Thread by @Peoples_Pundit

As jurors speak out, what @barnes_law and I told you repeatedly will become increasingly clear.

Juror responses in voir dire were red flags for defense. They didn't "deliberate" over the facts. They projected their experiences/beliefs onto the case. foxnews.com/us/chauvin-jur…

To be fair to them, they are far from being alone in doing this. That's how most jurors/juries come to render verdicts.

They tell themselves a story through the lense of their own beliefs.

It was just particularly slanted (very) in the trial against Derek Chauvin.

"It was just dark. It felt like every day was a funeral and watching someone die every day."

He wanted on "because of all the protests and everything that happened after the event. This is the most historic case of my lifetime, and I would love to be a part of it."

BIG RED FLAG

As we also told you, true hold outs are rare and unless they have strong internals, will cave more than 90% of the time.

Here we have this juror expressing frustration over a holdout wanting to deliberate over jury instructions.

Rest couldn't have cared less about instructions.

To be clear, the second quote(s) in the above tweet in this thread is from the QUESTIONNAIRE this particular juror filled out!

Not that he could've gotten a fair trial in that particularly venue for his client, but it was still a terrible job by the defense during voir dire.

Exactly, because hs mind was made up. And if his portrayal of the rest of the 10 jurors is accurate, so were their minds.

Before the pro-conviction crowd speaks, ask yourselves whether jury instructions deserved deliberation if it was you, your family.

https://twitter.com/RNS_USA/status/1387484750118625285