George Floyd 2021 and trial

That was the question he was asked in court, that the article is claiming he contradicted, and you claimed he may have lied about, so yeah.

You said he may have lied about it.

Seems speculative, yet reasonable to conclude. Whether or not it’s true has yet to be determined.

[It just occurred to me that I’m a mostly-retired, 'way-part-time cram school employee in Taiwan, so I’m done with this subject, at least for now.]

I’ve edited this post, because I haven’t been following the trial very closely, so at first I wasn’t even sure any jurors or prospective jurors had been asked about the George Floyd settlement. Edited again: I’ve found reports concerning answers given by Brandon Mitchell (if he is indeed Juror Number 52) to questions about the civil case, but the quotes are indirect, and I haven’t yet found a report that specifically mentions his being asked about the settlement. I’m not saying it’s not out there, but I haven’t found it, and I don’t have full confidence in the indirect quotes that I’ve seen online.

Edited yet again: I’ve found a tweet, dated March 15, from a local Fox reporter who was either covering the doings in the courtroom or relaying someone else’s coverage:

That’s all I’ve got so far. The tweet seems reliable to me, but so far I haven’t found any proof that Juror Number 52 lied about knowledge of the settlement.

News of the settlement appears to have been published about four days after the commencement of jury selection, and about ten days before the end of jury selection, as indicated below.

According to CNN, jury selection began on Tuesday, March 9:

Eric Levenson, “Jury selection begins in Derek Chauvin’s trial in the death of George Floyd. Here’s what to expect,” CNN, March 11, 2021

It appears that a settlement was reached between the City of Minneapolis and George Floyd’s family on March 12, and that the news of this settlement was published around March 13:

Steve Karnowski and Amy Fortliti, “Floyd family agrees to $27M settlement amidst ex-cop’s trial,” Associated Press, March 13, 2021

Apparently on March 15, the Judge recalled some jurors for questioning about the settlement:

“7 jurors seated in Derek Chauvin trial to be called back for questioning over $27 million settlement with George Floyd’s family,” CBS News, March 16, 2021

Apparently two jurors were dismissed on March 17 because of their knowledge of the settlement:

Associated Press and others, “2 jurors dismissed from Derek Chauvin trial after learning of $27 million settlement with George Floyd’s family,” CBS News, March 18, 2021

Jury selection apparently ended on March 23:

Minnesota Public Radio News Staff, “What We Know About The Jurors In The Chauvin Trial,” National Public Radio, April 20, 2021

One local criminal defense attorney seemed to be of the opinion that an appeal might involve several issues:

Associated Press, “Chauvin juror defends participation in Washington protest,” Washington Post, May 4, 2021

And so it begins

So, if he knew nothing of the George Floyd case before he was selected as a jury member, then why was he wearing a T-shirt saying “Get your knee off our necks”?

Who said he knew nothing of the George Floyd case?

The news has reported that he so stated it during questioning as a potential jury member.

A juror on the Derek Chauvin trial who told the court that he had no prior knowledge of the George Floyd civil case was photographed last August wearing a shirt that read “Get your knee off our necks” and “BLM.” He stated last week that he saw jury duty as a means to “spark some change.”

1 Like

Seems like this discussion was had earlier… you’re also confusing “knew nothing of the George Floyd case” with “told the court that he had no prior knowledge of the George Floyd civil case…”

1 Like

Mitchell said he didn’t know anything about the lawsuit (“civil case”). There was a huge settlement of the lawsuit–I think $27 million?–so I think the fear was that knowledge of the settlement, and especially its size, might persuade jurors that a guilty verdict should be inevitable in the criminal case.

Or something along those lines.

Typically you need to answer some questions about possible biases, both direct questions and indirect ones. I suspect that these photos will call into question his honesty relating to some of those questions. There’s really two issues at play: 1. Did this juror lie? That will be difficult to prove as you can usually make semantics arguments, claim you forgot, or claim that you meant something different. 2. Was this juror’s bias enough to change the outcome of the trial? That’s where the action will be. For the Defense, you want to aggregate all these arguments as much as possible. The standard for an appeal or mistrial is very, very difficult to meet, so if all the arguments are taken separately they are much easier to dismiss.

1 Like

So what you’re saying is that you notice people keep making whack claims too? :wink:

Before I’d read any details, just based on snippets I’d seen in the news, I thought the judge had asked jurors if they’d heard anything about a settlement, so I was like, “Just mentioning the word settlement, even as part of a question, might bias a juror. It’d be better not to even ask them that.”

But apparently the judge didn’t ask whether the jurors knew about a settlement; he asked whether they knew about a “civil case.” I think that’s less revealing, less prejudicial.

Settling the civil case before the criminal trial was such a monumental cock-up it almost feels like it must have been deliberate.


I’m not sure, but it’s food for thought.


Because a $27million settlement in a case prior to a criminal trial is obviously prejudicial.


Facts are at times.

Yes, that is why jurors are only allowed to consider facts presented in court.

Well, then it’s not an issue as the civil trial wasn’t presented in court. :wink: :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

[quote=“Poundsand, post:667, topic:204038, full:true”]

While I suspect you understand this, because jurors are only allowed to consider evidence in court, typically you only allow jurors with no knowledge of a case and no prejudice regarding the topics of a case. While neither goal was achievable in this case, you try to mitigate each factor to the largest extent possible. The settlement exacerbated both the prejudice regarding the case itself and the topics of the case.


The judge seemed to think it was an issue:

1 Like