Image 01 Image 03

Daunte Wright Shooting Trial – VERDICT WATCH Day 3 – Update: NO VERDICT TODAY, Deliberations Continue Thursday

Daunte Wright Shooting Trial – VERDICT WATCH Day 3 – Update: NO VERDICT TODAY, Deliberations Continue Thursday

Complete jury silence today, no questions for the court after signaling yesterday they were having trouble finding consensus.

Welcome to our coverage of the Kim Potter manslaughter trial over the April 11, 2021, shooting death of Duante Wright in a suburb of Minneapolis, when then-police officer Potter unintentionally used her Glock 17 pistol in place of her intended Taser.

The case has been with the jury since 12:45 p.m. Central time on December 20, 2021, a total of 14 hours of deliberation time. Questions asked yesterday (see below) indicate the jury is having trouble reaching “consensus.” The jury will resume deliberations at 9 a.m. Central today. We will monitor developments and will update if there are jury questions or other courtroom action. When a verdict is imminent, we will update the headline, and will also reach out on social media. And when the verdict is announced, we will be live.

For coverage of closings, including videos of closing arguments, see Daunte Wright Shooting Trial LIVE – Closing Arguments Over, Jury Gets The Case (updated)

Reminder – there are two Counts:

COUNT I – Charge: First-Degree Manslaughter Predicated on Reckless Use/Handling of a Firearm
COUNT II – Charge: Second-Degree Manslaughter

(most recent at top)(refresh page to show lastest)

December  22

7 p.m. Eastern – According to a local reporter, the jury has wrapped up for today, will continue Thursday. Jury completely silent today, not questions for the Judge.

9:30 a.m. Eastern – Local reporter: Just got word from court. #KimPotterTrial jury resumed deliberations at 8:25am. Getting a slightly earlier start than expected. [WAJ – If jury started early, they clearly want to get this done today.]


Here’s a courtroom video feed, there will not be any courtroom activity unless the jury has more questions, otherwise communicates with the court, or reaches a verdict.



December 21

5:30 p..m. Eastern – Jury questions (submitted 4 p.m. Central) read in court:

First Question — “If the jury cannot reach consensus, what is the guidance around how long and what steps should be taken?” Answer: Judge re-reads a prior instruction: You should discuss the case and deliberate towards reaching a verdict without compromising oath.

Second Question — “Can the zip ties be removed fromExhibit 199 Potter’s gun so it can be held out of the evidence box?” Answer – Yes, hand deputy the gun in the box, the deputy will then remove the zip ties and give gun to you. After you are done with it, hand it back to the deputy.

Defense objected to judge rereading the single instruction, also objected to removing gun from the case for safety purposes. Prosecution says appopriate to give that instruction, it’s standard in lieu of the old “Allen” instruction.

5:20 p.m. Eastern – Jury has a question

December 20

Yesterday, the only courtroom action after deliberations started was a jury question:

4:20 p.m Eastern, 12/20/21 – Jury Question: What was the date of the Potter interview with Dr. Miller (question dated 2:58 p.m. CT). Judge says all the evidence is in, “you should rely on your collective memory as to what the evidence is.”



4:20 p.m Eastern – Jury Question: What was the date of the Potter interview with Dr. Miller (question dated 2:58 p.m. CT). Judge says all the evidence is in, “you should rely on your collective memory as to what the evidence is.”

Needless to say, the best we can do is speculate what is going on with the jury behind closed doors. The Question the jury asked goes to the testimony of Dr. Laurence Miller, the psychological expert who testified about how the brain works, and how an officer by habit could unkowingly pull a gun rather than a taser because pulling the gun was practiced far more.

He testified as to his interview with Potter, and she also was questioned about what she told him about whether she saw the gun in her hand. That was a big point in the prosecution closing (at 6:10 of video below) because is she saw the gun and was aware she was holding it, perhaps that memory function doesn’t apply.

So the jury seems focused on that testimony, though which part of the testimony we don’t know, which would indicate in coming to a determination on recklessness or culpable negligence, they are considering whether she acted, in a sense, with the free will (“conscious” in the jury instruction) or fell victim to a psychological process. This would make sense for the jury to focus on this, because the facts of the case are not really in dispute or complicated. The prosecution does not claim that Potter deliberately pulled the gun. What is in dispute is whether the action of mistake and not recognizing the mistake before shooting rises to the level of recklessness or culpable negligence. On that the jury instructions do not give the jury much guidance.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I wonder if any on the jury have considered the absurdity of this trial and the prosecutors motives. If they haven’t, then crime in MN isn’t as high as I’ve been reading.

    DPtarmigan in reply to Andy. | December 23, 2021 at 9:20 am

    This “wrong weapon” narrative needs to stop. When you put officers in harm’s way with a car, they and everyone else has a right to respond with any force.

    Who’s to say a taser would have solved the issue, and instead could have made it worse?

    We need to reject the Left’s narrative every time we see it.

I just love (not) how the DA does the pile-on with two counts.

It was a mistake…but they want to criminalize her action from their cushy cheap seats.

My 2-Cents (that, and $3 gets you a cup of coffee):

A police officer – who otherwise had a good service record- is doing her job, dives into the fray to assist her fellow officers, with the reprobate criminal who continued to resist, in the melee she grabs the wrong weapon and shoots the criminal.

Sorry, no quarter given to the criminal. Had he complied he’d be alive and the media would have nothing to endlessly editorialize on this incident. Who’d want to go into law enforcement when every action gets scrutinized under a microscope while the criminals get all the gimme’s?

This is juror #4 the defense did not strike her idiots!

Juror #48, apparently a woman by voice, worked in IT management for tech companies.

She had written in her jury questionnaire that Duante should not have died for an expired license tag, the result didn’t match the crime. Asked about this by Judge Chu, #48 assured the court that she could set that opinion aside, and would be open-minded and fair.

Juror #48 had also previously protested outside a local ICE (immigration) facility to protest the putting of immigrant “children in cages.”

Based on all of that, I’d bet on the defense using a peremptory strike.

The defense did not, however, strike juror #48, but declared her acceptable to them.

The State obviously liked what it saw, and passed on dismissing her after a very short voir dire.

    mtx3 in reply to mtx3. | December 22, 2021 at 10:13 am

    Notes on #48 from AB.

    kak185ttx in reply to mtx3. | December 22, 2021 at 10:53 am

    Did not understand when the defense did not strike her. AB expected that they would. No way is she a fair and impartial juror. He didn’t die because of what was hanging from his mirror. He died because he tried to flee from a felony warrant

      Think38 in reply to kak185ttx. | December 22, 2021 at 2:08 pm

      The defense has a limited number of strikes. Sometimes they need to be held in reserve for use against even more offensive prospects.

      In my jurisdiction, they do the strikes differently. Went through this as a prospective juror. Pool of 50 people. Judge does an interview with each one, plus some general questions for the group (e.g., do you have a family member in law enforcement? Have you been convicted of a crime?). Judge excused a number based on the responses.

      After the interview, both prosecution and defense submitted six numbers. Those were excused. Repeat process to get to 14. In each case, it allowed them to excuse the most extreme (from their side), Resulting pool was least offensive to both sides. My number was called before they reached 14.

      No he didn’t “die because of what was hanging from his mirror.” Lots of felons flee and they don’t get killed. He died because he resisted arrest with deadly force, and attempted to flee by the use of deadly force, which put the officers and society in imminent danger of gbh or death.

        Milhouse in reply to bigo. | December 22, 2021 at 7:22 pm

        George Floyd shouldn’t have died for passing a fake $20. Michael Browne shouldn’t have died for jaywalking, or for robbing a store. Trayvon Martin shouldn’t have died for casing a house for a potential future burglary, and Eric Garner shouldn’t have died for selling loosies Rayshard Brooks should not have died for falling asleep while in the drive-in line at Wendy’s, Winston Boogie Smith shouldn’t have died for missing a sentencing hearing.

        But none of them died for those reasons. Those were merely the reasons that first brought them to police attention. They died because they resisted arrest, because they fought police, and/or because they were (or gave every appearance of) using deadly force against someone.

I always wonder why conservative billionaires do not step forward to fund defenses such as this.

    as they say in east TX

    “There aint no truck in it”

    Jonathan Cohen in reply to E Howard Hunt. | December 22, 2021 at 2:00 pm

    Conservative billionaires benefit by replacing class conflict by racial strife. If people are focused on racial grievous, they won’t notice that billionaires are making the rules so their business practices are not interfered with.

Kim Potter’s actions were purely accidental percipitated by the intentional acts of the deceased.

absolutely not guilty

Question: Whatever happened to the Fleeing Felon rule in Minnesota? Has the legislature officially abolished it?

    Pasadena Peabody in reply to Milhouse. | December 22, 2021 at 2:10 pm

    The rule is, that given the chance, most felons will flee.

    Fleeing felon rule is still the rule of law in Minnesota and that is one of the statutes that makes the homicide justified. There are other rules of law in Minnesota that also make the homicide justified. An example is the justified use of deadly force in defense of self or others.

    Juris Doctor in reply to Milhouse. | December 22, 2021 at 3:56 pm

    Not sure the fleeing felon rule is relevant because there is no felony from which he could have been fleeing and Potter did not intend to use deadly force.

      Resisting arrest with an attempted use of deadly force is a forcible felony, as is attempted aggravated battery and attempted murder. Three felonies in progress when shot.

        Milhouse in reply to bigo. | December 22, 2021 at 7:32 pm

        As I understand the rule it doesn’t require any felonies to be in progress. It merely requires that the person is known to have committed them, and (post Garner) that he be a danger to the public. It seems to me that Wright fit the bill, even if he hadn’t been doing anything wrong at the time he was shot.

      The statute justifying the use of deadly force by police officers does not require that police officers have any intent to use deadly force, the use of deadly force is justified by the statute when the circumstances exist that are specified by statute. The intent of the officer in using deadly force is immaterial and irrelevant when the circumstances exist that authorize the use of deadly force. There is case law on this.

      Tom Orrow in reply to Juris Doctor. | December 22, 2021 at 5:21 pm

      Fleeing Felon rule in Minnesota: Subd. 3.Fleeing officer; motor vehicle.

      Whoever by means of a motor vehicle flees or attempts to flee a peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty, and the perpetrator knows or should reasonably know the same to be a peace officer, is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three years and one day or to payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both.

      Milhouse in reply to Juris Doctor. | December 22, 2021 at 7:29 pm

      The common-law fleeing felon rule does not require that the person be fleeing from a felony. It merely requires that he be a felon and in the process of fleeing arrest. The felony could have happened long ago. Tennessee v Garner amended that (in the case of police officers and other state actors) to apply only to dangerous felons.

      Wright was a dangerous felon; the felonies Potter knew him to have committed made having him running loose a danger to the community. Therefore if the rule is still good law in MN then she would have been justified in shooting him simply to prevent his escape.

Should be not guilty, but clearly they’re deadlocked now. No reason to extend it past christmas

    Hopefully there is at least one person on the jury who knows enough about the law to know that the homicide was justified and knows enough about the law to know that there is no rule of law that requires a member of the jury to consent to a verdict that shocks his conscience.

      Joe-dallas in reply to bigo. | December 22, 2021 at 4:31 pm

      highly unlikely any jury understands the law based on the instructions given.

      Its one of the reasons I have been struck so many times is my insistence that I have to understand to statute and how those statutes apply to the facts.

        Smooth23 in reply to Joe-dallas. | December 22, 2021 at 4:55 pm

        It seems like as long as you can sneak a charge by a judge or score a biased judge, you can try a person for anything and get a conviction half the time(at least).

in the event of a hung jury, what is the outlook for officer potter?

    TargaGTS in reply to texansamurai. | December 22, 2021 at 5:54 pm

    It’s hard to imagine that the state would refuse to retry her. So, we’ll be right back here in 6 to 12-months, doing it all over. Probably the best she can hope for is the state pursues lesser charges from the outset. And/But, that might be a double-edged sword because with a reduced charge, a jury might be more likely to convict.

    If the defense attorneys did their job correctly, the motions for dismissal and for directed verdict of acquittal and other motions and rulings will be appealed to the Supreme Court and the case will probably be disposed of there by directing entry of a verdict of acquittal.

Kim needs to go home, put some Calgon in the tub, get a good night’s sleep and start a new life when she’s ready.

“when then-police officer Potter unintentionally used her Glock 17 pistol in place of her intended Taser.”

If there is sufficient evidence of this in the record and not sufficient evidence that Potter knowing, purposely, and intentionally used her Glock 17 pistol, then the Potter is entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal.

All crimes, whether misdemeanor or felony, require proof beyond a reasonable doubt of intent to do the actus reus of the charged offense, and where there is no intent to do the prohibited act, the conduct is excused on the grounds of misfortune (accident).

    This case is an accident. In a dire emergency you reach out for what you have to deal with the threat that confronts you.

    As it were, I have carried a Glock 17 for at least twenty years. I am used to it, it is comfortable. I am right handed, for most things, and reaching for it, I know that it will be right where I put it.

    I am sorry for the decedent but understand that he, too, did what came naturally to his experience.

My understanding is that the deceased was found to be wanted , with a felon with known concealed gun

In what world would a PO not get involved as he went back in his car, knowing her may pull out a gun on them or someone else.
The only fault I see is her yelling I have a taser and it was a gun
She had a right to shoot just as the PO in WI , Kenosha did because they knew the guy, who also was trying to get in his car, had prior weapons charges and could pull out a gun and kill them

My analysis is we have one or two SJW’s holding out for a conviction in spite of the evidence the shooting was accidental and completly unintentional. Who knows maybe another BLM or ANTIFA plant just as they had on the Chauvin jury. The only criminals in this courtroom are the prosecutors who brought these charges and the judge who did not immediatley dismiss them.