the T-shirt reveals. No judge who cares about the constitutional right to an impartial jury could allow this verdict to stand.”

George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley said the defense should be prepared to explain “why it did not perform a full internet search on prospective jurors.”

“However, this is still a credible basis for further investigation and possible challenge.”

There were several motions for mistrial that were legitimate, especially one concerning Maxine Waters. Judge Cahill told attorneys during the trial that he would not grant a mistrial based on Rep. Waters’ comments but that “congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”

Chauvin is scheduled to appear in court for sentencing on June 25 and could receive 40 years in prison.

THE LYING JUROR?

On the jury questionnaire, Mr. Mitchell said he answered “no” when asked whether he had “participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality.”

“I think they asked if I attended any protests for George Floyd or anything for police brutality. My answer was no because I hadn’t,” Mr. Mitchell told WCCO-TV. “This particular march was more so for voting, voter registration. Getting people out to get out and vote for the presidential election that was upcoming a couple months afterward. … This was the only thing I attended.”

Mr. Mitchell, who has given multiple media interviews since the verdict, said he did not remember wearing the shirt and insisted that the march was “directly related to MLK’s March on Washington from the ’60s.”

“I’d never been to D.C.,” Mr. Mitchell said. “The opportunity to go to D.C., the opportunity to be around thousands and thousands of Black people — I just thought it was a good opportunity to be a part of something.”

First, Juror 52 said the march was for voter registration, then it was related to MLK Jr and he wanted to see D.C. In the end, it was for George Floyd. While it was on the anniversary of MLK’s ‘I have a dream speech,” it was billed by the National Action Network as the “Commitment March: Get Your Knee Off Our Necks,” and featured speeches by several Floyd siblings.

Mr. Mitchell said the rally was “100% not” a George Floyd protest, according to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. However, news photos showing participants waving Black Lives Matter flags, wearing BLM T-shirts, and toting signs saying, “I Can’t Breathe,” Floyd’s repeated plea to police before he died. And he wore that BLM shirt.

If the defense team had this information, Mitchell, Juror 52, would have been off the jury.