By Peyton Edelson
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that a criminal defendant has the constitutionally protected right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. If the accused is deprived of this constitutional right, it is not only a violation of the Sixth Amendment, but also a violation of due process, as outlined in the 14thAmendment. While these constitutional rights must be afforded to all Americans, today’s information technology makes it nearly impossible for high profile cases to select an impartial jury.
The murder of George Floyd on May 25 has engendered contempt for police brutality and the historical lack of accountability for law enforcement. The video of former Minneapolis officer Derek Chauvin pressing his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck for nearly nine minutes has sparked protests of solidarity across all 50 states, and the fastest-growing petition in Change.org’s history, reaching over 13 million signatures. Viral Instagram posts promoting donation sites and protest dates have felt inescapable in the last few weeks, which prompts the question: how inescapable will it be in court? Though the political enthusiasm among younger generations is inspiring, the presence of this case across social media exemplifies the aforementioned barrier to the protection of Sixth and 14th amendment rights.
Impartiality, as it pertains to the courts, is two-fold. First, a jury must be representative of the community which the trial will take place in. There can be no systematic exclusion in the selection process, especially regarding a dominant group in the community. As this is a racially tense criminal case, race will most certainly dominate the jury selection process. As was demonstrated in the O.J Simpson murder case, it can be expected that both legal teams will argue about the makeup of the jury. In all likelihood, the defense will argue that the jury selection must be representative of the black jurors’ views, while the prosecution argues the same for the white jurors. However, ultimately, the jury’s composition will be the decision of the judge, as is decided by precedent.
The second facet of impartiality is that there must be absolute confidence that the jurors chosen are unbiased. An impartial juror is willing to decide a case based solely on the evidence presented in a trial. This is especially tricky with the rise of mass media and rapid communication. It is arguable that every juror has been exposed to prejudicial material in this day in age, which certainly places a heavier burden on both legal teams and judges when it comes to juror examinations.
As mentioned previously, the case is indisputability immersed in racial politics, evidenced by the activism of groups such as #BlackLivesMatter. Consequently, racial tensions are the first barrier Mr. Chauvin’s defense is going to have to tackle. In Ham v. South Carolina (1973), the Court held that if the racial biases of jurors could affect the outcome of the trial, the Sixth Amendment’s protection of jury impartiality would be violated. Although it may seem as if the whole world has made up its mind, legal teams are going to have to search for jurors without allegiances to movements like #BlackLivesMatter, #BlueLivesMatter, and #AllLivesMatter, all while avoiding a homogenous jury. Affiliation or even just admiration for any of these movements must be exposed in order to obtain an impartial jury. Although uncovering profound and widespread racial tensions will not be an easy task, composing the juror examinations will be an even more challenging obstacle in securing Mr. Chauvin an impartial trial.
To expose racial biases, or any other prejudicial inclinations, a strategic voir dire must be constructed. A voir dire is the preliminary examination potential jurors must face before their selection. Although trial attorneys have some jurisdiction over what appears in the voir dire examinations, as mentioned above, it is ultimately up to the district judge whether these questions are warranted. According to MuMin v. Virginia (1991), jurors do not need to be totally ignorant of the facts or issues raised in a case. In fact, total ignorance may be impossible. Jurors, rather, need to establish that they have not yet determined whether the accused is guilty or innocent. Due process of law requires that a verdict be decided based solely upon the evidence introduced at trial. Content-specific questions are neither required nor considered productive. Thus, Mr. Chauvin’s defense council, as well as the prosecution team, is going to have to achieve a certain narrowness in questioning that exposes enough bias, without being either intrusive or costly. Voir dire is a counsel’s opportunity to elicit bias and tilt the playing field. However, at the same time, extensive questioning is a disruption to potential jurors’ lives as well as a disruption to a judge’s caseload. Delaying cases and overworking judges and the legal teams leads to serious administrative overcrowding. If cases are delayed, justice is delayed. There are simply not enough resources for elaborate voir dire.
With both racial tensions and voir dire ambiguity in mind, the driving force of jury impartiality is the judge. As mentioned previously, judges hold a great deal of discretion when it comes to jury selection. Because judges are typically partisan individuals, their decisions regarding jury selection could favor either the defendant or a prosecutor. Although there are powerful Supreme Court precedents set in place, judges are given vague guidance on how the intersection between media and impartiality concerns a modern-day voir dire.
In addition to the voir dire process, there are countless loopholes that attorneys and judges can exploit, fueling the institutional bigotry that plagues our criminal justice system. For example, there is constitutional entitlement to a change in venue if it proves to be unlikely that a trial can achieve a disinterested jury. A change in venue can have serious implications for jury selection as the jury need only be representative of that particular community, whether it be a predominantly white suburb, or a predominantly black city.
Given the magnitude of consequences for State of Minnesota v. Chauvin, it is important to stay aware of how these proceedings unfold. District judges have great power, and arguably minimal accountability when it comes to jury exposure. Although there is precedent that forbids jury discrimination and partiality, there have certainly been instances where trials have been determined by mob domination or plain partisanship. Though George Floyd was killed on camera in cold blood, Mr. Chauvin still retains the constitutional right not to “be deprived of life, liberty, or property without Due Process of Law.”
Though George Floyd’s death was the tragic outcome of a broken system, his murder has inspired a national movement to change society for the better. As this historic case against Derek Chauvin progresses, it is vital that the American people remain vigilant against any nefarious activities within the case proceedings. While protesting in the streets will certainly raise awareness for anti-racist action, institutional change must take place if the country hopes to end this system of brutality. That change must begin with our criminal justice system, and it can only happen under the scrutiny of a politically active nation. Indeed, Derek Chauvin’s right to have an impartial jury is also the people’s right to have a fair trial as well.