Insightful article regarding the juror selection process.
Vinny
The Chauvin Trial’s Jury Wasn’t Like Other Juries
Its guilty verdict resulted not just from the strength of the evidence, but from a jury-selection process that departed from American norms
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ource=feed
by Sonali Chakravarti
The Atlantic / 2021-04-28 09:01
The jury convicted the former Minnesota police officer Derek Chauvin on the weight of the evidence before it: video footage, expert testimony, and eyewitness accounts.
But even with all that evidence, convictions don’t happen on their own. Twelve people, selected by lot from the public, must come to a unanimous decision. That jury�who it comprised, how those people saw the world�waswas of enormous consequence. This wasn’t just any jury, and the difference that made should invite a major reckoning with how juries�the deciding bodies of the country�’s judicial system�are selected in America.
I have been studying juries for many years. I have written about juries in historic trials such as those for the Camden 28, the Central Park Five, and Angela Davis. But starting late last year, one took over my work: the Chauvin trial. Great interest in it led the Hennepin County clerk to make public the initial questionnaire sent to jurors, and District Judge Peter Cahill decided to allow television cameras in the courtroom, a first for the state of Minnesota. From voir dire�the interview between the judge, aattorneys, and each potential juror before a jury is selected�to the attorneys’ opening and closing statements to the testimony of more than 40 witnesses during the trial, everything was viewable via live-stream. What I saw was a jury-selection process that substantially departed from the country’s norms, resulting in a racially mixed jury, a number of whose members criticized American law enforcement for systematically discriminating against Black people.
All the jurors interviewed during voir dire were familiar with the case, and some had seen the video of George Floyd’s death. To varying degrees, they all understood the weight of the case and the intense media scrutiny it would undoubtedly receive, yet many were eager to serve. When interviewed by the defense counsel, Juror 27, who identifies as Black and an immigrant and who ultimately ended up on the jury, said that he had spoken with his wife about the killing shortly after it happened. “We talked about how it could have been me,” he said. Juror 91 put it simply when she said, “I’m Black and my life matters.” That these people held these views and still served on the jury shows a path toward greater democratic representation in America’s courtrooms.
There were many reasons to think things would not go this way�that Chauvinn would be tried by a mostly white or all-white jury, and that people with systemic critiques of how criminal justice works in America would be struck from the jury pool. For one, Hennepin County, where the killing took place and where the trial was held, is nearly three-quarters white. For another, studies have found that Black jurors are less likely to be called for jury duty and less likely to be selected to serve. And finally, there was the complication of having the trial during the coronavirus pandemic, which has disproportionately affected Black and brown communities. According to the former Minneapolis public defender Mary Moriarty, during the pandemic, juries have been even whiter, on average, than before the pandemic.
Yet ultimately the jury seated in the Chauvin case included four Black people, two people who identify as mixed race, and six white people. (The jury comprised 14 people, including two alternates who were both white.) Much of the credit goes to Judge Cahill, who conducted the jury-selection process. Cahill set a tone of honesty and inclusivity during jury selection, emphasizing that he would consider the totality of a juror’s answers and not focus on individual statements when determining whether a juror was qualified to serve. He expected jurors to have strong feelings about Floyd’s death, but what was most important to him was a juror’s willingness to take on the responsibilities of legal judgment, including a commitment to the conventions of a fair trial.
Another limit of the more capacious approach to jury selection came with Juror 120, who was dismissed not for his critique of the legal system but for an analogy that dominated his reaction to the video of Floyd’s death. During Juror 120’s initial questioning by the judge, he started expressing his uncertainty about whether he could truly be fair in the case. He turned to the judge and said, “Do you have any brothers?” “I do,” Judge Cahill replied. The juror went on to describe an analogy that kept coming to mind when he thought about Chauvin. “So you’re tussling with your brothers. If one of your brothers says, ‘I give up, etc., etc.,’ you stop, right? ... You have to stop when someone says, ‘No more.’” Judge Cahill suddenly grew still, touched his mask, and replied: “As the little brother to three older brothers, I know exactly what you are talking about.” Then, almost apologetically, he added, “I am going to release you.” No further discussion of the case, the police, or Black Lives Matter was necessary for the judge to decide that this juror was unfit for the case.
In many cases, a disqualifying life experience involves a prospective juror’s firsthand witnessing of police violence or coercive plea bargaining, for instance. In the case of Juror 120, however, the issue almost appeared to be one of excessive moral clarity. It illustrates the paradoxical nature of jury service�and the expeectations of the ideal juror. Juror 120’s moral clarity was what made him unfit for service. In other words, for a juror, moral clarity can conflict with the openness needed to fairly consider both verdicts. A juror who is too convinced of a defendant’s guilt before hearing the evidence, as Juror 120 seemed to be, cannot be a fair juror. But Judge Cahill recognized that jurors in this trial might hold views about the reality of systemic racism and its deep moral costs while still being able to perform their role as impartial jurors. The result might in fact be greater fairness and�perhaps�healing: A fair triarial by jury may be one of the best ways to foster trust in the legal system.
Watching the three weeks of jury selection and hearing potential jurors speak about their pets and favorite sports teams, in addition to their perceptions of racial discrimination, I was reminded that jurors are called to serve precisely because of their lack of expertise in the law. They are not repeat players in the courtroom with incentives to reach a particular verdict. But this has it backwards: It is because of their distance from the work of the court that they are better able to understand what it means to feel the power of law enforcement as an external force in their lives and to determine its legitimacy. The jury in the Chauvin trial included a broader perspective of life experiences than is typical in America’s courtrooms, better fulfilling the ideal of why we have juries in the first place. During jury selection, the jurors who spoke about Black Lives Matter and the pattern of police violence in this country were unusually honest about who we, as Americans, have been. And, with their verdict, they showed us where we might yet be going.
