Derek Chauvin Trial Juror Speaks Out: 'I Could Feel Their Pain'

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: New York Times

MINNEAPOLIS — Hearing the prosecution’s medical experts, one after the next, testify that a lack of oxygen killed George Floyd was already enough to convince Lisa Christensen that Derek Chauvin was guilty of murder.

Then the defense witnesses took to the stand — and they only solidified her confidence in the prosecution’s case.

When one of them, Barry Brodd, a police expert, suggested that someone could rest comfortably in the prone position, face down on the pavement, he lost her, Ms. Christensen said. Then came the defense’s medical expert, Dr. David Fowler, Maryland’s former chief medical examiner. She did not buy his explanation that a combination of drugs, pre-existing medical conditions and even carbon monoxide were to blame for Mr. Floyd’s death.

“I just don’t think it was real believable,” Ms. Christensen said of the defense’s case. “The prosecutors were true to their opening statements. They said in their opening statements, ‘Believe your eyes. What you see, you can believe.’ And for me, that was true.”

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/derek-chauvin-trial-juror-speaks-out-i-could-feel-their-pain/ar-BB1fYFnT?li=BBnb7Kz

[underpants]

1. Thanks. I'd seen teaser headlines about alternate jurors

Either on Fox News or advertised so I figured it was some sort of maybe something to appease the racists. There was never really any doubt bout this. The camera don’t lie.

[RockRaven]

2. Potentially unpopular opinion: Jurors should STFU, and never speak on their thoughts/decision.

Chauvin may try to appeal. Given how the right wing has taken up his case as a crack/leak in the dam which must be plugged, it is likely to be a well-resourced effort.

While the MN state supreme court has a favorable makeup (based on who appointed them), why tempt fate by giving the defense anything -- no matter how innocuous -- to start working with?

[bucolic_frolic]

3. Agree. Should be limited to scientific study and held 70 years like census data

[FakeNoose]

4. I think I agree, and the media should be barred from interviewing them too

On the other hand, I'm fully on board with showing the jury members all the damning evidence they weren't allowed to see during the trial. The jury was never told about the fact that Chauvin and Floyd knew each other and actually worked together previously. (Possible grudge motive, who knows?) The jury was never told about all of Chauvin's racially-motivated incidents on his employment record, or the fact that he had killed someone while on duty. The jury wasn't told about his troubles with the IRS and how he and his ex-wife attempted to hide property and assets on their divorce agreement for tax-avoidance. This guy was so dirty, the jury should be told so they'll not have regrets.

But your original point was that the jury shouldn't be allowed to give away valuable info that could be used in the appeal process.

[localroger]

5. Too bad about that pesky First Amendment thingie /nt

[RobinA]

6. Couldn't Agree More

I can never understand why jurors find it necessary to blab all over town. I'd rather not know their reasoning, because sometimes even when they reach the right results the logic is frightening.

[DENVERPOPS]

7. What about the F***ing Judge

Stating is an open court room to the Defense attorney, for no legitimate reason, that maxine waters statement was more than enough for them to file an appeal.....

The judge knew, that this statement alone, would serve as grounds for appeal with no review by the appellate court.......

By the time the appellate courts get through with this case, I fear his sentence will be reduced to "time served" and two months probation...........AND that his application will be put at the top of the list for a position on tons of Police Depts across the nation.

Definitely a sad state of affairs.............

[soldierant]

8. If I understamd correctly,

this juror was an alternate, who saw all the evidence the actualjury did from the same viewpoint, but was dismissed before the deliberations, let alone the vote.

If that's so, it would be a real stretch to use her thoughts in an appeal.

I do take your point, however. And I gather no one who actually voted on the verdict has beem interview or even had his or her name released. It can be speculated that one or more actual jurors felt the same as ths alternate, but that's all it would be - speculation.