Thus the conundrum.

Most agree he is guilty of something worthy of jail time. Many agree that he was not judged to be guilty fairly - even though he is guilty. So do we keep this circus tent up and running or just go with the verdict - and stop wasting more time and money on this?

(05-07-2021 11:10 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  Thus the conundrum.

Most agree he is guilty of something worthy of jail time. Many agree that he was not judged to be guilty fairly - even though he is guilty. So do we keep this circus tent up and running or just go with the verdict - and stop wasting more time and money on this?

That's an easy one and I don't think it's a conundrum at all - we keep this circus tent up and running.

Why? Because it does not matter what "most agree" on. Under our justice system we don't try people in the court of public opinion. Guilty or not, every American has a right to a fair trial with an impartial jury under to 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. So even if most believe he is guilty, we continue in the effort to ensure him that right.

Quote:Thus the conundrum.

Most agree he is guilty of something worthy of jail time. Many agree that he was not judged to be guilty fairly - even though he is guilty. So do we keep this circus tent up and running or just go with the verdict - and stop wasting more time and money on this?

NOPE.. NOPE.. NOPE.. no conundrum.

May I take you back to the 6th amendment, Eldon... and take you back to English 101 and Civics 101?

Quote:In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

You don't get to pick and choose which phrases we do, and which we don't follow in the US constitution. The judges, the court system, they lawyers.. They ALL blew it in this one for Chauvin, no matter what you think of his guilt or innocence. It's either all _or_ none (Thus why an entire amendment had to be struck out).when it comes to the US Constituion, you either believe in the document as written, or you don't.

Quote:Where racial issues are concerned, we’re living in a strange time.

Yet, it isn’t altogether unprecedented — the country’s once tried separation by race.

Part of the new twist, so far as I can tell: We’re doing something similar to what we did before, which we previously learned wasn’t good.

It isn’t exactly the same, but there are certainly shared properties.

Nonetheless, away we go.

Hence, in Piedmont, California recently, someone in charge of schools had an idea.

It went something like this: In light of the Derek Chauvin verdict, let’s host “support circles” for students to discuss the outcome. And let’s do it in a segregated way.

Fast-forward to now, and officials are sorry — not for delving into social issues as a public education institution, and not for separating students by race.

They’ve apologized for including a circle for whites.

How did such a gaffe occur?

As reported by SFGate, Cheryl Wozniak issued an email to all students and staff on April 21st.

Cheryl’s the assistant superintendent of educational services for Piedmont Unified School District, and the message covered Millennium and Piedmont high schools.

It went as follows:

“We are offering a restorative community circle to support White students who would like to discuss how the trial, verdict, and experiences related to the George Floyd murder are impacting you.”

Cheryl explained that two counselors would be “holding a space for our White students to process [and] share…to one another.”

There are definitely enough Caucasians to go around: District demographics provided to SFGate reveal a distribution of 74% white, 20% Asian, 3% black, and 3% Hispanic.

Among Piedmont and Millennium Alternative, the breakdown is 62% white, 12% Asian, 2% black, and 8% Hispanic.

Sixteen percent are racially mixed.

Though support circles were also held for nonwhites, some believed white privilege was afoot:

[T]he sessions were met with scrutiny by staff and students alike, who expressed concern over the segregated nature of the sessions and the fact that white students were seemingly supported more than students of color. Screenshots of the video later caught traction online, including on platforms like TikTok.

Not so long ago, schools generally stuck to academics.

Such a system looms near in terms of time; yet as for distance, it seems a million miles away.

Hence — per SFGate — one attendee’s been disappointed:

One student at Piedmont High, who spoke to SFGATE on the condition of anonymity, was baffled at the decision but noted that it likely came with good intentions.

But the student also said that the Piedmont schools’ administration has historically failed to address issues of race and equity properly — or at all.

Just one day following the support circles, Assistant Superintendent Cheryl offered a mea culpa for the white version.

She observed, “The impact on our students of color has left them feeling hurt and disrespected by district administration.”

The sessions were called off.

In the aftermath, Piedmont Unified Superintendent Randall Booker described his responsibility to the district.

It’s one much different than roles of yore:

“My role is to call out systems of structural oppression; inequities that promote them led to where these exist in our district. We need to live up to our board policy on racial equity. It’s still in infancy steps.”

Cory Smegal, school board president, praised the students while decrying that ubiquitous malady as of late — “harm”:

“Our students were the first to call attention to it, and they were right to do so. The leadership response was swift and direct — an apology, an explanation. But we understand that all of these caused harm that needs repair.”

Sometimes, as the saying goes, you can’t win for losin’.

Piedmont Unified tried to take the Chauvin verdict and spin segregated gold in the name of social justice.

But it just didn’t go quite right.

Still, President Cory thinks people shouldn’t be too hard on ’em:

“If we silence those who take risks and make mistakes along the way, we discourage others from stepping forward to enter into this important work at a time when all of our words are so highly charged and under such scrutiny.”

Back to Randall, he lamented a poor choice.

From MSN:

[The superintendent said] it was a “poor choice of words,” which “led to the perception that White students needed the same kind of ‘support’ as our BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People Of Color) students. Students of all racial backgrounds rightfully pushed back on that idea.

Perhaps they’ll get a second chance: If there’s a retrial, the district can nix the white circles.

Link

(05-07-2021 04:33 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

Quote:Thus the conundrum.

Most agree he is guilty of something worthy of jail time. Many agree that he was not judged to be guilty fairly - even though he is guilty. So do we keep this circus tent up and running or just go with the verdict - and stop wasting more time and money on this?

NOPE.. NOPE.. NOPE.. no conundrum.

May I take you back to the 6th amendment, Eldon... and take you back to English 101 and Civics 101?

Quote:In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

You don't get to pick and choose which phrases we do, and which we don't follow in the US constitution. The judges, the court system, they lawyers.. They ALL blew it in this one for Chauvin, no matter what you think of his guilt or innocence. It's either all _or_ none (Thus why an entire amendment had to be struck out).when it comes to the US Constituion, you either believe in the document as written, or you don't.

I agree with you on this one. From the location of the trial, known biased juror, msm intimidation of jurors, intimidation by mobs, idiot Maxine California politician running her mouth, idiot President running his mouth, payout to family before the trial and I’m sure I missed some of the other idiotic things these buffoons did this has been a complete sham. If our judicial system lets this stand we are no better than any other country as far as legal systems go. And any statue remaining in the US with the statue having a blindfold on needs to be destroyed. Because lady justice is NOT BLIND in the US.

And as predicted earlier, the Feds are filing civil rights charges.

That means a mistrial is imminent.

(05-07-2021 04:33 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

Quote:Thus the conundrum.

Most agree he is guilty of something worthy of jail time. Many agree that he was not judged to be guilty fairly - even though he is guilty. So do we keep this circus tent up and running or just go with the verdict - and stop wasting more time and money on this?

NOPE.. NOPE.. NOPE.. no conundrum.

May I take you back to the 6th amendment, Eldon... and take you back to English 101 and Civics 101?

Quote:In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

You don't get to pick and choose which phrases we do, and which we don't follow in the US constitution. The judges, the court system, they lawyers.. They ALL blew it in this one for Chauvin, no matter what you think of his guilt or innocence. It's either all _or_ none (Thus why an entire amendment had to be struck out).when it comes to the US Constitution, you either believe in the document as written, or you don't.

I am being misinterpreted - or at least I am not explaining myself correctly. I believe 100% in due process and the 6th amendment. Unless you have been under lock and key for the last 12 months like a monk, you know this story and you have predisposed your opinion by now. At the very least you "lean" in one direction or the other.

Achieving "Impartiality" in this particular case is the single biggest lie on the entire planet. This is more of the point I guess I am trying to make.

Why are libtard women ALWAYS ugly as hell?

(05-13-2021 11:09 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Why are libtard women ALWAYS ugly as hell?

They are Leftists BEACAUSE they are ugly.

(05-13-2021 11:09 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Why are libtard women ALWAYS ugly as hell?

BTF with appearance smack.

Post a pic of your wife, if you have one and we can rate her hot or not?

(05-13-2021 11:09 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Why are libtard women ALWAYS ugly as hell?

Where's the punch line?

(05-13-2021 11:17 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 11:09 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Why are libtard women ALWAYS ugly as hell?

BTF with appearance smack.

Post a pic of your wife, if you have one and we can rate her hot or not?

Defensive and protective much? He’s right you know.

She's still hotter than a libtard chick

(05-13-2021 11:24 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 11:17 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 11:09 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Why are libtard women ALWAYS ugly as hell?

BTF with appearance smack.

Post a pic of your wife, if you have one and we can rate her hot or not?

Defensive and protective much? He’s right you know.

Nah, it's just appearance smack is weak. Appearance really has little to do with the substance of an argument/political position. Plus, it's someone hiding behind an avatar.

Like folks who called Rush a pill popping, fatazz. While that may be true, it has nothing to do with any particular position on the economy, foreign policy, etc.

(05-13-2021 11:09 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Why are libtard women ALWAYS ugly as hell?

Haint
noun,

1. A hateful bitche.

2. A truly heinous she-devil so brutal that anachronistic and unusual colloquial slang is called for.

Quote:Last week, counsel for Tou Thao, one of the former Minneapolis police officers charged in the death of George Floyd, filed an explosive motion for sanctions against the prosecution that alleges, among other things, that the testimony of Hennepin County Medical Examiner Andrew Baker in the trial of Derek Chauvin “was directly and indirectly coerced by the State and its agents” and that the former chief medical examiner for the State of Maryland, who testified for the Chauvin defense that Floyd’s death was due to cardiac arrhythmia, has been subjected to threats against his medical license.

The motion avers, in part, the following:

On May 26, 2020, Dr. Baker, the Hennepin County Medical Examiner, conducted an autopsy of Mr. Floyd. On that same date, Dr. Baker advised “prosecuting attorneys” that “[t]he autopsy revealed no physical evidence suggesting that Mr. Floyd died of asphyxiation. Mr. Floyd did not exhibit signs of petechiae, damage to his airways or thyroid, brain bleeding, bone injuries, or internal bruising.”

On May 29, 2020, the criminal complaint against Derek Chauvin stated that the full report of the medical examiner was pending, but that the preliminary findings “revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation.”

Prior to June 1, 2020, Dr. Roger Mitchell, former medical examiner for Washington, D.C., called Dr. Baker to discuss these preliminary findings. Citing an “Exhibit 1” (not accessible on the court’s website), paragraphs 5 and 6 of the motion state the following:

5. Dr. Mitchell spoke with Dr. Baker before Dr. Baker finalized his findings on June 1, 2020. Id. During the conversation between Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Baker, the following transpired:

a. Dr. Mitchell “called Baker and said first of all Baker should fire his public information officer.” Id.

b. “Then Mitchell asked [Baker] what happened, because Mitchell didn’t think it sounded like Baker’s words”. Id.

c. “Baker said that he didn’t think the neck compression played a part … ” Id.

6. Over the weekend, Dr. Mitchell thought about Dr. Baker more. Id. After the phone conversation between Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Baker, Dr. Mitchell decided he was going to release an op-ed critical of Dr. Baker’s findings in the Washington Post. Id. Dr. Mitchell first called Dr. Baker to let him know. Id. The following transpired:

a. Dr. Mitchell called Dr. “Baker first to let him know that he was going to be critical of Baker’s findings”. Id. “In this conversation, Mitchell said, you don’t want to be the medical examiner who tells everyone they didn’t see what they saw. You don’t want to be the smartest person in the room and be wrong. Said (sic) there was a way to articulate the cause and manner of death that ensures you are telling the truth about what you are observing and via all of the investigation. Mitchell said neck compression has to be in the diagnosis.” Id. (Emphasis in original.)

According to the motion, following these conversations, Dr. Baker issued a press release in which the “final autopsy findings included neck compression,” which was “contrary to Dr. Baker’s conclusion before speaking with Dr. Mitchell twice.”

The motion later addresses the purported actions of Dr. Mitchell in regard to Dr. David Fowler, former chief medical examiner of the State of Maryland, who testified for the defense in the Chauvin trial “that in his opinion the death [of Mr. Floyd] was undetermined.”

In fact, Dr. Fowler testified that Mr. Floyd died while being restrained by the police of a sudden onset cardiac arrhythmia due to his heart disease, which included high blood pressure and narrowing of the arteries. He added that the presence of fentanyl and methamphetamine in Floyd’s system were contributing factors as was “possible” carbon monoxide poisoning from auto exhaust.

As set forth in the motion, eight days after Dr. Fowler’s testimony, Dr. Mitchell “wrote an open letter” to Maryland’s attorney general, the director of the Maryland Department of Health, the United States attorney general, and the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, calling for an “immediate investigation into the practices of the physician [Dr. Fowler] as well as the practice of the Maryland State Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) while under his leadership.” The letter also stated that Dr. Fowler’s opinion testimony was “baseless, revealed obvious bias, and raised malpractice concerns” and “is outside the standard practice and conventions for investigating and certification of in-custody deaths”:

Our disagreement with Dr. Fowler is not a matter of opinion. Our disagreement with Dr. Fowler is a matter of ethics. The disingenuous testimony of Dr. David Fowler exposes the frailty of the current Medical Examiner/Coroner System and illustrates the lack of existing oversight and uniformity of practice. If forensic pathologists can offer such baseless opinions without penalty, then the entire criminal justice system is at risk.

The letter calls for, among other things, “Investigation into the medical license of [Dr. Fowler] for possible ethical violations associated with death in custody diagnosis.”

The letter, which was publicly circulated, has a “click to sign” feature. As reported by the Baltimore Sun, the letter was “signed by 431 doctors from around the country.”

The motion seeks disclosure of evidence purportedly in the possession of the prosecution to “determine whether Dr. Mitchell was a state-actor/agent when he threatened Dr. Baker and/or Dr. Fowler.” How that discovery will play out and whether sanctions will be imposed against the prosecution remain to be seen.

And it also is an open question as to whether the defense can prove the claim that Dr. Mitchell committed the “crime of coercion” by threatening to “unlawfully injure Dr. Baker’s trade unless Dr. Baker changed his autopsy findings.”

But, in the meantime, Dr. Mitchell’s open letter regarding Dr. Fowler’s purported “ethical violations,” which demands an “investigation into” Dr. Fowler’s medical license, seemingly supports one of the motion’s most damning allegations, to wit:

Dr. Mitchell has set the stage that he will threaten the trade and professional reputation of any physician who suggests that Mr. Floyd’s death could be labeled as “undetermined.”… Dr. Mitchell has essentially stated that any medical expert who wants to testify that Mr. Floyd’s death could be undetermined should, and will, face penalties by him. Dr. Mitchell’s accusations and spurring of legal fallacies creates a chilling effect for Mr. Thao and violates his due process rights in that it has become extraordinarily difficult to find medical experts who are willing to state that Mr. Floyd’s death was undetermined in fear of their professional reputation and licensure.

Given Dr. Mitchell’s open letter, this averment is a masterpiece of lawyerly understatement. And, placed in the context of the threatened mob violence that has permeated and polluted the prosecution of these former Minneapolis police officers, it doesn’t begin to state the enormity of the problem facing the defense.

In that regard, consider the threat sent to Barry Brodd, the retired police officer and use-of-force expert who testified during the Chauvin trial that the defendant’s actions had been reasonable and met the standards of accepted police protocols.

Within a matter of days following his testimony, Brodd’s former home in California was vandalized. According to the New York Post, three women, Rowan Dalbey, 20, Kristen Aumoithe, 34, and Amber Lucas, 35, have been arrested and charged with felony vandalism of that residence.

Lucas is reportedly a self-professed Black Lives Matter activist who attended protests in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death and is also, according to her social media, a lifestyle and wine influencer, as well as a commissioner for the Commission on the Status of Women in Sonoma County.

Police allege that the women struck the property in the early morning hours of April 17, days after Brodd testified in the Chauvin case. The trio allegedly smeared pig’s blood on the front door and garage of the residence and tossed a pig’s head onto the front porch.

“It appears the suspects in this vandalism were targeting Mr. Brodd for his testimony,” said a police spokesman. “Mr. Brodd has not lived at the residence for a number of years and is no longer a resident of California.”

And so it goes. Apparently it’s not enough to force Thao and the other police defendants to stand trial in a venue where they have no hope of having their fate decided by a fair and impartial jury uninfluenced by the threat of mob violence. Now they also must contend with the efforts of those who, by their retaliation against the Chauvin defense witnesses, have given examples of what may happen to anyone contemplating testifying on behalf of Thao and his co-defendants.

So it is that, in woke America, due process of law and the right to defend oneself in a court of law must not stand in the way of achieving social justice.

Nothing must be left to chance.

Link

Quote:The Derek Chauvin defense team filed their legal arguments in support of a motion for a new trial based on his claims that prejudicial pretrial publicity in his case made it impossible for him to receive the constitutionally mandated “fair trial” in Hennepin County, and that juror misconduct during the case deprived him of the right to a fair and impartial jury.

The 53-page memorandum does an effective job at cataloging the shortcomings of Judge Peter Cahill in addressing and resolving these issues. While it is a near certainty that Judge Cahill will deny the motions for a new trial and a change of venue — Minneapolis would likely burn if he granted them — and a Minnesota appeals court is likely to do the same, the motions nevertheless lay the groundwork for some serious legal arguments in the months ahead. Courts are going to have to grapple with the problem of how to deliver to an accused defendant the fair trial before an impartial jury under the Constitution in today’s interconnected and social-media-dominated world.

Right at the start, the memorandum focuses on what I have always thought was the fatal error by Judge Cahill in his somewhat cavalier approach to dealing with Chauvin’s motion for a change of venue based on prejudicial pretrial publicity. The memorandum quotes Judge Cahill’s in-court comments as follows:

As far as change of venue, I do not think that that would give the defendant any kind of fair trial beyond what we are doing here today. I don’t think there’s any place in the state of Minnesota that has not be subjected to extreme amounts of publicity in this case.

These were comments made by Judge Cahill during jury selection after the news reports and news conferences held in the immediate aftermath of the announcement that the City of Minneapolis had settled a civil action brought by George Floyd’s family by paying $27 million.

This characterization by Judge Cahill reflects a gross misunderstanding of his obligations to ensure that Chauvin received the constitutionally required “fair trial.” At the time I characterized his comment as a “This is the best fair trial we can give so that’ll have to be good enough” standard.

It is beyond the scope of this article to explain in detail the legal standards that exist with regard to granting a change of venue motion based on extensive pretrial publicity and its impact on the pool of potential jurors. The subject comes up only rarely where the circumstances are such that the motion was actually granted due to pretrial publicity so extensive as to make finding a fair and impartial jury difficult if not impossible. Only a small handful of cases have ever reached the Supreme Court on this issue.

In one of the Enron cases, the denial of a change of venue motion made by defendant Jeffrey Skilling made its way to the Supreme Court in 2010. The Court’s opinion in Skilling provides the most comprehensive analysis — and most recent — on the rights of a criminal defendant and the obligations of the trial court with regard to dealing with questions of prejudicial pretrial publicity and the right to an impartial jury.

Another extraordinary case was the trial of Timothy McVeigh and the bombing of the Oklahoma Federal Building in Oklahoma City. McVeigh’s trial was moved from Oklahoma City to Denver. Both sides agreed that the pretrial publicity made it impossible to find a fair and impartial jury for McVeigh in Oklahoma, even though the federal district court could draw jurors from the entire state of approximately 3.5 million people.

There is currently pending before the Supreme Court the Boston Marathon Bombing case, United States v. Tsarnaev. After Tsarnaev was convicted and sentenced to death in the federal district court in Boston, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed parts of his case, including the death penalty, and sent the case back to the district court for partial retrial. The trial court judge had denied defense motions for a change of venue based on his intention to conduct an intensive screening of jurors for bias or prejudice during the selection process. Among the reasons for reversing Tsarnaev’s sentence was the Appeals Court’s conclusion that the trial judge had not conducted a screening consistent with his representations. The Court found that Tsarnaev’s right to a fair trial before an impartial jury had not been met. The government appealed the First Circuit’s decision, and the Supreme Court will hear arguments during its next term beginning in October.

The Tsarnaev case highlights the fact that there are really two inquiries at issue here — the refusal of Judge Cahill to act on the issue of prejudicial pretrial publicity that he recognized to be a problem, and the failures of Judge Cahill to adequately screen out biased or prejudiced potential jurors when assembling what is supposed to be an “impartial jury” for trial.

Chauvin’s motion deals with both issues but starts with Judge Cahill’s own comments that prejudicial pretrial publicity was present and could not be denied. The lack of an alternative venue was his basis for denying the change of venue motion. The motion makes the point that the Minnesota Rule providing for a change of venue does not give discretion to the Judge to deny a motion when a fair trial is likely not possible in the location where it is set to take place. Rule 25.02, subd. 3 states:

Subd. 3. Standards for Granting the Motion. A motion for continuance or change of venue must be granted whenever potentially prejudicial material creates a reasonable likelihood that a fair trial cannot be had. Actual prejudice need not be shown.

This is where Judge Cahill’s comments before the trial, and during jury selection, become a problem. Nowhere in the Rule is it contemplated that the question turns on an issue of alternative locations and whether a more fair trial is possible somewhere else. The Rule says the change of venue motion “must” be granted whenever there is a reasonable likelihood that a fair trial cannot be had.

The motion also makes the key point — not understood by the media and many in the legal punditry — that the “impartial jury” right in the Sixth Amendment, belongs only to the defendant, and not to the prosecution. There was a concerted campaign launched in the community and the media to ensure that the trial takes place in Hennepin County because Floyd was black, and the racial composition of Hennepin County made it the only county in Minnesota where there was a high probability that the jury would include one or more black jurors.

I have not listened to or read the transcripts of the days of jury selection during which Judge Cahill questioned prospective jurors. Until I do so I’m not going to opine on his performance in that regard.

But I will leave readers with the following lengthy passage from Irwin v. Dowd, a 1961 Supreme Court case that provides the foundation for much of the Supreme Court’s more recent jurisprudence on the issue of juror impartiality [I’ve eliminated citations in the passage to shorten it]:

In essence, the right to jury trial guarantees to the criminally accused a fair trial by a panel of impartial, “indifferent” jurors. The failure to accord an accused a fair hearing violates even the minimal standards of due process. A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. In the ultimate analysis, only the jury can strip a man of his liberty or his life. In the language of Lord Coke, a juror must be as “indifferent as he stands unsworne.” His verdict must be based upon the evidence developed at the trial. This is true regardless of the heinousness of the crime charged, the apparent guilt of the offender, or the station in life which he occupies. It was so written into our law as early as 1807 by Chief Justice Marshall “The theory of the law is that a juror who has formed an opinion cannot be impartial.”

It is not required, however, that the jurors be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved. In these days of swift, widespread and diverse methods of communication, an important case can be expected to arouse the interest of the public in the vicinity, and scarcely any of those best qualified to serve as jurors will not have formed some impression or opinion as to the merits of the case.

This is particularly true in criminal cases. To hold that the mere existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror’s impartiality would be to establish an impossible standard. It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.

The adoption of such a rule, however, “cannot foreclose inquiry as to whether, in a given case, the application of that rule works a deprivation of the prisoner’s life or liberty without due process of law.” As stated in Reynolds, the test is “whether the nature and strength of the opinion formed are such as in law necessarily . . . raise the presumption of partiality.

I do not think the state of Minnesota and Judge Cahill met this standard in the trial of Derek Chauvin.

Link

(05-13-2021 12:54 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 11:09 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Why are libtard women ALWAYS ugly as hell?

Haint
noun,

1. A hateful bitche.

2. A truly heinous she-devil so brutal that anachronistic and unusual colloquial slang is called for.

Also a ceiling paint at Sherwin Williams ..... Haint Blue Porch Ceiling paint