(April 19, 2021 at 5:27 pm)Brian37 Wrote:(April 19, 2021 at 5:24 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote: It is probably a good move. The defense will have an excellent read on the judge's biases. They may have decided that the jury is already lost to them.
I am not arguing that it never happens, but I simply don't understand the process. Chauvin was all ready to let the laypeople and smpathizers take his side. But after the closing arguments suddenly Chauvin wants a judge, and not a jury to decide his fate.
How do you know there are smpathizers [sic] on the jury?
And let's say there are...he would have a better chance going with a jury that doesn't agree on his guilt or the level of his guilt.
A layperson is a non-ordained member of a church. Just because someone doesn't have a law degree doesn't make them a layperson...which is where I think you are trying to go here.
The magic words are "jury of your peers".
I'm your huckleberry.
