If a tree falls in the forest ....

[j.p.]

Does anybody hear ?

or

“If a jury verdict does not lead to violent protests and riots, can pundits still complain about them?”

Fox News Focused on Chauvin Verdict Riots That Never Happened (mediaite.com)

[k.d.]

If a jury is intimidated and admonished to vote the 'right way', is it a fair trial?

[j.p.]

The jury is as impartial as possible and knows infinitely more about the case than me, you and any commentator that you would pay attention to.

So, we can only conclude it was fair at this time. If you have some inside knowledge you should share it with the court.

[k.d.]

They clearly were intimidated. There is no way they could have reasonably found him guilty of all three charges. They got themselves off the hook to let the next jury deal with it.

[j.p.]

I don't know how you would know if they were intimidated. I thought it was a little odd that they came back so soon, though. But, I can't see how any jurist would take their moral and lawful duty so flippantly to convict someone they had doubts about. They would not be able to live with themselves. They would take that guilt to their graves.
They can also excuse themselves with good cause.

[k.d.]

I don't know how you would know if they were intimidated.

Anyone who has paid attention to the rhetoric, threats, and actions by local officials, BLM activists, and outsiders would give serious thoughts to what an innocent verdict would lead to. And what was the government saying by giving the Floyd family $27 million.

There’s No Way Americans Can Trust The Jury’s Chauvin Verdict
A fair trial might have come to the same conclusion. But we'll never know, and never be able to trust this outcome, because America's left purposefully made a fair trial impossible.
Joy PullmannBy Joy Pullmann
APRIL 21, 2021
A Minnesota jury has found former police officer Derek Chauvin guilty of second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter. This means they claim to have concluded that they unanimously believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin caused Floyd’s death.

Given the circumstances of the trial, however, it’s extremely hard to believe the jury was solely concerned with either truth or justice. It’s extremely hard, if not impossible, for any thinking person not to have a reasonable doubt about the outcome.

We know the judge in the case refused to sequester jurors from media coverage and outside influences during the trial, and that the pressure conveyed to them was beyond intense. It was made perfectly clear to them that the nation would be engulfed in flames if they expressed they did in fact have a reasonable doubt over whether Floyd’s death was Chauvin’s fault.
https://thefederalist.com/2021/04/21/the...n-verdict/

[j.p.]

The city had a vested interest in settling the civil suit. Namely to protect the city. THAT was political.

The criminal trial was devoid of politics, it's the law. There is no evidence of impropriety, so far. Only political conjecture from mostly right wing media outlets. Yes, it is the media that is forming the "political" contrarian opinion, including yours. Since an appeal is likely, you could say the thefederalist, Carlson et al are tampering with judicial processes. My point is the media is the media and will always be the media. This plays out everyday across the country.

[k.d.]

The Federalist piece makes a hundred times more sense than your response.

[j.p.]

The Federalist piece makes a hundred times more sense than your response.

I'm not trying to control your thought. You are just again falling into the same trap you pretend to despise, the media's.

I am guilty of this as well. But not in this instance. The jury's decision is what it is. The only thing I am opining on is the supposed superficialness of the jury you and others are claiming.

[k.d.]

Even if you don't believe the jury was 'intimidated', it would be impossible to believe they were not 'influenced' by outside influences.