New pictures of a Chauvin juror seem to indicate that he lied during jury selection.
1. Is this one of those ends justify the means situations where the conviction of Chauvin was worth a little trampling on his right to a fair trial?
2. Is this enough to get a win at the appellate level?
2 comments:
I guess it would depend on the character of those deciding at the appellate level.
That and whether or not they'll be willing to face the response if they vacate the verdict.
I personally think that it'll be more interesting to see how people respond to this latest revelation. I suspect that there are plenty on the left who are perfectly fine with someone lying to get on the jury as long as they're doing it to get the "right" verdict. The problem with this (as well as much of what we see in congress) is that the folks who'll applaud this move, will go ape shit if someone who's a "blue lives matter" activist manages to get on the jury for the next trial and influences to outcome for the "wrong" verdict. It's an absolutely horrible precedent and the left is either too short sighted to look at the ramifications, or too convinced that their opponents won't use their tactics against them.
Post a Comment