Chauvin Juror Was BLM Protestor, Mistrial Possible?

Chauvin Juror Was BLM Protestor, Mistrial Possible?

Chauvin Juror Was BLM Protestor, Mistrial Possible?

Is this like a horror movie, where the pressure on the jury wasn’t necessarily coming from outside the court, but from inside the jury box? Maybe.

Juror #52 in the Derek Chauvin trial decided to make his media debut and reveal his identity. Brandon Mitchell was identified during the trial as a black male in his 30’s, who claimed to have witnessed “excessive force” by police, but claimed to also personally know police officers at his gym that he liked. During voir dire, neither defense or prosecution raised an objection to Mitchell as a juror.

Mitchell also affirmed his impartiality a few days later when the city of Minneapolis settled with the Floyd family to the tune of $27 million. At the time, no one knew who he was, but he was quoted in the CBS news story about the jurors who were dismissed when the settlement news broke.

(Judge) Cahill retained five other jurors, including a Black man in his 30s who told Cahill he heard about the settlement on the radio Friday evening but could put it aside and decide the case only on evidence presented in the courtroom.”

“It hasn’t affected me at all because I don’t know the details,” he said.”

Well, now we know that Brandon Mitchell, Juror #52, was quite familiar with the George Floyd case and the prosecution of Derek Chauvin. At a minimum, he was aware enough of the case to go protest about it in Washington, DC, in August of 2020.

First reported by The Post-Millennial and since covered by other outlets, a photo from a Facebook post of Brandon Mitchell in Washington, DC shows him wearing a t-shirt that reads, circling a photo of Martin Luther King, “Get Your Knee Off Our Necks – BLM” while standing with two other men, one of whom is identified in the post as Mitchell’s cousin.

Mitchell now says that he was just in DC to “be a part of something.”

Mitchell, 31, acknowledged being at the event and that his uncle posted the photo, but said he doesn’t recall wearing or owning the shirt.”

“I’d never been to D.C.,” Mitchell said of his reasons for attending the event. “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.”

Mitchell said he answered “no” to two questions about demonstrations on the questionnaire sent out before jury selection.”

The first question asked: “Did you, or someone close to you, participate in any of the demonstrations or marches against police brutality that took place in Minneapolis after George Floyd’s death?” The second asked: “Other than what you have already described above, have you, or anyone close to you, participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality?”

Oh, so because this march was in DC and not Minneapolis, Mitchell figured it was fine to serve on the jury. I am guessing the defense, had they known about this photo and his attendance at that march, would have objected to him serving on the jury.

Did Mitchell lie on his juror questionnaire? It’s likely, but I am guessing that he will never be charged with that.

Is this enough to have the Chauvin verdict tossed out and a mistrial declared? I am not a lawyer, but the lawyers who are being interviewed about this are uncertain that this alone would trigger a mistrial.

Jury consultant Alan Tuerkheimer said it is likely Chauvin’s defense attorney Eric J. Nelson will use this information to push for an appeal to the verdict but argued the photo itself would not be enough to dismiss the conviction.”

Tuerkheimer added that the fact Mitchell allegedly denied being involved in any protests could however prompt judge Peter A. Cahill to bring Mitchell in for further questioning to assess whether he was untruthful, or worse, if he had an agenda or a predetermined verdict in mind.”

“That could change the outcome of things, if there is anything that makes him seem that he was not forthcoming it could be an avenue for the judge to reconsider the case,” Tuerkheimer said, adding it is a “high standard” that Cahill would consider since he is likely not inclined to toss the entire trial and start from square one.”

However, it is highly likely that the defense is going to move for a mistrial on the grounds that Mitchell lied on his juror questionnaire, and will again raise the point that there is no way that Derek Chauvin got a fair trial in Minneapolis. The grounds for appeal just keep stacking up. The judge refused a change of venue. The judge refused to sequester the jury. Maxine Waters’s comments. Joe Biden’s comments. Nancy Pelosi’s comments. Attempted after-the-fact witness intimidation.

I think Judge Cahill, given his previous record, simply punts and tells the Chauvin defense to add this into their very long list of reasons for appealing the verdict. Any appeals court was going to have a difficult time having enough backbone to stand up to the mob to overturn a verdict and order a new trial for Derek Chauvin. However, Brandon Mitchell, in his desire for fame, may have just been the straw that breaks the camel’s back. And wouldn’t THAT just be a fine piece of irony?

Welcome Instapundit Readers!

Featured image via Pixabay, cropped, Pixabay license

Written by

  • Rich Vail says:

    There is no possible way any of those officers involved would be able to get a fair trial. Wanna bet, none of the others even get to a trial?

  • JD says:

    Juror 52 has also stated that most of the jury wanted to convict in the first 20 minutes of deliberations, but there was one hold out that actually wanted to deliberate…

    presumably they spent 8 hours browbeating that juror to get the convictions that they wanted, on three different and contradictory charges.

    • rockwellT says:

      Forgetting this case, where I also believe the jury was going to convict irrespective of the evidence, having sat on both a criminal (1st degree attempted murder) and civil jury, I’m amused about the notion that juries have to deliberate …poppy cock. As a jury I may have just sat through a week or more of evidence presented by professional attorneys, in a court room where another professional, a judge, has rendered legal ruling relative to what I’m allowed to hear as a juror. After the trial I’m supposed to listen to 8 to 11 other clowns (like me jurors) render their legal opinions on said trial? Listen to them retry the case? No way. If, at the end of the trial, I fee that I don’t know whether guilty = prosecution failed to prove case = not guilty. If, at the end of the case, I feel defendant committed the crime = guilty. Frankly, I would amend our court system to require a vote after the prosecution presents it’s case. If not 100% guilty vote, then prosecution failed to make case and we don’t need to waste time, money etc hearing a defense-> the State did not make their case and the court trial should end immediately.

  • […] Fortunately for lying while under oath juror #52, he’s not a secret member of the Proud Boys who voted to acquit. He might be in real trouble. […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner