MINNEAPOLIS – The first week of selection by the jury at the trial of a former Minneapolis police officer accused of the death of George Floyd set standards for how lawyers proceed to fire potential jurors whom they consider unfavorable alongside him.
The defense is striking people who tell the court they already have strong feelings about Derek Chauvin’s guilt. The prosecution, meanwhile, is blocking potential jurors who seem inclined to give the police the benefit of the doubt – or who express doubts about the Black Lives Matter movement.
Although their targets are predictable, there is an art to how both sides accomplish them. The lawyers sought in their interrogation to unearth prejudices against their case by the members of the jury, leading Judge Peter Cahill to dismiss them and avoiding precious and limited attacks.
They are not always successful.
One candidate wrote in his questionnaire that he had a “very negative” perception of Chauvin after watching the widely viewed video of Floyd’s arrest. When asked to explain, he said he felt that Floyd was treated “worse than an enemy fighter”.
“It reminded me of a war scene,” he said. “What came to mind were the 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 be difficult for him to absolve Chauvin. However, despite his strong emotions and statements, when defense lawyer Eric Nelson asked repeatedly whether the man could abandon his opinions and decide the case impartially based on what is said in court, the man said, “Yes” – frustrating Nelson’s attempts to have the judge dismiss the juror for cause. “If I couldn’t imagine myself saying ‘innocent’, I wouldn’t be here,” said the man.
Nelson was forced to use a peremptory attack to keep him out of the jury. He receives 15 of these challenges that can be used without giving a reason – as long as it’s not just due to a person’s race. The prosecution wins nine.
The defense attorney had to use another to strike 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 about the protests that followed, saying that they solidified the need for change and an end to systemic racism.
Nelson noted that the man posted on Facebook that he visited 38 and Chicago – the site of the fatal confrontation, which was turned into a memorial – and he called it “sacred ground”. Still, like the juror before him, the man went on to say affirmatively that he could put all his opinions aside and weigh the evidence fairly, forcing Nelson to use another peremptory coup.
Until now, most of the rejected jurors were people with negative views of Chauvin. But some were hit by leaning towards the police or being skeptical of the Black Lives Matter movement.
Questioned by prosecutor Steve Schleicher, a man said he had a “somewhat unfavorable” view of Black Lives Matter. He said he thinks the movement has “good intentions, but has been involved in a lot of destruction in our city”, and disapproves of “BLM” graffiti across the city.
It is “hard not to see those letters,” he said. He also said he has great respect for law enforcement and strongly disagrees with the idea of withdrawing funding from the police, a move that gained momentum after Floyd died.
Schleicher used one of his attacks to dismiss the man.
By the end of Friday, the defense had used eight peremptory attacks, compared with five for the prosecution.
Seven jurors were seated in the opening week. Four were white, one was multiracial, one was Hispanic and one was black, according to the judge. The court has two more weeks of jury selection blocked before the arguments are due to open on March 29.
Several jurors were dismissed for cause. About two dozen in the pool were so troubled just by the answers they gave in their questionnaires that lawyers on both sides agreed that they should be beaten without even facing questioning.
For potential jurors who appeared in court under security escorts through fences, barbed wire and barbed wire, some were dismissed for cause because of personal difficulties.
But the majority of those fired for cause had unshakable opinions.
Cahill dismissed a woman for cause after she openly said she couldn’t be an impartial judge. The woman said Floyd’s death affected her life, prompting her to volunteer for a non-profit group that helps needy and vulnerable children. The judge and the prosecutor pressured her briefly to make sure she didn’t change her mind.
“Don’t you think you could give the defendant a fair trial?” Schleicher asked.
“I don’t think I can,” she replied.