ABA Journal: The Chauvin Conviction Shows Why Diverse Juries Matter

When it comes to convicting police officers, clear and convincing evidence is only half the battle. During former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin’s murder trial this spring, prosecutors told the jury repeatedly: “You can believe your eyes”—a reference to the brutal video showing Chauvin kneeling on George Floyd’s neck for more than nine minutes—“That it’s a homicide, it’s murder.”

But evidence—visual, circumstantial, forensic—has historically been irrelevant when a police officer is on trial, with law enforcement often accorded the benefit of the doubt and acquitted. This sentiment was, in essence, codified by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1989’s Graham v. Connor, which held that an officer’s actions must be judged against what a reasonable officer would do in the same situation.