(Politicizd) -- Just over two weeks have passed since the infamous trial of Police Officer Derek Chauvin. Chauvin, seen using his knee to restrain the arrested George Floyd, was charged with second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter.
However, those convictions now face disruption as the defense team files for a mistrial. The motion stems from a now viral photo of an active juror on the trial.
Brandon Mitchell, (pictured below), apparently attended a march fighting Police Brutality, and sported a shirt suggesting, cops "get their knees off our necks". This findings directly contradict testimony given during jury questioning.
Of the juror questions particularly alarming, were "Whether he or someone close to him had participated in any of the demonstrations or marches against police brutality that took place in Minneapolis". Mitchell said no.
Another question 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?"
Mitchell once again, said no.
Objectively, these answers present a major problem to the judge. If Mitchell is found to have been lying, grounds for a mistrial are entirely at play.
According to Mark Osler, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law, Defense attorney, Eric Nelson will have to show that Mitchell "[fooled him] or was dishonest in his answers".
Osler, however, went to on to clarify he did not believe Mitchell was dishonest.
Critics, though disagree, alleging that if he were completely honest he would have indicated that he did in fact, protest police brutality at a march in Washington D.C.
Conservative commentator, Ben Shapiro elaborated on this, exemplifying another scenario. If per se, the jury had found Chauvin innocent and then later discovered that one of the juror's attended a blue lives matter protest (a Pro-Law enforcement protest); grounds for a mistrial would be obvious and evidently carried out. As a result, Shapiro says that there certainly is reason to believe in a potential mistrial.
Furthermore, advocates point to the constitution as evidence of a mistrial.
According to Cornell Law School, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.
The school goes on to clarify, "the purpose of this provision is to ensure that a jury’s verdict is not tainted by biases that jurors may harbor before being presented with the evidence of the particular case"
With this in mind, many feel that the juror in question significantly violated this, lying about his biases prior to the trial.
Matt Walsh, an Apple Podcast Host, reiterated this, wavering concern over the lack of fairness in Chauvin's trial.
Overall, as the motion for mistrial looms large on the country, many feel that surrounding circumstances will prevent a judge from overturning the verdict. Moreover, there is increased doubt that a judge will call for mistrial as the consequences for his career could be devastating.
Whats Next: Attorneys await Judge Cahill's response to the latest findings of Juror #52, Brandon Mitchell.