Chauvin needs a new trial
Comments
-
Reasonable doubt, as in, I doubt the jury was ever safe from being intimidated into a guilty decision.
Citizens have the constitutional right to protest outside a courthouse. Even a congresswoman has that right. No one should try to curtail the First Amendment. The correct constitutional approach is to permit protests while insulating the jury from them. Sequestration strikes the appropriate constructional balance between the right of protesters to demand convictions and the right of a defendant to a fair trial that is uninfluenced by those same demands.
-
Oh no! For the first time in American history, people felt strongly about a criminal trial.
Let's just throw the verdict out. Obviously.
-
H shows his concern about a fair trial
-
Race shows her support for hermetically sealed tribunals.
-
Gibberish as usual
-
It's nice when Perry Namath agrees with me (and common sense at the same time). Strong opinions on a trial are grounds for sequestration.
Case in point:
-
thank you for your service
-
Only idiots felt strongly. Just unhinged morons like you that think men are also women and vice versa. Did you do the purple hair today? All three hairs are striking I'm sure.
-
"Only idiots felt strongly!" screamed Sludge, without even a trace of irony or self-awareness.
-
Soros paid protestors don't count. HTH
