Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Chauvin Trial: Meet the Jurors

Chauvin Trial: Meet the Jurors

Chosen jurors are broadly diverse in terms of gender, race, and age

https://youtu.be/NjKjaCvXdf4

Welcome to our ongoing coverage of the Minnesota murder trial of Derek Chauvin, over the in-custody death of George Floyd.  I am Attorney Andrew Branca for Law of Self Defense, providing guest commentary and analysis of this trial for Legal Insurrection.

With the trial set to begin with opening arguments on Monday, March 29 at 9:00am CT, the court finally managed to select 15 jurors effective yesterday.  Only 14 of these will actually be sworn in and seated on Monday morning—if all 15 chosen show up, one of them will be sent home.  The court’s given no indication on the process to be used to choose the 15th unnecessary juror—it may simply be whoever shows up last on Monday.

In any case, I thought I’d take the opportunity to collect what we know of the jurors, both in aggregate and individually, here in a single blog post, along with brief descriptions of the jurors as shared by the court and media, including their gender and race.  The descriptions of the jurors are sourced from USA Today, as well as from my own notes taken during voir dire.)

I’ve also included the video of the voir dire of each of the selected jurors.

(Note: The jurors are identified by their court assigned number and presented here in numerical sequence.  If we are later informed which of these 15 chosen jurors is not to be seated, I’ll update this post to reflect that exclusion.)

The Jurors in Aggregate

Before we jump into the jurors individually, however, here’s a quick overview of the jurors in aggregate.

Summary by gender:

Male: 6 (40%)

Female: 9 (60%)

Summary by race:

Black: 4 (~27)

Mixed-race: 2 (~13%)

White: 9 (60%)

Summary by age:

20s: 4 (~27%)

30s: 3 (20%)

40s: 3 (20%)

50s: 4 (~27%)

60s: 1 (~7%)

Juror #2: Male, White, 30s

Juror #9: Female, Mixed-race, 20s

Juror #19: Male, White, 30s

Juror #27: Male, Black, 30s

Juror #44: Female, White, 50s

Juror #52: Male, Black, 30s

Juror #55: Female, White, 50s

Juror #79: Male, Black, 40s

Juror #85: Female, Mixed-race, 40s

Juror #89: Female, White, 50s

Juror #91: Female, Black, 60s

Juror #92: Female, White, 40s

Juror #96: Female, White, 50s

Juror #118: Female, White, 20s

Juror #131: Male, White, 20s

That’s all I have for you today!

Until next time, stay safe!

–Andrew

Attorney Andrew F. Branca

Law of Self Defense LLC

Attorney Andrew F. Branca’s legal practice has specialized exclusively in use-of-force law for thirty years.  Andrew provides use-of-force legal consultancy services to attorneys across the country, as well as near-daily use-of-force law insight, expertise, and education to lawyers and non-lawyers alike in the form of blog posts, video, and podcasts, through the Law of Self Defense Membership service.  If this kind of content is of interest to you, try out our two-week Membership trial for a mere 99 cents, with a 200% no-question- asked money-back guarantee, here:  Law of Self Defense Membership Trial.

[Featured image is a screen capture from police body camera video of Floyd’s 2020 arrest on the day of his death.]

 

 

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

How does one have a “passion” for affordable housing? Is this a weird fetish thing where she always cries out “SECTION 8! SECTION 8!” in the throes of pleasure?

    HackTholo in reply to Jack Klompus. | March 24, 2021 at 10:58 am

    Affordable housing does not mean Section 8. Have you never heard of Habitat for Humanity or other affordable housing advocacy groups?

    Char Char Binks in reply to Jack Klompus. | March 24, 2021 at 11:43 am

    ?

    I’ve known “investors” in Sect. 8 Housing who have a “financial passion” for the economics. They have occasionally even said a kind word about one or another “short-term” tenant – “… wish they could have stayed longer.” Akin to the employer who is unhappy when a good worker leaves – “they had 30 hours a week and were getting a bit more than minimum wage …”

UnCivilServant | March 24, 2021 at 11:13 am

Voted in hopes of getting a jury summons to the Chauvin case

How is this not someone thrown out on cause? That’s a big red flag.

I count 7 strongly leaning convict and no strongly leaning acquit which is better than I figured they could get. Of course that is using my obvious powers of mind reading so YMMV

Char Char Binks | March 24, 2021 at 11:54 am

This is a jury selected to convict. Chauvin’s only hope is a hung jury, probably by a lone holdout. It would be a different story if instead of Minneapolis, they held the trial in America.

A hung jury would probably be perfectly acceptable to the prosecution; they will gladly punish Chauvin with the process indefinitely, if they can.

    fogflyer in reply to Char Char Binks. | March 24, 2021 at 1:08 pm

    That is similar to how I viewed the jury for the Zimmerman trial, yet that jury listened to the testimony and came back with the proper not-guilty verdict. Perhaps the same will happen here.
    Or, it is always possible we will hear evidence that warrants a conviction for manslaughter, although I find that quite unlikely given what we already know.

      Char Char Binks in reply to fogflyer. | March 24, 2021 at 8:02 pm

      Leftists have been perfecting the art of weaponizing the courts for the past 13 years since trayvon learned his most important lesson.

    Not to worry, if by some fluke they harsh the narrative and acquit Chauvin they will become a “mostly-white” jury.

Thanks Andrew Branca.
This is really great reporting. Loaded with facts and expert insights.
> what journalism used to be.

Connivin Caniff | March 24, 2021 at 12:14 pm

I don’t care who the jurors are. There is absolutely no chance for a fair trial.

Considering the riots done in the name of this case shouldn’t the jurors identity have been secret and all images of them blurred with no electronics allowed in the court to prevent this information being public?

TheOldZombie | March 24, 2021 at 1:23 pm

Some may think the jury is going to vote not guilty no matter what but I think if the defense lawyer is on his game there is a good chance he can get that not guilty verdict.

I think most people when presented with the facts of a case would not want to convict someone they think is not guilty. Even if they don’t like the defendant. Most people would put themselves in the defendants shoes at that moment in the jury room and ask themselves if they would want themselves to be convicted even if the case showed it should be a not guilty verdict.

I think this jury selection did well enough that you don’t have any zealots on it that will convict no matter what happens in the trial. Maybe it leans towards conviction but that can always change. This is why having a good lawyer that can show the jury why the states case is bogus is so important.

Look at the Zimmerman trial. Once the states case fell apart that jury didn’t convict. Lot of people thought they would convict no matter what.

I don’t think this is a slam dunk for the state.

How long is the trial expected to last? Anyone know?

    TheOldZombie in reply to TheOldZombie. | March 24, 2021 at 1:24 pm

    First sentence should read: Some may think the jury is going to vote guilty…..

    Still no editor. Even if only for five minutes. 🙁

    Char Char Binks in reply to TheOldZombie. | March 24, 2021 at 8:09 pm

    The leftists on the jury will be happy to falsely convict Chauvin, and they’ll feel righteous doing it. It’s for The Cause, you know

    henrybowman in reply to TheOldZombie. | March 25, 2021 at 11:45 pm

    Don’t forget, as far as reportage and communications go, these people live on the wrong side of the Berlin Wall, and Voice of America has been jammed.

    I predict that more than half the jurors are going to have at least one “holy s*, I had no idea that was the case” moment apiece, when they get to see actual evidence that hasn’t been “removed for violating our policy of following Democrat narratives” by Facebook and Twitter.

Colonel Travis | March 24, 2021 at 1:51 pm

Everybody in these stupid masks…

Anyway, thanks AB. You are such a valuable resource and I’m glad you’re taking so much time with this case.

I only listened to the audio of Juror 9’s interview. The woman’s thought processes (I’m being generous) consist of a limited repertoire of memorized sound bites and pregnant pause fillers; neither requiring nor having capacity to hear outside stimuli (during trial she’ll be sleeping after receiving reprimands for talking under her breath.

How could she not be asked to describe her formal training in “reading another’s body language”, or why is she so well able to “judge” others ?

There is no possible way Chauvin can receive a “fair” trial if she is representative of those empaneled. Unless she was so early in the process neither defense nor judge wanted to use a “preemptive challenge”, and soon to be the deleted 15th.

JustShootMeNow | March 25, 2021 at 9:17 pm

I’m a little concerned that few, if any, were in fear of their safety? If they answered ‘No’ they were either lying or too stupid to be a juror.

Its fascinating how difficult jury selection is in the US. It seems to be a football that gets kicked around an awful lot. Its much more straightforward in the UK, Takes far less time ha.

This seems like an odd motion. The Prosecution wants to EXCLUDE evidence of George Floyd’s motivation but INCLUDE evidence of Chauvin’s.

https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/Motion03262021.pdf

    paralegal in reply to paralegal. | March 27, 2021 at 1:56 am

    The motion also includes an interesting theory that George Floyd never resisted arrest but simply COULD NOT COMPLY because of an unspecified medical condition.

The likes of Floyd will be happy to hear this, from the CA Supreme Court: it just ended cash bail for indigent criminals, even felons!

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/27/california-supreme-court-reinstates-bail-reform-from-landmark-humphrey-ruling/

    paralegal in reply to TheFineReport.com. | March 27, 2021 at 7:32 pm

    They really didn’t though. All they did was add two additional factors to consider when setting bail.1) ability to pay and 2). Potential less restrictive alternatives.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend