that may be what they called it but in reality it was a Floyd/BLM/anti police protest. Them trying to tie that in to MLK's speech doesn't change anything. and he's wearing a BLM shirt and lied to the courts about being involved in protests when they asked. not only is that grounds for a mistrial , but he should be in prison for blatantly lying to the district court.

Lol at thinking some hood rat thug is a "peer" of a white law enforcement officer.

RIP USA

He's from Mexico, the only black person he knows is Muzzlrpress.

Look up the date Aug 28th, 1963 you moron... juror guy ended up going to DC on Aug 28th of last year. You know how often they commemorate MLK and his speech? Jesus you are legit mentally handicapped huh

Its the lawyers job to vet the juror to determine if there are conflicts of interest
Its the judges job to interview and vet the juror if its discovered a conflict of interest exists during the trial
Its the lawyers job to appeal if a conflict of interest exist with the jurors after the case is closed...and its almost bullet proof that an appeal will be granted

So you arent wrong the defense attorney should have vetted any conflicts of interest. If the juror wasnt truthful when questioned, because you can rest assured they were questioned about conflicts of interest, I have some bad news for you about this ruling. This case WILL be retried if the the juror had a conflict in interest and wasnt truthful, was deceptive or wasnt forthcoming.

There is almost zero percent chance this juror didnt lie or not provide the required information because the defense attorney primary goal in selecting jurors would be to determine bias. This juror doesnt have to be BLM for there to be an impact. They just need to make the case that he was racially biased enough and that his bias could have tainted or swayed the jury.

Why can't the juror be BLM? Anyway, like Dana White says never leave it in the hands of the judges

How was he untruthful?

One particularly big moron, a known idiot who can't look at someone's shirt.

Jaydawg whenever he sees a thread with 'BLM' in it

The shirt he was wearing literally has MLK on it AT AN EVENT COMMEMORATING HIM AND HIS SPEECH FROM 1963

he answered “no” when asked during jury selection if he had attended any protests for George Floyd


he was not truthful in disclosing that

Do you think a defense attorney would knowingly select a juror that would be impartial? You dont have to go into the details its just common sense.

Let me ask you a question - If you are a lawyer and there is a racially heated African American case your client is charged with, would you knowingly select a juror that appears to have a potential juror with clear racial bias? Would you ask this juror questions to vet this bias?.....

Again the odds that this guy wasnt deceptive or forthcoming probably hover around zero....And yes a single juror can swing an entire jury and yes it is a big deal.

This along with Maxine Waters et al making public comments is probably enough to get it appealed.

Do me a favor and read the actual article.. because if you did, you wouldn't have typed this and shown you don't even have basic knowledge regarding this topic

HINT: It has to do with MLK

Love seeing the mental gymnastics by Jose, keep it up lmao, great entertainment

Read it again if you must

It wasn't a blm protest. It was an annual mlk March that blm showed up to.



People only care about context when it's convenient to their bias. Don't be that guy.

Read my reply again...The appeal does not need to be based upon attending BLM riots. All they need to do is show conflict of interest. They already have that. You cant use MLK vs BLM as your foundation that this isnt grounds for appeal.

If the juror falsely claimed he didnt attend BLM events its just grounds for perjury charges. Thats the variance and nothing more.

If he didn't disclose it or lied when asked, yeah he's gonna get fuked. I can't believe he'd be that stupid tho.

Lol at pseudo intellectual lawyers go to Reddit you faaggots

This appeal is going to sail through. Anybody with half a brain knew this before the verdict was even read

If they can prove he lied he is going to catch a nice felonious perjury charge

This instance isn't enough for an appeal... if you ADD IT with other aspects ie. change of venue, Maxine Waters, etc.. then you have an argument (a very weak one). But not this solely, absolutely not

Also just LMFAO at you apparently thinking attending a MLK anniversary event is ground for appeal on it's own. Stop

Would not be surprised to see a new trial ordered on appeal. Between Maxine Waters and Biden's comments before the verdict, and now this info. I think he'll be convicted again.

Wrong...Appeals are regularly granted on conflicts of interest. An untainted, fair and unbiased jury is one of the foundational principals of a fair trial.


You have the RIGHT to a impartial jury of your peers...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...impartial-jury






Your argument/position does not actually have legs to stand on.

And the courts would throw away the appeal because of this






The circumstances regarding the actual event and the MASS media attention AROUND THE WORLD, is going to weigh heavily on this decision of appeal if you are solely bringing this on appeal. You're losing if your the defense if you just bring this.

Again..You do not know what you are talking about. You have the RIGHT to an impartial jury of your peers. If it can be proven, and it appears obvious it can, that the juror was impartial then the appeal can be granted.

So if you plan to reply, reply with legal context and not your opinion. I've provided context and a link containing your RIGHT to jury of impartial peers. If you have no legitimate position with links to laws supporting your position....the discussion is over

What is the context of “your knee off our necks” quote on his shirt?

I only know that as it relates to Chauvin.

Guys we just have to trust in the system. Much like the Emmett Till case, the court will always be fair and impartial under all circumstances.

YOU don't know what you're talking about. The media coverage wasn't even a big reason about change of venue, it was about the civil settlement. That has more of a shot on appeal than what you're saying with a juror who went to an MLK event.

There is no impartiality you idiot. Explain how this man was impartial, he told Nelson and the courts that he views BLM "very favorably". He wasn't at a BLM function. Try and actually read and think before quoting me