How Woke Can a Juror Be? The Jury in the Chauvin Trial, Critiques of Law Enforcement, and a New Model of Impartiality

Abstract

This paper argues that in normalizing the language of the critique of law enforcement during voir dire in the 2021 trial of Derek Chauvin, three important changes occurred: the first was that Black jurors were less likely to be dismissed for opinions they have long voiced, but which had been seen as the basis for legitimate dismissal, the second was that it clarified what contextual impartiality should mean for the court given widespread scrutiny of the racial discrimination within and outside of the law. Lastly, the topics covered during voir dire served to highlight precisely the types of life experiences that may be valuable for the juror’s task of phronesis, Aristotle’s term for practical wisdom, necessary for deliberation and determining the verdict. The paper includes a close reading of the voir dire responses of several jurors in the Chauvin trial.