Integrity Of Derek Chauvin’s Trial Questioned With Juror’s Involvement In Protests

by Seth Udinski

Seth Udinski, FISM News


The trial of the 21st century continues to dominate news headlines even after a guilty verdict.  Several weeks ago, the jury in the case of ex-police officer Derek Chauvin declared Chauvin guilty of the murder of 46-year-old African-American George Floyd on May 25, 2020.  Floyd’s death sparked worldwide racial riots and social unrest.

This past week, Chauvin’s legal team announced that it is protesting the outcome and demanding a re-trial.  The verdict was not without controversy, and now new information is calling into question the impartiality of the jury .

Brandon Mitchell, a 31-year old black man, served as “Juror 52,” one of the twelve jurors that sentenced Chauvin.  Before the trial began, Mitchell testified that he was impartial about the Chauvin/Floyd case, and that he had not attended a march or protest against police brutality since Floyd’s death.  This past week, a photograph surfaced on social media showing Mitchell at a march from August of 2020 in Washington, D.C., in remembrance of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have A Dream” speech from 1963.

Several of George Floyd’s family members spoke at the event.  In addition to this, there were other representatives of those in the black community who claimed to be victims of police brutality.  Most troubling was a photograph that captured Mitchell wearing a shirt with the words “GET YOUR KNEE OFF OUR NECKS” and “BLM” on it.  Mitchell claimed the march was solely in remembrance of Martin Luther King Jr. and had nothing to do with police brutality or Floyd’s death:

It was directly related to MLK’s March on Washington from the ’60s … The date of the March on Washington is the date … It was literally called the anniversary of the March on Washington.

Whether Mitchell purposefully lied about his involvement or not, it is clear that he is far from impartial on the issues surrounding the trial.  Regardless of the outcome of this development, the actions of “Juror 52” raises serious questions about the trial’s integrity.