“The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him. “
The Derek Chauvin case seemed pretty clearcut. When the video surfaced last May, I had no problem with saying that Chauvin should be convicted. The only question in my mind at that time was whether it should be manslaughter or second-degree murder charges. I was fairly convinced of this, and I believe that I was wrong. The question raised here is whether there is reasonable doubt. If I were a juror, I would have to answer that there is reasonable doubt at this point.
Over time, the reality became clear that the media suppressed information that would have changed my initial perception. This realization became more clear after footage of George Floyd surfaced showing him under the influence, that he asked repeatedly not to be placed in the car and that he was complaining of not being able to breathe long before he was physically detained. This began to shift my thinking.
Then more information became available about the autopsy. Maybe he died from overdosing and not from physical asphyxiation. Furthermore, he had a heart condition that could have easily responded negatively to the drugs. Now information becomes available during the trial that Minneapolis Police Department training materials actually teach that particular method for detaining a suspect. As time moves forward – and the trial continues – it seems that we may have reached the point of reasonable doubt.
What I see happening is that the media stated their case, with the video that they promoted, and it seemed right. Suppressing information, they led people to believe that it was a clear cut case of racism and police brutality.
This is nothing new. The same thing was done with Ferguson. Kavanaugh was guilty before the trial. The list could go on and on. I wasn’t immune to making a quick judgement. I imagine many people weren’t. Regardless, this is the reason we have due process: to correct misjudgments and mob justice.
The great thing about the American system – inherited from the common law traditions – is that we have the presumption of innocence. In other words, we believe that one is innocent until proven guilty.
This does not mean that we believe one is innocent until we see a video. Nor does it mean that one is innocent until people make accusations. In the American justice system, we have always upheld that one is innocent until proven guilty. Proven guilty requires proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We have a system in which witnesses are called, evidence is produced, and arguments are heard. We call this due process.
What we should ask ourselves is whether it is a certain fact –beyond a reasonable doubt – that Derek Chauvin committed a crime. I cannot honestly say that he committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If that is the case – and the jury agrees – we might reconsider the wisdom of a prominent English jurist, who thought it better that ten guilty persons should escape than one innocent person suffer.
Jeremy Wiggins writes a bi-weekly column for The Graham Star. He can be reached via email, jeremywiggins87@gmail.com.