Not the point though.
Jurors were asked in their interviews if they ever participated in any rallies, etc related to the case.
Mitchell said he answered "no" to two questions in the juror questionnaire sent out before jury selection that asked about participation in demonstrations.
The first question asked, "Did you, or someone close to you, participate in any of the demonstrations or marches against police brutality that took place in Minneapolis after George Floyd's death?"
The second asked, "Other than what you have already described above, have you, or anyone close to you, participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality?"
Given that the question wasn't "any rally" or march.. but protest or rally against police brutality I think he dodged a bullet. His explanation while it may or may not be true, is plausible and likely not grounds for any mistrial in my opinion
" The event was "100 percent not" a march for Floyd, Mitchell said, adding, "It was directly related to MLK's March on Washington from the '60s … The date of the March on Washington is the date."
I think he wanted to be on the jury, he said as much. I think he should have been more forthcoming to avoid any misunderstanding or controversy, but I think it will be a stretch at this point. But I'm no expert it's just what I think.