For centuries, the jury system has been the bulwark of American and British legal systems. Lately this tried-and-true method has been losing its credibility. Two cases have been at the forefront of the downfall.
In the first case, an innocent man is serving what amounts to a life sentence for a crime he did not commit. In the other, the perpetrator of an utterly vile murder may avoid the consequences of her reprehensible behavior. The outcome of both cases was determined by leftist jury influence.
Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin has gone down in American history as the murderer of repeat felon George Floyd. Chauvin is serving a 22.5-year state sentence for murder and a 21-year federal sentence for violating George Floyd’s civil rights. Chauvin is a political prisoner who fell victim to social justice activism and media-induced mob hysteria.
Chauvin had the misfortune of walking into the middle of a charged atmosphere when he and three other officers arrested Floyd on suspicion of using a counterfeit 20-dollar bill. Floyd resisted the efforts of the officers to get him into a police car. They managed to take him to the ground and handcuff him. The allegation at trial was that Chauvin knelt on Floyd's neck for more than nine minutes, causing Floyd’s death. Floyd is alleged to have said, “I can’t breathe.” It is important to be aware that Chauvin was following approved police procedure, as knee-to-neck restraints are allowed in Minnesota.
Defense medical experts testified that Floyd died because of a drug overdose. According to the official autopsy, substances in Floyd’s system included a mixture of fentanyl, caffeine, methamphetamine, marijuana compound, and nicotine metabolites. When asked whether Chauvin’s knee “impacted the structures of Mr. Floyd’s neck,” Dr. David Fowler replied, “No, it did not. None of the vital structures were in the area where the knee appeared to be from the videos.” Fowler testified that the manner of Floyd’s death should be classified as “undetermined” rather than “homicide.”
After the trial, Kansas pathologist Dr. William Schaetzel expressed the belief that Floyd died from complications of a rare tumor called a paraganglioma that can cause a fatal surge of adrenaline. Chauvin claimed that no jury would have convicted him if Schaetzel’s testimony had been heard.
It was never proved that Chauvin did it. Given the differences of opinion as to the cause of death, it is difficult to conclude with any degree of certainty that Chauvin was responsible. It is equally plausible to conclude that Chauvin was trying to do his job under the most stressful conditions, for which Floyd must bear some of the responsibility. That did not stop the jury from issuing a conviction. Because of the political pressure, the actual cause of Floyd’s death didn’t matter. The public wanted a scapegoat, and they got one.
Statements by a juror in the case suggest that the jury system failed. During a local Minneapolis television interview, juror Brandon Mitchell said that jury duty should be a means to promote societal change. Former federal prosecutor Francey Hakes said it looks like Mitchell wanted to be on that jury for the wrong reasons. “He talks a lot about social change,” Hakes said. “That is not what the justice system is for. It is incredibly serious to take someone’s liberty away from them with the power of the state. We have to have impartial jurors, and it certainly looks as though we didn’t here.”
Mitchell lied during jury selection when he said he never attended a George Floyd protest. He later admitted that he attended a march for Floyd wearing a T-shirt that said, “Get your knee off our necks.” Jurors were under oath to ensure Chauvin would get a fair trial. He did not get one. A jury's purpose is to determine a single individual's guilt or innocence, not to be used as a vehicle for social change. Chauvin was sacrificed in the name of social justice. He was the victim of the mass hysteria surrounding George Floyd.
In recent weeks, we have been watching the trial of Lindsay Clancy, who admitted that she murdered her three small children. The trial concluded with a mistrial based on the 11-1 vote by the jury. It was eleven for not guilty based on insanity and one for guilty. The majority on the jury later expressed their anger that the one holdout juror was, in their own words, basing his decision on the undisputed evidence that a horrific crime was committed. In other words, how dare he pay attention to the evidence?
As reported by Amy Curtis at Townhall, one of the jurors, Paula Davlin, admitted the jury had a political agenda and not justice in mind. Davlin said the mostly female jury thought a favorable ruling for Clancy could serve their leftist views. “We knew that this was a turning point,” said Davlin, “and this would be something that could change something to make it better for other women.” The message has been sent, wrote Curtis: “If you’re a woman, you can kill your child and claim insanity and get away with it.”
“This shows the jury didn't look at the evidence,” said Curtis. “It’s the textbook definition of a runaway jury.” A runaway jury ignores the evidence and the judge’s instructions, basing its decision on emotion, personal beliefs, or an independent agenda. As one reader commented, “Jury duty is not now, nor has it ever been, a vehicle for activism. You are there to apply the law to the facts of the case before you, not to use a defendant and three dead children as an opportunity to ‘create change.’”
The leftist media have gone to bat for the jury by portraying the one sane juror as an antisocial monster, preferring to cast the glow of sainthood on the real monster, Lindsay Clancy.
“How embarrassing and offensive to women and men who don’t believe murdering your kids should be acceptable,” said Katie Pavlich. “Not to mention a bastardization of what a jury is supposed to do, which is not to engage in activism.”
It is bad enough that we have an epidemic of activist judges. When juries substitute their political ideologies for evidence, it compounds the problem. Maintaining confidence in the justice system is impossible under these circumstances.
Ed Brodow is a conservative political commentator and bestselling author of eleven books, including his latest, The Prophet Wants Your Head in a Basket: Islam’s Terrifying Plan to Conquer America.