MINNEAPOLIS – The first week of jury selection at the trial of a former Minneapolis police officer charged with the death of George Floyd set patterns for how lawyers dismiss potential jurors they deem unfavorable to their side.
The defense draws attention to people who tell the court they already have strong feelings about Derek Chauvin’s guilt. The prosecution, meanwhile, is blocking possible juries who appear inclined to give the police the advantage of doubt or who express suspicions about the Black Lives Matter movement.
While its goals are predictable, there is art about how both parties accomplish it. The lawyers have tried, in their interrogation, to unearth prejudices against their case by members of the jury, which has led to Judge Peter Cahill dismissing them and saving precious and limited strike.
They are not always successful.
One candidate wrote in his questionnaire that he had a “very negative” perception of Chauvin after watching the much-watched video of Floyd’s arrest. When asked to explain, he said he felt Floyd was treated “worse than an enemy fighter.”
“It reminded me of a war scene,” he said. “What came to my mind were images of World War II.”
The man also said he would have difficulty with the presumption of innocence in this case and, based on the video he saw, it would cost him to acquit Chauvin. However, despite his strong emotions and statements, when defense attorney Eric Nelson repeatedly asked if the man could abandon his views and decide the case impartially based on what is said in court, the man he said, “Yes,” thwarting Nelson’s attempts to dismiss the jury as a judge. “If I couldn’t imagine myself saying‘ not guilty ’, I wouldn’t be here,” the man said.
Nelson was forced to use a peremptory strike to keep him off the jury. Achieve 15 such challenges that can be used without giving any reason, as long as it is not due solely to a person’s race. The prosecution makes nine.
Defense counsel had to use another to attack a man who knew many details about the case from various news sources and expressed strong opinions about Floyd’s death in his questionnaire. The man also spoke positively of the subsequent protests, saying they consolidated the need for change and ended systemic racism.
Nelson noted that the man had posted on Facebook that he visited the 38th site and Chicago (the site of the fatal clash, which has become a memorial), and called it a “holy land.” Yet, like the jury before him, the man kept saying in the affirmative that he could set aside all his opinions and weigh the evidence fairly, forcing Nelson to use another peremptory strike.
So far, most of the rejected jurors have been people with negative opinions about Chauvin. But some have been beaten for leaning towards the police or for being skeptical of the Black Lives Matter movement.
Under questions from prosecutor Steve Schleicher, a man said he had a “somewhat unfavorable” view of Black Lives Matter. He said he thought the movement had “good intentions, but that it has been involved in too much destruction in our city,” and disapproved of graffiti “BLM” across the city.
“It’s hard not to see those letters,” he said. He also said he has great respect for law enforcement and disagrees with the notion of defusing police, a movement that made money after Floyd’s death.
Schleicher used one of his strikes to fire the man.
By the end of Friday, the defense had used eight peremptory strikes compared to five for the prosecution.
Seven jurors sat down the opening week. Four were white, one was multiracial, one was Hispanic and one was black, according to the judge. The court has blocked two more weeks of jury selection before opening arguments scheduled for March 29.
Several jurors have been dismissed for cause. About two dozen people in the pool were so troubled only by the answers they gave to their questionnaires that lawyers on both sides agreed that they should be attacked without even having to be questioned.
For those potential jurors who have come to court under security escort through fences, barbed wire and barbed wire, some have been excused for reasons due to personal difficulties.
But most of those fired because they had unshakable opinions.
Cahill fired a woman for cause after saying she could not be an impartial jury. The woman said Floyd’s death has affected her life, prompting her to volunteer in a non-profit group that helps vulnerable and unassisted children. The judge and prosecution briefly pressured her to make sure she would not change her mind.
“Don’t you think you can give a fair trial to the defendant?” Schleicher asked.
“I don’t think I can,” she replied.