Law & Crime Trial Network: Bob Bianchi Covers the Trial of Derek Chauvin
In these tense days that are leading up to what Bob Bianchi has deemed the “Trial of the Century” the Law & Crime Trial Network is here to give you all of the behind-the-scenes knowledge of the happenings in this trial. As with any trial, there are many processes and procedures that lead up to the day that opening remarks finally get orated. For now, we analyze all of these aspects like jury selection, pre-trial motions, and all of the details that go into the moment we are waiting for; trial day.
You’ll find in the video synthesis of actual courtroom footage with host Bob Bianchi and panels of experts discussing various aspects of the trial. For example, when it comes to jury selection, Bianchi brings on a jury selection expert as well as a forensic psychologist to help analyze the live video footage of jurors being interviewed by both the judge and the lawyers. One such juror is seen to be eager and wanting to come across as fair and impartial in an effort to be selected. This could be a red flag for the defense and for the state.
The Law and Crime Trial Network also have reporters on the ground sharing information as it comes out. For example, when news of a civil settlement of $27M came out, the defense team began asking potential jurors if they knew of this and how they felt about it. One juror made it clear that she could not be impartial after hearing of the settlement.
As jurors are interviewed and either dismissed or seated, the makeup of the jury is analyzed with great scrutiny. Above all else, whether or not it is possible for a jury to be completely impartial in this trial is difficult to determine. Not only is this case extremely high profile for its involvement in hot button issues like police use of force, race relations, and officer-involved deaths of citizens, but now jurors must also try to block out the fact that the city has settled with Floyd’s family for his wrongful death.
In addition to jury selection, pre-trial motions are also decided that can have an impact on the trial as a whole. One such example is whether an expert witness in the form of a doctor discussing clinical practice experiences can be specific or broader with their scope. In this case, the judge has ruled that “I had a patient once” narratives will not be allowable. As the panel discusses, this is to avoid anecdotal evidence as opposed to medically relevant evidence being heard at trial.
Perhaps what will be the most interesting aspect of the trial, on the whole, will be what strategies the defense and the state take in making their case. The panel discusses various potential strategies and whether or not they seem viable.