With everything we've seen over the last few years, can a juror truly be totally unbiased and cast their vote without fear of backlash? We all know that if Chauvin is acquitted there will be more rioting and possibly put more lives at risk. The woman cop in Brooklyn center is another immediate example of this.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is how can a person, particularly a white cop, get a fair trial when the jury knows that the alternative to a guilty finding will lead to a lot of damage to people that aren't associated with the crime in any way?
How do we back our way out of this situation? If a person goes into a trial knowing that it really can't be fair then why wouldn't they flee the country and claim asylum somewhere else? It seems like that might be the best course of action for anybody charged with a crime at this point.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is how can a person, particularly a white cop, get a fair trial when the jury knows that the alternative to a guilty finding will lead to a lot of damage to people that aren't associated with the crime in any way?
How do we back our way out of this situation? If a person goes into a trial knowing that it really can't be fair then why wouldn't they flee the country and claim asylum somewhere else? It seems like that might be the best course of action for anybody charged with a crime at this point.