A few thoughts re: the uproar concerning the Chauvin juror who -- it is claimed -- lied about not having attended any anti-police brutality rallies. First, given the way Chauvin's attorney asked the question in voir dire, his answer would not likely be convictable as perjury (1)
He went to DC for the commemoration march of the 1963 March on Washington called by @TheRevAl, which was not a march about police brutality or George Floyd per se. That said, the question was surely intended to cover an event like that, so it may result in a reversal (2)...
...which is awful bc that conviction would have been obtained without that juror on the panel. There is no evidence he pushed others into their decisions FFS... But here's the question I have, which no one is asking...(3)
Is it fair to exclude jurors who may have attended a rally against police brutality or for racial justice more broadly? I mean, millions of people did nationwide. To exclude them would mean juries disproportionately filled w/people who weren't bothered by police killings (4)...
...meaning jurors biased in the other direction. To strike anyone who goes to a rally in cases like this would exclude a dispro % of the black community, as well. Is that any more fair? Seems like such a question as the defense posed might be valid as a way to probe further(5)..
...to determine if a person can be fair and unbiased in their deliberations. But if it would have resulted in a striking of that juror (which it likely would have), that seems inappropriate. By this standard, we'd end up w/jurors who pay no attn to current events at all (6)...
...which doesn't seem like the kind of people best suited to make decisions about criminal guilt or innocence, whether the defendant is a cop, or anyone else.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
