MINNEAPOLIS – The first week of jury selection in the trial of a former Minneapolis police officer charged with the death of George Floyd set patterns for how attorneys fire potential jurors they consider unfavorable to their side.
The defense is hitting people who tell the court that 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.
While their goals are predictable, it is an art how both parties implement them. Lawyers have sought prejudice against their case by members of the jury pool in their questioning, prompting Judge Peter Cahill to fire them and save costly and limited strikes.
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 being treated “worse” than an enemy combatant.
“It reminded me of a war scene,” he said. “What came to mind was images of World War II.”
The man also said that in this case he would have difficulty with the presumption of innocence, and based on the video he saw, it would be difficult for him to acquit Chauvin. Yet despite his strong emotions and statements, when attorney Eric Nelson repeatedly asked if the man could drop his mind and decide the case impartially based on what was said in court, the man said, “Yes” – thus calling Nelson’s Attempts to court dismiss the juror for cause. “If I couldn’t imagine saying ‘not guilty,’ I wouldn’t be here,” the man said.
Nelson was forced to use a coercive attack to keep him off the jury. He’s given 15 such challenges that can be used without specifying a reason – as long as it’s not just due to someone’s race. The prosecution gets nine.
The defense attorney had to use another to hit a man who knew many details about the case from various news sources and had strong opinions about Floyd’s death in his questionnaire. The man also spoke positively of the protests that followed, saying they reinforced the need for change and an end to systemic racism.
Nelson noted that the man posted on Facebook that he had visited 38th and Chicago – the site of the fatal showdown, which has turned into a memorial – and he called it “ sacred ground. ” Still, like the juror before him, the man continued to say in the affirmative that he could put all his opinions aside and weigh the evidence fairly, forcing Nelson to launch another compelling assault.
So far, most of the dismissed jurors have been people with a negative opinion of Chauvin. But some have been beaten for leaning towards the police or being skeptical of the Black Lives Matter movement.
While questioning District Attorney Steve Schleicher, one man said he had a “somewhat unfavorable” view of Black Lives Matter. He said he thought the movement “has good intentions but has been involved in too much destruction in our city,” and that he disapproved of the “BLM” graffiti in the city.
It’s “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 defunding the police, a movement that won money after Floyd died.
Schleicher used one of his attacks to fire the man.
By the end of the day on Friday, the defense had used eight coercion strikes, down from five for the prosecution.
In the opening week there were seven jury members. Four were white, one was multiracial, one was Hispanic, and one was black, the judge said. The court has blocked jury selection for two more weeks before the arguments are scheduled for March 29.
Several jurors have been fired for a reason. About two dozen people in the pool were so problematic, just because of the answers they gave to their questionnaires, that the lawyers on both sides agreed that they should be beaten without even being questioned.
For those potential jurors who came to the courthouse under guard by the fences, barbed wire, and barbed wire, some have been excused due to personal hardships.
But most of those fired for good reason had unshakable opinions.
Cahill fired a woman for good reason after saying she couldn’t be an impartial juror. The woman said Floyd’s death affected her life, prompting her to volunteer with a nonprofit that helps disadvantaged and vulnerable children. The judge and the prosecution pressured her for a moment to make sure she wouldn’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.