I think a struggle some have with today's verdict is that you might approach the matter thinking, "How would I vote? If I saw all this evidence, how would I vote?"
That isn't the way to think about juries, and I don't mean that in relation to the Chauvin case particularly or to cases that involve race or even to cases that are politically charged. That just isn't the way to try to predict a jury. Your take on a matter doesn't matter.
The question is, "How would a jury vote?"
Your answer to that question will of course depend on the makeup of your jury.
There's also a bit of a science to this. Lawyers will run panel after panel of mock jurors. They'll give them questionnaires. They'll road test themes. First, they'll develop models of jurors to strike. "What kind of person is worst for my case?" Maybe it's someone who opposes minimum wage laws. Next, they'll develop models of jurors they want. Maybe it's someone who thinks fracking causes earthquakes. You never know until you run the models.
But even after your jury is seated, there's still human nature.
No jury is going to understand medical procedures or causes...not really. They won't understand engineering calculations or ballistics or 10,000 other things that might be important to your case but which are unfamiliar to an average person.
But the jury will understand human things: greed, arrogance, kindness, recklessness, selfishness, laziness, etc.
If you want to persuade a jury, you must educate them, but you must reach them on their terms. Where they think. Where they live. They're not you.
So, if you watched the Chauvin trial and are hung up on some string of medical testimony, or whatever, you aren't really judging the verdict in a way that will ever make sense to you. Ask what a jury would do, and in these circumstances, with that video, the result makes lots of sense.
That isn't the way to think about juries, and I don't mean that in relation to the Chauvin case particularly or to cases that involve race or even to cases that are politically charged. That just isn't the way to try to predict a jury. Your take on a matter doesn't matter.
The question is, "How would a jury vote?"
Your answer to that question will of course depend on the makeup of your jury.
There's also a bit of a science to this. Lawyers will run panel after panel of mock jurors. They'll give them questionnaires. They'll road test themes. First, they'll develop models of jurors to strike. "What kind of person is worst for my case?" Maybe it's someone who opposes minimum wage laws. Next, they'll develop models of jurors they want. Maybe it's someone who thinks fracking causes earthquakes. You never know until you run the models.
But even after your jury is seated, there's still human nature.
No jury is going to understand medical procedures or causes...not really. They won't understand engineering calculations or ballistics or 10,000 other things that might be important to your case but which are unfamiliar to an average person.
But the jury will understand human things: greed, arrogance, kindness, recklessness, selfishness, laziness, etc.
If you want to persuade a jury, you must educate them, but you must reach them on their terms. Where they think. Where they live. They're not you.
So, if you watched the Chauvin trial and are hung up on some string of medical testimony, or whatever, you aren't really judging the verdict in a way that will ever make sense to you. Ask what a jury would do, and in these circumstances, with that video, the result makes lots of sense.