One of the alternate jurors from the Chauvin trial admits the flamingly obvious (in an interview with KARE11’s Lou Raguse):
Raguse: Did you want to be a juror?
Christensen: I had mixed feelings. There was a question on the questionnaire about it and I put I did not know. The reason, at that time, was I did not know what the outcome was going to be, so I felt like either way you are going to disappoint one group or the other. I did not want to go through rioting and destruction again and I was concerned about people coming to my house if they were not happy with the verdict.
So there’s your evidence that, by accident or design or pure social fact, the jury’s attitude was affected by the, er, social disruption of the past year.
I’m not going to say “It’d have been utterly impossible for Chauvin to get a fair trial under those circumstances”.
I’m going to say we can see that state from here.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.