Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Whom Does a Jury Serve?
I remember a news story from a few years ago. If I get some details wrong, feel free to correct me. But as I recall, a young girl, maybe 14 or 16 years old, was raped and killed, I think in Texas. The killer got out on a technicality or something (again, I don’t remember the details). After his release, he was eating in a restaurant, and the deceased girl’s mother walked right up to his table in the restaurant, shot him six times in the chest, laid her handgun on the table, and raised her hands in surrender. She was arrested and charged with murder and the jury found her not guilty even though an entire restaurant full of people had watched her kill the guy. Presumably, because at least some people on that jury thought that her actions were reasonable. As a father of daughters, I struggle to find fault with the mother’s actions myself.
That is my understanding of the importance of a jury trial. Does a jury of your peers feel that the law is appropriately applied in your particular case? I hesitate to write about this because Ricochet’s lawyers know a whole lot more about these concepts than I do, but I see our jury system as a buffer between the defendant and the blind justice system our founders constructed. The only reason I bring it up is that I think the jury system is working against the defendant, rather than for him, in the Chauvin case, which may be appropriate depending on your perspective, I suppose.
Jerry pointed out early on that George Floyd’s death may not have been what it initially appeared to be. I was skeptical of his posts initially, but sure enough, the autopsies showed that Floyd died of a drug overdose. My wife points out that it doesn’t matter what he died of, because the jury had made up their mind before the trial started, because they’re on social media, like 95% of the US population. I’m pointing out that I’m not sure which laws, exactly, Mr. Chauvin broke. Although my wife may be right – it probably doesn’t matter – the jury has already decided. He’s guilty. Of whatever he’s charged with. The trial is just a formality. So the jury would seem to be shirking its duties.
Or, perhaps, is this exactly what a jury is supposed to do?
The jury in Texas found the mother not guilty, because in their community, at that time, they sort of had to.
The jury in Minnesota is going to find Chauvin guilty, because in their community, at this time, they sort of have to.
Everything is working the way it’s supposed to. Fortunately for the mother, and unfortunately for Mr. Chauvin. But our society lives on, according to the values which we hold important at the time. Interpreting these changing values is difficult for a legal system, but easier for a jury of our peers. Still difficult, but easier.
Again, I don’t claim to understand the legal side of all this. And I’m not sure what I think about these issues. But as you folks have probably noticed over the years, I do my best to not allow my writing to be hampered by ignorance. I know, it’s inspiring…
What do you think? Is our jury system working? No system works 100% of the time of course. But is it working in this case?
If the jury finds Chauvin guilty despite evidence to the contrary, does that mean that our jury system is broken? Or does that mean that it’s working exactly as it was supposed to?
This is a crummy case. I don’t like the optics any more than anyone else. Chauvin is a difficult guy to defend. I’m not sure what I want to happen here. I’m even less sure what should happen here.
But that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m just wondering what, precisely, the purpose of a jury is? To protect an innocent man? To uphold the current values of a society at the time? To over-rule the justice system (even if no law is broken, this is still wrong)? To increase faith in our justice system by involving members of the community?
Is this jury going to uphold its duty, whatever that is, in the Chauvin case? And more importantly, should it?
What do you think?
Published in General
Ah, takes me back to good ol’ Lysander Spooner, who made the excellent case that juries can, if they choose, decide the law as well as the facts of a case. Otherwise, there really is no genuine counter to abusive judges.
https://pacourtinjustices.com/judicial-atrocities/problems/trial-by-jury/
All of the above, but to my mind the excusing of the woman who killed her daughter’s murderer was about individual justice, whereas to convict Chauvin reeks of social justice which is no justice at all.
Or just plain cowardice which doesn’t even have the word ‘justice’ appended for fig-leaf purposes.
If the verdict was assured, I wonder why nearly every building in downtown Minneapolis has boarded up at significant expense. It’s possible the property owners think there will be some celebratory destruction, I guess.
Well of course. They riot when they win, and they riot when they lose. Especially if there’s previously-unlooted shoe stores to be found.
Ready for the broken record? Propaganda works!
And I believe his trial will be overturned because the judge refused to move the venue.
BTW, have you noticed how quickly the names and pictures of Chauvin and the lady cop were made public, yet they won’t release the name of Ashli Babbit’s murderer?
The jury system is only as good as the shared virtues and values of the community from which it is drawn.
I had a law school classmate who had been a social science number cruncher for the federal judiciary. He said that the “certainties” that trial lawyers have regarding jury selection were often of dubious value. For example, if you are suing a doctor, sex and race of the plaintiff and defendant matter (white female patient against black MD is a loser in DC but a wash in the suburbs). Black jurors are more likely to side with plaintiffs but upscale white jurors are likely to come up with bigger damage figures based on how they view income loss.
Those are all built-in tendencies that strong facts and presentation can overcome. But terminal stupidity is a much tougher hurdle. For example, two of OJ’s jurors, for example, said the “ETA” evidence did it for them. First, after hearing days (weeks?) of haggling and witnesses talking about whether the presence of “EDTA” you would think they could remember all four letters. Second, recall that OJ’s expert was clearly under a “no bad news” instruction and thus did not do a titer to rule out the incidental, common presence of EDTA in the blood and not the vastly higher concentration caused by the use of an anticoagulant. That indicated to some observers that not even OJ’s lawyers thought he was innocent and that his blood on the scene was definitive.
It is one thing to let the mom of a murder victim walk but to let a defendant go because of how much others of his race have suffered over the years is a total breakdown of the system.
I don’t think I have ever seen a bigger thumb on the scale as in the Chauvin case. When have you ever seen high-priced private lawyers conducting a prosecution? Any previously accused rapists, thugs, or murderers in Minnesota get that thrown at them? Ever seen a cop thrown to the wolves by his entire chain of command like this? So much for the myth of the blue wall.
There is also the big move of the goalposts. The state has tacitly admitted Chauvin was never on the neck and cutting off his air supply but that four cops on him made it hard for his chest to expand and that is the real cause. This latter theory is a weasel move to let the jury have a theory to convict after the mode of death they all walked in believing was blown up by the facts.
I guess I just want to know what credible things people have against Chauvin himself. I know from early reporting, when everyone thought that Chauvin was a murderer, that he worked as a bouncer at a bar. And afterward, his wife left him. I guess I’ve just forgotten what is so bad about him personally.
There were reports that he had a lot of complaints against him in the past. I don’t know if that’s true.
Ah, now I remember. Thanks.
I don’t recall any kind of review of those complaints. The existence of complaints doesn’t tell us much. Each should be evaluated before reaching a conclusion about Chauvin.
Much like Floyd had an m.o. of eating his drugs to avoid detection, resisting arrest, and claiming he couldn’t breathe, sometimes people will complain even if it’s not legitimate. Why? Because the squeaky wheel gets the grease and the thorny bush gets left alone. I’m not saying we can assume that’s the case here, but I am saying we can’t assume the opposite either.
I am aware of a number of complaints said to be higher than normal. There is also the fact that nobody rushed out to defend him as a hero who once did this or that or stepped up to say he was a by-the-book standup guy and with pics of award ceremonies. The lack of support from fellow cops of others seems significant. Maybe the MPD are a bunch of weasels or maybe he was not well-liked and respected or maybe both.
There has been no evidence at the trial regarding his past behavior or of any racial animosity.
Just because some cop hasn’t called a press conference to praise Chauvin doesn’t mean cops don’t support him. Or, more importantly, that doesn’t mean they think he’s a problem and had it coming. Or, more accurately, some cops will like him and others won’t. Even if some had done that, that wouldn’t mean the complaints were frivolous. None of this is any reasonable basis to draw any speculative conclusions especially as it relates to guilt or innocence of the charges at hand.
I’ve heard a commentary on this, probably on a podcast, though I don’t recall the precise source.
I think that there was a motion for change of venue, which was denied, with the judge indicating that he didn’t think that there would be any venue inside Minnesota that would be immune from pre-trial publicity concerns. The judge’s ruling seems reasonable to me on this issue.
This is not a legal answer, but I think the jury serves society. That means in Texas it agrees with the social norm that rapists/killers don’t deserve to live. I can agree with that. We will see what happens in Minneapolis. Perhaps the jury will convict Chauvin on all charges which affirms that police brutality and police racism are a real thing. This is a form of non-monetary reparations which require an unfortunate scapegoat. Or perhaps the jury will deliberate seriously on all the charges to come up with a sincere verdict to uphold the social norm that the accused are entitled to a fair trial based upon the evidence presented.
I lost that faith a long time ago. Some of the wrong convictions the Justice Project got overturned were disgusting railroad jobs.
First, I decided that while I approve of the death penalty in principle I would oppose it in practice because I don’t trust the justice system to decide it fairly. Second, I graduated to not trusting it at all, because of the brutal way the prosecution can load up their case when they want to. Compare the prosecutors’ resources in this trial to the defendant’s resources.
Turning 70 is not a deliriously happy event, but I was pleased because it meant that I could decline all future invitations to be on a jury.
I agree it has no bearing on guilt or innocence. But optics matter, fairly or not.
Actually I’m pretty sure they want him dead. If he’s acquitted he’s going to need to be in witness protection.
Aren’t the issues you describe, problems with prosecutors etc, and not with juries?
Yes, it’s a process I don’t like, and the main problem as I see it is prosecutors. Sorry if that wasn’t clear enough. I don’t want to be on a jury because I don’t want to be part of that process.
Whether justice is served while the rules of law are followed are only important to those of us who still believe in a Justice System. For the Mob it does not matter, they now have fair weather and the wind is at their back, the only question is where they will go next since they have burned out the city center. Setting fires to the same already burned out buildings and shooting fireworks in the air, is not going to keep the Main Stream Media interest up. The News Media needs more blood and drama to stay interested, so BLM/ANTFIA are going to have to up their game to stay in the game. Que the guillotine and “À la lanterne!” Only this time they will have to move into the local neighborhoods and suburbs. Will city and/or state governments keep holding back police and national guard protection, while protecting the rioters from prosecution, when peaceful civilians citizens are being hurt or worse? Stay tuned. In the mean time, I ran across this article from “meaning in history” https://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-answer-seems-to-be-no.html . It would seem that certain victim groups have more privileges then other victim groups when it comes to lives that matter.
I remember watching tv when a man in custody, walking through an airport was executed when a man hung up a phone, turned around and shot him in the head.
The ‘victim’ had been accused of kidnapping and molesting the shooters son.
The scuttlebutt was that the jury called it justifiable homicide (a story I repeated many times), but according to the LA Times he pled guilty to manslaughter and served no time. (I just looked it up, the internet is a wonderful thing… Thank you Algore.)
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-08-27-mn-25260-story.html
Say her name!
I liked juries. Only had about 30 jury trials as business and employment litigation is expensive. I think juries can sniff out lying witnesses, as a group, better than cynical judges. Only had two go the wrong way – a dog bite case (I represented the plaintiff, how can you possible lose a dog bite case?) and a driving while flipped out on meds woman. But the last one was in 2014. They are human and can give in to pressure; e.g. OJ Simpson and now Chauvin. Have not done criminal law since the Navy but the cops putting him with his back on the ground while dying from an overdose did not look like a good move. Always wanted to sit on a civil jury but too busy. Like Headed West I am glad I am now over 70 and exempt.
I’ve been on two juries, and I’ve got to say that I got both juries to agree with me. In retrospect that is very disconcerting. I got tow ‘No’s. The drug look-out kid with very likely a stashed gun went to jail, and the drunk woman who fell down her front steps got nothing from her landlord.
But still, I wonder how I was able to do it, and if I was right.
You Flicker. Justice was done. End of story. On to the next one.
Very probably. And in think I was right. But my point is that it was relatively easy to change everybody’s mind. It would have been different if we were, say, evenly split at the beginning and were all each arguing our convictions on one side or the other.
Maybe the real story is that too many people are quickly to jump to the easy, fast error. And it takes some work to turn them around, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong to do so.
Yeah, I see that. I think what gets me was their malleability.