Juror's Motives on Trial by Media

Media Spotlight "Shining" on Juror's Past 

The effect media has on jurors before, during, and after deliberation has been of major concern to not only the legal community, but to all. It reinforces the doubts about a jury's ability to remain impartial, follow the court rules, and use only the evidence admitted in the court room. But the media can have an [arguably] worse effect - during certain high-profile trials, the media publicizes a juror's private life. By diving into a juror's past, the merits of the case are thrown out the window and the competency of the jury finds itself sitting in the passenger's seat. 

Rather than criticizing the approaches, witnesses, or evidence used by the attorneys in the Derek Chauvin trial, news media focused on attacking one juror - Brandon Mitchell's - motives for his past involvement in the March on Washington (Star Tribune - Chao Xiong, 2021). Brandon Mitchell was one of 12 jurors who convicted Derek Chauvin in April of 2021 of 2nd Degree Unintentional Murder, 3rd Degree Murder, and 2nd Degree Manslaughter for the May 25th, 2020 killing of George Floyd. Mitchell was the first juror to speak with media openly about his role as a juror after the case concluded. 

The death of George Floyd was highly publicized in the media, along with the Black Lives Matter movement. As a Black man, Mitchell's personal life was immediately a popular topic in the media - specifically for his involvement in the March on Washington the summer before the Chauvin trial and the appearance of his photo online around a commemoration of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech. Once these two pieces of information were presented on social media, online commentators began questioning his motives for being a juror in Derek Chauvin's case and its potential to great grounds for an appeal. 

In explaining his decision to participate in the March on Washington, Mitchell said that he had never been to Washington D.C. before and the opportunity to "be around thousands and thousands of Black people" was a "good opportunity to be a part of something." In connection with this event, the photo circulating online consisted of Mitchell, along with his two cousins, in Washington D.C. wearing black T-shirts with a picture of Martin Luther King Jr. with the words "GET YOUR KNEE OFF OUR NECKS" and "BLM". 

So What is the Problem? 

It's clear that jurors have biases. We all do. But with media, juror's personal lives, past, and future behavior remains under a microscope. In this case, Brandon Mitchell is being questioned and doubted for his previous participation in the Black Lives Matter movement, specifically wearing gear supporting the victim killed by Derek Chauvin. As a juror, he directly played a role in Derek Chauvin's conviction which has some individuals concerned that he was too biased to sit on the jury at all. 

If Brandon Mitchell is found to be biased, is his role as a juror grounds for an appeal? Consider the following quote about whether Mitchell's actions could create grounds for Chauvin's appeal. 

"If [Mitchell] specifically was asked, 'Have you ever participated in a Black Lives Matter demonstration,' 

and he answered, 'No,' to that, I think that would be an important appealable issue," said Joseph Daly, emeritus professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law.

 If we are all biased, where do we draw the line between having non-prejudicial juror background and prejudicial views? In this case, the media is criticizing Mitchell for being in support of Chauvin's victim before he was even selected for the jury in the defendant's criminal trial. But would these attitudes, perspectives, and views be acceptable if they were merely internal - never said or expressed out loud? These are all important to consider in deciding if there are merits to appeal cases like this solely because of juror bias. Especially in light of such high-profile cases where each juror has some previous knowledge of the situation before being summoned for jury duty. Furthermore, how do you separate when a juror is biased against a defendant's criminal action and a moral juror?