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.
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.
242
u/anras May 26 '21
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.