Yeah I think you’re right and it does make it difficult. You probably would have made a good juror for that reason. I think society owes Chauvin a fair trial and that’s something the appellate judges will have to wrestle with.
I’d be willing to bet most of us on here would have made good jurors. (unfortunately the best jurors usually get screened out by one side)
I’d also be willing to bet that most of us on here would have convicted him, but that’s me saying that without knowing all of the details and being someone who wasn’t sitting in a juror’s chair watching the entire trial.
I think we agree that too many people in the public aren’t willing to give the defendant a fair trial, though, including high-profile elected officials. I’m almost wanting to make myself vomit by comparing this case to Michael Brown because the cases are so different, but I will in the sense that look how many people wanted the cop’s head in that case, when the facts of the matter were that it was pretty clear there was little evidence the cop didn’t act in self-defense.
I’d have been a terrible juror, I could not have given Chauvin a fair trial and would have said so in voir dire. I was once in a jury pool where there was a terible home invasion murder, I’d read all about the case in the papers and said there was no way I could be impartial in the pre-trial questionaire and was dismissed along with about 40 or so other jurors who said much the same. The defendants were eventually found guilty of all counts in that case so I guess they found 12 impartial jurors.
1 Like
probably was difficult to find jurors in this case who even claimed they could be impartial. i’d think most people would say no if they were being truthful.
I’d bet you’re selling yourself short here. I’d think if you were put into the juror’s chair, you’d have the ability to only look at what’s presented to you during the trial and determine whether the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. No one on here could really be THAT prejudiced, I don’t think.
My grandfather once acquitted someone of murder that he thought probably did commit murder.
maybe we should start summoning people from distant parts of the world.
The jury system doesn’t work for national cases because everyone will have heard and made up their minds.
oh I know. AI juries
Here are the members of the jury and their thoughts on things like their opinion on Chauvin and their opinion on BLM. This was all asked in pre-trial questioning. Interesting article.
1 Like
I mean it’s not like there really could have possibly been anything presented that would change the fact that what he did was against protocol and unnecessary. Yes, you have to go through the exercise of having the trial, of course.
And jurors should be focused on what is presented at the trial.
But I think it’s silly to pretend that there was some potentially exonerating evidence presented and none of us should have passed judgement until the trial concluded.
That said, Maxine Waters is an idiot.
Huh? What are you even talking about? No one did that.
Frequently, though, in these trials there is information that the public knows about that the judge doesn’t allow into evidence at the trial. So I stand by my point that the jurors are the best source of what was presented at the trial, and not the court of public opinion.
You seem to be acting like no one but the jurors or someone who was present for the entire trial could possibly understand whether the accused is guilty of a crime.
And I’m saying that’s not always the case.
Correct, I think the jurors are the best authorities on that. I thought about trying to be an ACLU lawyer once upon a time because of issues like this.
And for someone to claim that Biden is uninformed about what was presented in the trial and thus shouldn’t voice an opinion is a pretty absurd assertion, imo. Biden likely did not watch the proceedings, since he doesn’t spend all day watching TV, but also unlike our prior president, he surrounded himself with competent aides that would have informed him of the relevant information from the trial.
1 Like
I don’t think i could have been an impartial juror. I would have been too aware of the political implications of the verdict. In general I’m pretty good at that sort of thing, but i don’t think I could have done it this time.
1 Like
I don’t understand the people saying 'I couldn’t be an impartial juror" here. To me that’s like saying you don’t believe defendants should have a right to a fair trial. If people can’t be given a fair trial, how could anyone ever be convicted of crimes in an innocent-until-proven guilty system?
I don’t see it as saying that defendants should have a right to a fair trial; I see it more as an acknowledgement of the human failing of first impressions.
There are a lot of people out there who formed firm conclusions based on the media reporting between the time of the incident and the trial, and others who would have been aware of the potential personal risk from members of the public who might be upset if they ruled one way or another. It’s just self-awareness to say “I know too much to be objective”.
2 Likes
I absolutely believe defendants deserve a fair trial. And in most cases i believe i could be a good juror and consider the evidence fairly.
But in this case i believe I’d be too aware of the political impact of the verdict, and I’d have been concerned that that would influence me, to the detriment of being fair to the accused. And because I DO believe that the accused deserves an impartial jury, it’s good that i wasn’t a juror.
I don’t think most folks can be an impartial about political matters. They might say they can, but they’re wrong. Politics warps peoples brains.
That said, I agree, with a trial like this, it would be impossible to find a truly impartial jury. You’d have to import them from Mars.
1 Like
But then those low bone density Martians wouldn’t be a jury of his peers 
1 Like
I’m saying if I have specific knowledge related to a case going in where that evidence may or may not be presented at trial I don’t think I could ignore that and give the person a fair trial.