Patterns emerge in jury screening for trial in Floyd’s death
MINNEAPOLIS >> The first week of jury selection in the trial of a former Minneapolis police officer charged in George Floyd’s death established patterns for how attorneys go about dismissing potential jurors they perceive as unfavorable to their side.
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 police the benefit of the doubt — or who express misgivings about the Black Lives Matter movement.
Though their targets are predictable, there’s an art to how both sides carry it out. Attorneys have sought in their questioning to unearth biases against their case by members of the jury pool, prompting Judge Peter Cahill to dismiss them and saving precious and limited strikes.
They’re not always successful.
One candidate wrote in his questionnaire that he had a “very negative” perception of Chauvin after watching the widely seen video of Floyd’s arrest. When asked to explain, he said he felt that Floyd was treated “worse than an enemy combatant.”
“It reminded me of like a war scene,” he said. “What popped into my mind was images of World War Two.”
The man also said that he would have difficulty with the presumption of innocence in this case, and based on the video he saw, it would be hard for him to acquit Chauvin. Yet, despite his strong emotions and statements, when defense attorney Eric Nelson repeatedly asked if the man could abandon his opinions and decide the case impartially based on what is said in court, the man said, “Yes” — thwarting Nelson’s attempts to have the judge dismiss the juror for cause. “If I couldn’t imagine myself saying ‘not guilty,’ I wouldn’t be here,” the man said.
Nelson was forced to use a peremptory strike to keep him off the jury. He gets 15 such challenges that may be used without giving a reason — as long as it’s not solely due to a person’s race. The prosecution gets nine.