Chauvin Trial Response

It is near-impossible as an American in the year 2021 to have not heard about the death of George Floyd. This event quickly became a catalyst for the Black Lives Matter Movement as an example of police brutality and/or excessive force. On April 20, 2021, a verdict was reached in the trial of Derek Chauvin, the former police officer who had been restraining George Floyd at the time of his death. The court found Chauvin guilty of third-degree murder, second-degree unintentional murder, and second-degree manslaughter. With this sentence, he could be facing up to 40 years in prison. As anyone would expect in our deeply divided country, different media organizations had varying responses to this outcome.

Groups like CNN shared positive headlines like “‘This is a day of celebration,’ George Floyd’s brother says.” When looking into different news groups, similar phraseology is evident among different sources. Terms like “relief,” “justice,” and “triumphant” have all been used to describe the verdict. This shows how personal and emotional this death was to the American public and the community of Minneapolis. Another recurring opinion in response to this trial is that it should not stand alone, but should be seen as the beginning of achieving racial justice. This stance continues to involve the Black Lives Matter movement and their fight to “eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes.”

On the other hand, there were many negative responses to the verdict based on claims that the trial was never meant to carry out justice because of the pressure of the surrounding community. This trial was very potent throughout the nation, but even more so in Minneapolis where Floyd died. The community responded with protests that at times turned into violent riots. Arguably, the city was under the threat of similar events if the trial did conclude with a guilty verdict. Considering the amount of publicity, this kind of pressure was inevitable, but it is notable that the trial was not moved out of Minneapolis to avoid partisanship. Further research shows that even one of the jurors, number 52, who had denied that he had attended any protests or rallies surrounding Floyd has been discovered to have attended a Black Lives Matter rally in Washington D.C. wearing BLM clothing. The main argument against this verdict’s validity is that he didn’t face a fair trial because the community and sentiment surrounding the trial were overwhelmingly against Chauvin.

Believing that Chauvin didn’t face a fair trial in Minneapolis, his lawyer Eric Nelson has filed a motion asking for a new trial. Nelson claims “that the jury committed misconduct, felt threatened or intimidated, felt race-based pressure during the proceedings, and/or failed to adhere to instructions during deliberations.” It is yet to be seen whether or not this motion will be approved, seeing that it did not include many specific arguments. It simply talked about jury misconduct after the judge decided against sequestering them during the trial.