The Derek Chauvin case has been one of the most publicized trials in American history. This was a case to change venue, if I ever saw one. To change venue means to change the trial to another location, because it can cause a conflict of interest. It was also a perfect case to sequester the jury. Many threats were laid against the jury, which could have been an incentive to vote a particular way. The remarks of Congresswoman Maxine Waters, were not only unprofessional but also, absolute grounds for a mistrial. She told Americans to "stay on the street" and that "we are looking for a guilty verdict". 

             Also, because of this case's publicity and due to the bias of media networks, internet platforms, and the fact that the trial was not even relocated, tells anybody that these jurors could have already had a prejudice.

        You may think that this is simply conspiracy theories, and that none of this is factual, well, then you should review the statements of the twelve jurors, especially the very biased comments of ten of them. If you don't believe what I state here, you can see the article or yourself, that I will place at the end.

            The first juror, a white man in his 20's, said previously to being chosen as a juror, that he believes "the justice system is biased against racial and ethnic minorities". Yet, somehow, he was chosen to be a juror in the justice system.

            The second juror, a 'multiracial' woman in her 20's, said she had "somewhat negative impressions of Chauvin". Keep in mind, a juror with prejudice is not supposed to be chosen.

             The third juror, a white man in his 30's said his view of Chauvin was "somewhat negative", he "supports the black lives matter movement" and has an "unfavorable view of blue lives matter". Also, keep in mind, the only thing this man knew up to this point about Chauvin, is a two second video taken out of context, that the mainstream media has played time and time again. 

              The fourth juror, a black man in his 30's said "It could have been me", as though he were comparing himself to Floyd, therefore having a previous bias.

              The fifth juror, a white woman in her 50's said about the justice system that she "believes there's bias". She also said that she'd formed a negative opinion of Chauvin. 

              The sixth juror, a black man in his 30's said he wondered why the "other officers didn't intervene". Keep in mind, this man is the most neutral of all the jurors, but also remember that he agreed to a guilty verdict on all three murder counts, the next day, because for some reason you can charge someone with three murder counts for one person.

              The seventh juror, a white woman in her 50's said she couldn't watch the full video because it was "too disturbing". She also said, she had a negative view of Chauvin, until he could be proven innocent. Remember The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense."

              The eighth juror, a black man in his 40's, he said he had a neutral view of Chauvin, but a "somewhat positive view" of Floyd. He thought this before having seen anything, or any evidence in the trial. He had a "positive view" of a man, solely because of the way he was painted by the media, when we knew nothing about the man, other than, that he was high, and being arrested, and that he died.

             The ninth juror, a 'multiracial' woman in her 40's said she wouldn't have trouble second guessing the behavior of police offices. This woman shared no incite on he view of the case, or if she even had one.

             The tenth juror, a white woman in her 50's, was a nurse, who had medical training, and it was known that she was prone to judge the police's resuscitation efforts based on her medical experience.

             The eleventh juror, a black woman in her 60's, said she watched the video of Floyd's arrest before shutting it off. This woman clearly had bias because she said she believes "blacks and whites do not receive equal treatment". 

             Finally the twelfth juror, a white woman in her 40's said she thinks "change is needed based on what she's seen in media coverage of racism." She also said she had negative views of both Chauvin and Floyd, but "understands the struggles of addiction." This is the link to the article https://www.npr.org/sections/trial-over-killing-of-george-floyd/2021/04/20/989149400/what-we-know-about-the-jurors-in-the-chauvin-trial

              The majority of these jurors, clearly had a previous bias, and had already made up their mind. The fact that they were also pushed to vote for a guilty verdict, for the safety of themselves and their families, even if they had presumed Chauvin innocent. 

             These are the five most common reasons for a mistrial.

                 The Jury Cannot Reach a Unanimous Verdict.
                             A Juror Committed Misconduct.
                             The Jury Was Improperly Drawn.
           The Jury Was Provided Evidence It Should Not Have Had.
                  A Key Figure in the Trial Becomes Unavailable.
                               Help In Your Criminal Appeal.

            For all the reasons I have stated above, it is more than clear, that this jury was improperly drawn. One juror, even wore a black lives matter shirt and hat, and had a sign that said "get your knees off our necks", and has publicly spoken out on the case. If you don't believe me, here is the link to the article, which is one of many.https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/05/03/chauvin-trial-juror/

          The testimony of several experts also puts doubt on the idea that George Floyd died due to Chauvin's knee on his neck, and whether Chauvin's use of force was unreasonable.

          David Fowler, a retired forensic pathologist who was chief medical examiner for the state of Maryland, testified that in his opinion, the manner of Floyd's death should be classified as "undetermined" rather than "homicide." If you want to see the entire video for yourself, and did not watch the trial,  here is the link, https://youtu.be/34jeEJJrgy8

          Barry Brodd, a use-of-force expert, testified in former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin's trial. The defense witness said that Chauvin and three other officers' actions were justified during the arrest that ended in George Floyd's death and that they used an appropriate amount of force. Here is the link to the video of his testimony. https://youtu.be/olnVsDiKHUI

         If you saw the trial, you know that there is several more that I can list. If the judge or jury has a reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt, the defendant cannot be convicted. Simply put, reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof used in any court of law. It used exclusively in criminal cases because a criminal  conviction could deprive the defendant of liberty or even life. In the due process clause of the fifth amendment, it states that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law" 

        Anyone without a predisposed bias, or that can see past it, would realize that there was reasonable doubt in this case, as well as many questions about juror impartiality. If you believe that justice should be applied equally to all, as the constitution states, and that the justice system should never judge based off of race, gender, or prejudice of any sort, than you should realize that this trial is a perfect case for a mistrial. A juror is not supposed to convict off of a small doubt that they are guilty, it has to be beyond reasonable doubt. Derek Chauvin was guilty until proven innocent, and since that is not the way a justice system is supposed to work, the court of public opinion won, that is judged by emotions and swayed daily, rather than by law and order. Sign if you want justice!