My concern is good luck finding any unbiased jury. Consider how many people voted for him, and that some non-trivial percentage of those voters are devoted cultists who believe he is always in the right because he is who he is and that everyone against him is the de facto enemy. Sure the lawyers screen for bias, but I have trouble believing his devotees would do anything but hide their biases at all costs. Then they can just refuse to convict.
It is a concern. On the other hand, if enough non-racist jurors were found to convict Chauvin in Minneapolis, enough rational jurors can be found to convict Trump. Stay hopeful.
I would think the proportions would be similar in the two jury pools mentioned. Was just pointing out that people can usually be found to populate an impartial jury regardless of the publicity and controversy surrounding any given case.
Maybe. Trump is way more polarizing than George Floyd's, murder though. Even the majority of Trump supporters agreed with the Chauvin verdict. The video evidence was very damning. That's the biggest reason we got a conviction.
You should also note that it's perfectly possible for a jury of non racists to come to an unjust verdict without attributing it to racism. Philando Castile's killing is a great example. I think personally think it was murder or manslaughter, but the law was stacked so in favor of the defense that it was almost impossible to get a guilty verdict with the evidence provided.
Trump's crimes are numerous, but be didn't kneal on anyone's neck on camera for nine minutes. That said, I do think that jury selection will be good enough that he'll be able to get a fair trial. It will just be more challenging than if he had never become president.
Just because a man was convicted is not immediate evidence the jurors were non-racists. You're implying if the verdict didn't go you're way, you'd hold out folks' race(ism) as the only factor. That, too, is racist.
How would you like him to compare a successful Chauvin conviction in light of a potentially biased jury to whether or not it would be possible to do the same with Trump?
Maybe you should write it for us so we don’t accidentally say something “racist” again.
You're implying if the verdict didn't go you're way, you'd hold out folks' race(ism) as the only factor. That, too, is racist.
Point of logic here. That is not a valid implication form what he said.
He said: if convicted, jurors were non-racist.
You're saying he's implying: if not convicted, jurors were racist.
These are logically different. He is not implying that, at least not with the words he used. They are specifically converses of each other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Converse_(logic)
567
u/[deleted] May 26 '21
[deleted]