The trial of Derek Chauvin begins this week in Minneapolis. Chauvin, a white police officer, has been charged with murdering George Floyd, an unarmed Black man. The killing sparked massive protests around the world over the summer and garnered extensive media attention, which can make finding an impartial jury extremely difficult. GBH Morning Edition host Joe Mathieu spoke with Northeastern University law professor and GBH News legal analyst Daniel Medwed about what we can expect as the trial moves forward this week. The transcript below has been edited for clarity.
Joe Mathieu: I saw jury selection never happened yesterday. It was supposed to start on Monday, but was quickly delayed. What's going on there?
Daniel Medwed: Right now, there's a battle over the inclusion of a third charge in the case — a third degree murder charge. The defense wants it out, presumably because they're fearful that it will give the jury too many options to convict their client, and, of course, they're looking for an acquittal. So they've asked the court of appeals in Minnesota to stop the proceedings while the state Supreme Court resolves that issue. I think it's just a speed bump. It's not going to stop this, but it might delay things a bit.
Mathieu: Are you surprised this [trial] is actually being held in Minneapolis to begin with, Daniel? Did the officer try to move the trial somewhere else?
Medwed: Yes, Chauvin did file what's called a change of venue motion to hold the case elsewhere in Minnesota at a different location. But the trial judge — temporarily, at least — denied it on the grounds that there was such national publicity surrounding this event that changing the location wouldn't actually thwart the risk of prejudicial pretrial publicity. So on the one hand, I'm not really surprised by this. We both remember, of course, the Boston Marathon bombing case where Judge O'Toole kept the case here in Boston, despite efforts by the defense to move it elsewhere in the First Circuit. The idea is that with these high profile, notorious cases, you might as well just keep it in the community that was harmed by the conduct, let the aggrieved community play a role in adjudicating it, and be near all the witnesses and the evidence. On the other hand, though, sometimes the local media coverage is much more intense and prejudicial than the national coverage, especially over time as it recedes and fades. In the Oklahoma City bombing case, for that reason, the judge moved it to Denver because the local media glare was so bright.
Mathieu: So how do you ensure in this case, then, that Chauvin gets a fair and impartial jury with that remarkable level of pretrial publicity? I mean, few people will forget last summer.
Medwed: I think that's right. Very few people will forget last summer and you don't want jurors who live under a rock and have no clue about this case. What you're looking for are jurors who can put aside their preexisting knowledge, keep an open mind, view the evidence with detachment and objectivity. And to get there, the judge submitted a 14-page questionnaire to each member of the pool with ample questions about their views on Black Lives Matter, the police, the Chauvin incident and so on. And then starting this week, despite the speed bump in the Minnesota Supreme Court, each lawyer and the judge will ask individual questions of those jurors to see whether or not they're suitable. There are a couple tools that the lawyers have to try to winnow the jury down to their liking. First, there's what's called a challenge for cause. If a juror is clearly biased or has a conflict of interest, you can bounce that juror for cause and there are unlimited causal challenges that a lawyer could use. The second tool is more controversial. It's called a peremptory challenge. You can strike a juror for no articuable reason just because you don't want that person on the panel. In Minnesota, the defense has 15 peremptory challenges at their disposal and the prosecution has nine.
Mathieu: This is interesting — peremptory challenges, if I'm saying it right. I imagine lawyers will use that to manipulate the composition of the jury [and] shape it to favor their side. Are they restricted in the way they use that?
Medwed: Well, that's a really important question. And traditionally, that's exactly what happened. People would use peremptory challenges to shape or mold the jury in a way that was often very pernicious. So in 1986, the Supreme Court stopped the use of peremptories to create a racially discriminatory jury. Subsequently, other cases have said you can't use it based on ethnicity or gender. So I think this trial judge is going to be very vigilant to make sure that peremptories are wielded properly, and he'll try to craft a jury that's diverse or at least reflects the demographics of Hennepin County, which is where the trial is being held, if not the city of Minneapolis.
Mathieu: Could the jury selection then actually take longer than most trials, or is this just the way the business works, Daniel?
Medwed: That's interesting. The balance is a little bit skewed. It could take longer or as long as the trial itself.
