The fact that the jury in the trial of Derek Chauvin was not, in fact, impartial and fair should be no shock to anyone. Now one juror has been exposed as having blatantly lied under oath in order to be admitted to the jury. Brandon Mitchell, formerly juror #52 lied to the judge by claiming to know little about the case. In actuality, Brandon Mitchell is a very active BLM campaigner who was determined to promote his political agenda through the verdict.
An activist jury
Mitchell either does not know or does not care that he broke the law and spat in the face of the justice system. On a recent podcast Mitchell even encouraged others to follow his example and use jury duty to “spark some change.”
As jury duty is most certainly not the right place to be attempting to “spark some change” Mitchell and other BLM activists are either completely ignorant of the law or completely confident that they will face no consequences for their actions. Probably both.
Mitchell was specifically asked during jury selection if he knew much about the case. He claimed that he knew very little and yet he evidently knew enough to own clothing covered in references to the case.
In addition to running his podcast, Mitchell is seen in a photo from last year wearing a Black Lives Matter hat and a shirt which reads “GET YOUR KNEE OFF OUR NECKS” clearly a reference to the case he claimed to know little about.
By his own admission and in photographic evidence this individual actively sought to get onto a jury with no intention of considering the evidence or appraising the facts.
Mitchell surely contributed to the rapid guilty verdict with his confidence, though it seems almost undeniable that other members of the jury must have shared his opinions from the beginning of the selection process.
No justice for Chauvin
Derek Chauvin was never likely to receive anything approaching a fair trial. Finding twelve impartial jurors in the entirety of Minnesota would be nearly impossible after the amount of attention devoted to the case.
Combine this constant coverage with the widespread rioting and destruction and threats from politicians and protesters and there was no chance of the jury actually deliberating in a serious manner.
Still, the manner in which the trial was run continues to seem more and more farcical. Jurors were able to lie under oath and were simply taken at their word with no closer examination.
The jury was not sequestered before delivering a verdict which the entire world was paying close attention to and which the President of the United States loudly expressed his personal opinion on.
Clearly this entire thing needs to be thrown out as a mistrial. There was no semblance of justice for Derek Chauvin and we are constantly learning still more about how egregious it was.
In another trial, however, is Derek Chauvin any more likely to get justice? In a country where it is evidently acceptable to lie your way onto a jury to serve your political cause, what hope is there for an impartial verdict?
