I have to start off by apologizing to my readers; I cautioned everyone of the likelihood of Officer Chauvin being exonerated, but not what transpired. George Floyd definitely played a role in his own demise, but the question was whether or not the pressure on neck with the knee was a sufficient argument for responsibility in George’s death. I predicted manslaughter, while giving the third-degree murder charge a slim chance. What I did not anticipate was the possibility of Officer Chauvin of being convicted of all charges (for that I am sorry)! I reread the last column concerning this case to comprehend what I missed, and after doing more research plus listening to several podcasts, this what I had glossed over.
Do not be mistaken- I agree with Officer Chauvin being convicted. He isn’t a man I would die on a hill for either. That’s the success. The tragedy is this seems to be an overcharge. I mentioned manslaughter and third-degree murder, but second-degree murder was in the back burner for consideration. What did I miss exactly? I mistakenly did not take public pressure surrounding this trial as a variable. I also did not know some of the decisions the judge ruled regarding this case, which some legal experts deem questionable. Hindsight is 20/20 right?
The process to select the jurors was the first challenge to this trial. How do you filter out who should decide a man’s fate in an impartial manner in this situation? It’s possible there are people in the United States who did not know about this case after everything that happened last year, but it was a LONG shot. Unless you lived under a rock, you knew about George Floyd, the officer, and probably formulated your own opinion. Was it a good idea to have the trial in the same city the events transpired? Then during the trial, the jurors had access to their phones-was that acceptable? Did they see congresswoman Maxine Waters’ threat to destroy the city if the verdict didn’t go their way? Why didn’t the judge give the defense’s desire to sequester and question the jurors after the threat? You don’t have to like somebody to want a fair trial for the accused. At least I’d hope people would feel that way if they themselves were put on the stand. A lot of questions, but this isn’t my realm of expertise and recruited some help. Under normal circumstances, this is how a normal trail would proceed.
Precedent
The first step to any trial (after many hearings and pretrial discussions between attorneys and the judge) is the jury selection process. In the United States under the 6th amendment, we have the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury within the state and district the crime was committed. In cases, such as the George Floyd murder trial, the attorneys on either side could have filed for a change of venue. This gives the opportunity to get out of the area to escape the news and facts of the case, thus moving the trial will help to find more impartial jurors. In the Derek Chauvin case, his lawyers had put a motion for change of venue following the city’s then recent settlement of $27 million to Floyd’s family for the wrongful death suit. Chauvin’s attorney questioned the suspicious timing of the settlement in accordance with his client’s trial, and requested a change of venue; or at least, recall the jurors already on the case to question them if they saw the settlement news, and could remain impartial. Judge Cahill did not rule on the motion (therefore not changing venue), but did agree that the sequence of events was “concerning”.
Another thing some high-profile cases do is sequester the jurors, which means “to separate.” If a judge orders a jury to be sequestered, the jurors will be housed together in a hotel and prevented from contacting anyone outside the court. This is seldomly done, however when it’s practiced, it is for protection of the jurors from influence by the media or threats of outside parties.” This partly materialized in the Derek Chauvin case and one of the factors that is being used in the speculation of unfairness for the trial. Jurors were sequestered to hotels, but did have access to their phones which could technically see all of the media posts and everyone’s opinions on the matter, including Maxine Waters stating on camera “I hope we’re going to get a verdict that will say guilty, guilty, guilty. And if we don’t, we cannot go away.”
The proceedings of trials consist of opening arguments by both the prosecution as well as the defense, then call into witnesses and experts each side pulled for testimony. Both have the opportunity to cross examine whoever is on the stand whether they are testifying for the prosecution or defense. The Chauvin trial did just that. There was a total of 45 witnesses called to the stand throughout the trial. Experts and witnesses were able to testified for their team’s behalf.
Once all witnesses and experts have been called to the bench and cross examined, the court moves to closing arguments of each side. The judge will first instruct the jury on the law and elements of all charges on the table for the defendant; then the attorneys do their wrap up. The judge instructed the jury on the charges of second-degree murder, third-degree murder and manslaughter, with second-degree murder being the most serious of the three. The burden of proof that Mr. Chauvin intended to kill George Floyd did not have to be proven by the prosecution in order to reach the second-degree murder charge.
The prosecution gave their closing arguments, followed by the defense, then the prosecution has the opportunity to rebuttal. After all of this, the jury goes to deliberate and find a unanimous verdict. In this case, the jury came back with the verdict of guilty on second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter.
There is a lot of controversy on whether or not the jurors were fully impartial. And now, there are new motions by Chauvin’s defense team to overturn the guilty verdict and have a new trial. From a law student’s impartial perspective, the trial was ran legally. All of the pieces fell where they needed to be and both positions did what they were supposed to do. Whether or not the jurors were impartial, or should have been more sequestered, or the sequence of events with the public regarding the occasion made the trial unfair, is a question for the appeals court to review and decide. In my opinion this high profile case (as any other one) is far from over.
Authors’ Note: Anything underlined is a link for you to click on if desired. Readers are encouraged to educated themselves and seek other sources for information. Additionally, more reports came forward concerning one of the juror’s ability to remain impartial during this trial-further damaging the integrity of the verdict.