George Floyd Juror Claims Jury Duty Is A Means To “Spark Some Change”…What Else Do We Know About His Impartiality and Activism?
Brandon Mitchell is known as Juror #52 in the trial of police officer Derek Chauvin for the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota last spring.
When he was chosen as a juror, he claimed to be impartial. In fact, according to The Post Milennial, Brandon insisted that he “had no prior knowledge of the George Floyd civil case” according to FOX9.
According to Minneapolis’ FOX 9 reporter Paul Blume, who livetweeted the case on March 15, “Judge Cahill asked Juror #52, whether he heard anything about the #GeorgeFloyd civil case. He says, no. He explained hearing some basic info about trial dates, etc from the news in recent months, but nothing that would keep him from serving as impartial juror. #ChauvinTrial” “Juror #52 wrote in his jury questionnaire that he wondered why other police officers at the scene did not intervene in #GeorgeFloyd deadly arrest. He recognizes the historic nature of the case. Defense says he is an acceptable juror. So state’s turn to question,” Blume added.
Judge Cahill asked Juror #52, whether he heard anything about the #GeorgeFloyd civil case. He says, no. He explained hearing some basic info about trial dates, etc from the news in recent months, but nothing that would keep him from serving as impartial juror. #ChauvinTrial
— Paul Blume (@PaulBlume_FOX9) March 15, 2021
Yet, he was photographed last August–well before the trial or jury duty–wearing a shirt with “BLM” emblazoned on it. The shirt also had a very impassioned statement against Derek Chauvin, imploring (presumably) police officers like Chauvin to “Get Your Knee Off Our Necks.” And, this wasn’t a ‘gotcha’ moment. It was a post he made to Facebook:
This is a man who told the judge in the case that “discrimination is beyond what media can even report…police don’t necessarily make him feel safe…” Yet, he was allowed to be on the jury as an ‘impartial’ witness, as required by law.
-Black male: 30’s
-In banking, coaches kids’ sports
-Has witnessed police excessive force
-Discrimination is beyond what media can even report
-Police don’t necessarily make him feel safe, but there are officers at his gym who are “great guys”#DerekChauvinTrial pic.twitter.com/C0KhYln9F9
— Serene 𓅓 (@MythSerene) April 18, 2021
Now, Brandon has become the first non-alternate juror to speak openly about the jury deliberations.
Speaking on a show called “Get Up! Mornings with Erica Campbell” on April 27th, 2021 Mitchel seemed to state outright that jury duty is a platform for social activism. He mentioned nothing about impartiality or constitutional rule of law.
“I mean it’s important if we wanna see some change, we wanna see some things going different, we gotta into these avenues, get into these rooms to try to spark some change,” he said. “Jury duty is one of those things. Jury duty. Voting. All of those things we gotta do.”
Here’s the moment Juror #52 (Brandon Mitchell) from the Chauvin trial talks about jury duty as a means for societal change. pic.twitter.com/xewZitQXvq
— Janet (@janetburke27) May 2, 2021
Mitchell also said in the full interview that he wasn’t impressed with any of the witnesses that Chauvin’s defense called to the stand, even though many were experts in their field for many years and contradicted the prosecution narrative.
What do you think, Reader? Did Mitchell truly weigh the evidence at all? He claims the jury completed deliberations on manslaughter “right away” and the other two charges took perhaps just another four hours without asking the judge any questions regarding the evidence or witnesses.
Did he use jury duty as a platform to enact his own brand of social change activism?
Should the case be dismissed because Brandon seems to have clearly lied about his dispositions and impartiality in the case based upon the photos and this Get Up! interview?
Is a jury box designed to be a place for activism, or should Chauvin be granted a mistrial due to at least one of the jurors admitting to using his position as a means to push ‘societal change’ rather than imparting a ruling based upon an impartial preponderance of evidence?
What do you think will happen, next?