Skip to main content
WeLoveTrump.com may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on the site. Read our full Disclosure here.

“I didn’t want to go through the rioting”: Juror in Chavin Trial Makes Shocking Admission on Camera


28,200 views

It was just revealed that Lisa Christensen was an alternate juror in the case of George Floyd.

Christensen was present every day in the trial.

She didn’t know until it was time to make the decision whether she would get to determine Derek Chauvin’s fate.

She sat in the courtroom daily for 3 weeks and was even seated in front of Derek Chauvin himself.

She is one of the first jurors involved in the trial to make a public statement.

But her statement on camera will shock you.

She said:

I did not want to go through rioting and destruction again and I was concerned about people coming to my house if they were not happy with the verdict.

Now…

Before social media tries to label this article as fake news, let us be very clear.

As an alternate juror, Christensen ultimately did not have a say in the final verdict.

However, her thoughts are indicative of the sentiment in the room.

Her thoughts give us insight into what other jurors must have been thinking.

For her to admit on camera that she was fearful of rioting as well as the safety of her family, it raises major questions as to the validity of the jury.

Everyone deserves the right to a fair trial and an unbiased jury.

But Christensen’s comments appear to indicate that the jurors had more on their mind than the case at hand.

More details below:

It is clear that the Democrats have a double standard when it comes to “justice.”

Local Kare 11 News has a transcript of this revealing interview:

Raguse: Did you know that you were going to be an alternate in this case?

Christensen: No, I did not.

Raguse: Were you disappointed when you found out that you were an alternate?

Christensen: I was. I spent three weeks of my time, getting invested and going through all kinds of emotions. My heart broke a little when he turned and said, “Number 96, you’re an alternate.”

Raguse: When you made it on the jury, how much did you know about the case and what were your thoughts on being a part of it?

Christensen: I saw the video, but not in its entirety. I saw it two or three times on the news. I do not use social media, so I did not post anything or see anything on there.

Raguse: You are the perfect juror in that aspect. You came in with about as clean a slate as somebody can have, considering how big of a case this was.

Christensen: Yeah, I did tell them that I saw the settlement run across the bottom of the screen one day.

Raguse: What did that settlement mean to you?

Christensen: I knew it was a separate case. I knew civil cases are different with different rules, so it did not affect me. I was not surprised there was a settlement, but I was surprised they announced it beforehand.

Raguse: Did you want to be a juror?

Christensen: I had mixed feelings. There was a question on the questionnaire about it and I put I did not know. The reason, at that time, was I did not know what the outcome was going to be, so I felt like either way you are going to disappoint one group or the other. I did not want to go through rioting and destruction again and I was concerned about people coming to my house if they were not happy with the verdict.

Raguse: What were your thoughts on the fact that the trial was televised?

Christensen: It made it more intense. At least, I thought that in the beginning. I’m glad it was, because it made it transparent, so everyone knows and cannot question what happened.

Raguse: You were an alternate, but would you have voted guilty or not guilty?

Christensen: I would have voted guilty. However, at the end the judge did read us the rules for deliberation, but it was quick, and I could not absorb it. I would have said guilty on some level. After I was excused, I did not look at the jury instructions any longer. I do not know how hard that process was, but I feel like Chauvin is responsible for Mr. Floyd’s death.

Raguse: Why?

Christensen: I think the prosecution did a good presentation of their case. Dr. (Martin) Tobin was the one I really related to. I feel like all the doctors in one way or another said the same thing.

When looking at a case, jurors should look at the facts.

They should look at the laws.

They should not be concerned about external factors such as media coverage or the potential for rioting.

The reality is that the Democrat party and their allies in the media have created a culture and atmosphere that is hostile to the truth.

They are hostile to law and order.

And it is a shame.

Apparently none of the other jurors have chosen to speak out.

Maybe for fear of their safety?

Shame?

Who knows… but for now, Christensen is the only juror speaking publicly.

The New York Times has more details:

But in an interview on Thursday, it seemed like Ms. Christensen’s view of the case aligned with the rest of the jury, which took just 10 hours to convict Mr. Chauvin, a white former Minneapolis police officer, of all three charges he faced in the killing of Mr. Floyd, a Black man, including second-degree murder.

None of the jurors who deliberated and decided Mr. Chauvin’s fate have chosen to speak out, so Ms. Christensen’s description of how she saw the trial is the only insight yet provided into how members of the jury perceived the case.

Ms. Christensen, who said she entered the trial having seen very little of the gruesome video of Mr. Floyd’s murder, described an experience that was more taxing than she could have imagined. It was filled with unexpected twists, from the mundane — a mini-crisis when the Cheetos ran out in the jury room — to the extraordinary, when the police killed a 20-year-old man six blocks from her home in the suburb of Brooklyn Center, Minn., during the trial.

“It was more emotional and more draining than I thought,” she said of her jury service.

Very little was ordinary about this trial. Because of the coronavirus pandemic, very few people were allowed in the courtroom. And because of the high-profile nature of the case, jurors were anonymous and had to be shuttled in and out of the courthouse as discreetly as possible.

Before court each day, jurors convened at meeting places outside of Minneapolis, depending on where they lived, Ms. Christensen said. Her meeting spot was behind a sheriff’s outpost in Brooklyn Park. (The other gathering points were at sheriff’s facilities in Plymouth and Golden Valley, and a public works facility in Bloomington, she said.)

The jurors would load into vans with out-of-state license plates that would drive them to the courthouse’s underground parking lot, within an area fortified by temporary fencing.

Ms. Christensen, who is white, said that while she felt that Mr. Chauvin was in the wrong, she did not view the case through the larger prism of racial justice. She believes that there is a problem with racism in the country, but said she was not well versed on the nuances of it.

She recently got into a dispute with her roommate, who is Black, when she asked him why Mr. Floyd and other people don’t just comply with police commands. “Several times they had to say, ‘Get out of the car’ or ‘Put your hands on the steering wheel.’ And for whatever reason, he just didn’t do it.” But she said that even if she did not understand Mr. Floyd’s resistance, he was treated improperly by the officers.

Her feelings were solidified during the testimony of Dr. Martin J. Tobin, a pulmonologist called by the prosecution. He gave a detailed explanation of how humans breathe, even instructing the jurors to feel different parts of their throat and neck as he testified. He also analyzed Mr. Floyd’s breathing from a video that showed Mr. Chauvin kneeling on his neck.

“He pointed out exactly when Mr. Floyd took his last breath,” she said. “So that was powerful. And then I feel like all the doctors that the prosecutors presented pretty much said the same thing in so many different ways. I feel like they all came to the same conclusion.”

Asked if there was a moment when she doubted the prosecution’s case and thought that maybe Mr. Chauvin was not guilty, Ms. Christensen was unequivocal: “No.”

If the medical experts were decisive for her regarding Mr. Floyd’s cause of death, Ms. Christensen said testimony from bystanders helped her to understand how out of line Mr. Chauvin was. Sitting close to the witness box, she teared up at times when witnesses cried as they recalled seeing the life slowly pressed out of Mr. Floyd. One moment in particular that got to her, Ms. Christensen said, was when a girl on the stand fought back tears, but her chin quivered.

“I was hearing what they were saying, but I also felt it,” she said. “I could feel the guilt. I could feel their pain.”

If this case is appealed, don’t be surprised if Christensen’s comments are cited.

What do you think?

Are her comments reasonable?

Or do they indicate that the Chauvin trial was unfair?

Let us know in the comments below!



We Love Trump
Thanks for sharing!
Send this to a friend