‘He was guilty.’ Extra juror in favor of Chauvin conviction

Hawkeye10 said:
only sometimes do jurors comply with judge instructions to stay off of social media and the internet
Click to expand...

So you're accusing the jury of being liars without proof.

Meanwhile, you and your "very fine people" spent the last 10 months doing everything you can to defend Chauvin here on JPP.

So wouldn't YOU have had undue influence on the jury?????

After all, you and your pals couldn't keep your fucking mouths shut about it all year.
 
LV426 said:
Was it? Because Donald Trump was all over the news defending Chauvin for months before this was even brought to trial.

You were here on JPP poisoning the jury pool with your comments about Chauvin last fucking year.
Click to expand...

tenor.gif

tenor.gif
 
Walt said:
No, no, no... They would never do that. It is not unheard of for a juror to be dismissed during deliberation. If you dismiss your alternates before deliberation, you can not replace a juror dismissed during deliberation.

She was actually sequestered for deliberation... Without even getting to deliberate. My guess is she just read a book in some waiting room, while the regular jurors deliberated, and then at night went back to the motel with the other jurors.
Click to expand...
I'm telling you what I read.....if you can find other information, just let me know....
"Christensen was one of two alternates dismissed by Judge Peter Cahill after Monday's closing arguments. "
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/nat...s-she-agrees-with-chauvin-conviction/3014057/
 
RB 60 said:
Alternates are nothing more than spectators. They have no interaction with the 12 jurors or judge whatsoever (unless the judge calls on them). None.
Click to expand...

They have as much interaction with the other jurors and judge as any other juror during the trial itself. They are left out of the deliberation, but are sequestered with the other jurors. In other words, they hang out with the other jurors everywhere except the deliberation room. They are also instructed by the judge the same as the other jurors.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
This judge saying "Dont watch the news" indicates a person pretending like it is still the 1950's, watching the news is increasingly rare, we follow what is going on in different ways now.
Click to expand...

OK, so you're accusing the jury of lying to the judge and breaking their oaths without any fucking evidence than your personal hurt feelings.

FUCK.

YOUR.

FEELINGS.

You were here on JPP FOR MONTHS lying about Chauvin and Floyd.

Check the fuckin' record, dipshit.

If anyone influenced the jury, it was you and your "very fine people" who couldn't keep your fucking mouths shut for 10 months.
 
TOP said:
I gave my opinion...if you disagree, I'm fine with that....I didn't change your words or attack you personally....I'm not sure why you feel the need to do so, but that is your right....
Click to expand...

Yes what I’m asking is why you feel the need to insult jurors. I guess because you think they would behave like you. Carry on.
 
Walt said:
The 12 regular jurors have decided that Chauvin is guilty. If the defense had any doubts about that, they could have polled the jury. They did not, because they knew that the jury found him guilty. And at least one of the alternate jurors who sat with the jury and saw all the same evidence agrees.
Click to expand...
Judge did poll the jury. Chauvin couldn't make eye contact as everyone declared him guilty
 
TOP said:
No, that was you....
Click to expand...

Why lie about something that’s so easily provable? You said

“Good thing she was dismissed” After speculating that she had prejudged the case. I guess we can add liar to the list of your abhorrent traits.
 
Walt said:
The 12 regular jurors have decided that Chauvin is guilty. If the defense had any doubts about that, they could have polled the jury. They did not, because they knew that the jury found him guilty. And at least one of the alternate jurors who sat with the jury and saw all the same evidence agrees.
Click to expand...

There's no doubt the jury was polled. The Federal jury I sat on was polled.
As I said, the alternate's opinion held no more water than anyone else who sat in that courtroom. Whether they agree or not is irrelevant.
 
Walt said:
They have as much interaction with the other jurors and judge as any other juror during the trial itself. They are left out of the deliberation, but are sequestered with the other jurors. In other words, they hang out with the other jurors everywhere except the deliberation room. They are also instructed by the judge the same as the other jurors.
Click to expand...

No, they do not. The alternates had no interaction with myself as the jury foreman or any of the other 11 jurors on my jury.
They did not "hang out" with us, they didn't eat with us, they didn't socialize with us in the motel in the evenings. In fact
they never had any contact whatsoever with us. None. So, until you've sat on a Federal jury, don't invoke your misconceptions as fact.
 
.
RB 60 said:
No, they do not. The alternates had no interaction with myself as the jury foreman or any of the other 11 jurors on my jury.
They did not "hang out" with us, they didn't eat with us, they didn't socialize with us in the motel in the evenings. In fact
they never had any contact whatsoever with us. None. So, until you've sat on a Federal jury, don't invoke your misconceptions as fact.
Click to expand...

Please do not misunderstand what I am about to say ...

I believe ALL that you said.

However, I will say this ... you may be comparing apples to oranges. From what I've seen of minnesomalia law ... only THE GOOD LORD knows how they do things. First off ... Derek gets three different murder charges and is guilty of ALL THREE. That in itself is my point.
 
Grumpy said:
.


Please do not misunderstand what I am about to say ...

I believe ALL that you said.

However, I will say this ... you may be comparing apples to oranges. From what I've seen of minnesomalia law ... only THE GOOD LORD knows how they do things. First off ... Derek gets three different murder charges and is guilty of ALL THREE. That in itself is my point.
Click to expand...

Apparently, that jury was unanimously convinced he was guilty on all 3 counts before they went into deliberations because it didn't last long.
The jury I was on spent the better part of 3 days in deliberations. I made sure each juror had the time to explain their opinion. I ripped into one
juror who would inject his opinion on others when it was their turn to speak. I told him to "shut up" until it was his turn to speak, as his opinion
was no more important than the other 11 of us. That gained the respect of the other 10.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top