MINNEAPOLIS -- The trial of Derek Chauvin enters a new phase today, as opening statements are scheduled in the case of the former Minneapolis police officer charged with killing George Floyd.

Those demanding diversity among juries see this trial as a step in the right direction.

The 12 jurors and 3 alternates seated over the past couple of weeks include nine members who are white, four who are Black and two who identify as mixed-race.

William Snowden, founder of The Juror Project and director for the New Orleans office of the Vera Institute of Justice, said the balance is encouraging because of the benefits that come with having a diverse group of people involved in a key decision.

"You get longer deliberations, more objective decisions are going to be made, and implicit biases can be countered," Snowden outlined.

He noted members of a diverse jury can view evidence and testimony through their own lens of experiences.

Snowden explained cases all over the U.S. have trouble reaching a healthy balance for a variety of reasons, including the summons process relying too much on voter or DMV registrations.

He also pointed to many states barring those with past felony convictions from serving.

Snowden, a former public defender, observed a lot of people don't see the civic value in serving on a jury, and many attempt to avoid being selected for a case.

"In our country, we talk about civic duties as it relates to military service, as it relates to voting," Snowden remarked. "I don't think we talk enough about jury service."

He added he hopes the scrutiny this case receives will change the mindset of those who don't think highly of jury duty.

The Juror Project gives community presentations around the country on the importance of being chosen, and how it can help to create fairness in the criminal justice system.


get more stories like this via email

Medical neglect inside Ohio's jails is under scrutiny following the release of a new toolkit by The Marshall Project to aid in investigating in-custody deaths.

An investigation into the Cuyahoga County Jail uncovered serious lapses in emergency response. Families of those affected are demanding answers and accountability.

Tanya Anderson waited eight months to see surveillance footage of her nephew's death while he was incarcerated.

"What kind of people are they?" Anderson asked. "They're not doing anything but just walking around my nephew, Glenn Williams Jr.'s body, and not even trying to help him or revive him."

The state found the jail out of compliance with medical training requirements in this case, but no disciplinary action was taken against staff despite nine minutes passing before CPR was attempted.

Beyond Williams' case, concerns over medical neglect extend to other incidents.

Eric Jaeger, a paramedic, EMS educator and expert in emergency response argued the deaths and near-fatal incidents could have been prevented with proper training.

"You need to cycle back and reevaluate whether the folks who are responding to these emergencies ever received appropriate medical training," Jaeger emphasized.

Adam Chaloupka, attorney and union representative for the Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, which includes the county's corrections officers, said they have made attempts to master the training but it is unclear why.

"There is no discussion of jail policies on what you're supposed to do with this training," Chaloupka contended. "There's no discussion of how you're supposed to use it. They're just supposed to notify that people that there is potentially a medical emergency."

Cuyahoga County Jail officials maintain they are addressing compliance issues but critics argued without enforceable policies and accountability, inmates remain at risk. Families continue to push for reforms to prevent further tragedies.

This story is based on original reporting by Mark Puente and Brittany Hailer for The Marshall Project and Scott Noll for News 5 Cleveland. This story was produced in association with Media in the Public Interest and funded in part by the George Gund Foundation.


get more stories like this via email

North Carolina is investing $20 million to move the transportation of people experiencing mental health crisis away from the responsibility of law enforcement.

Currently, when a person is deemed a potential danger to themselves or those around them, law enforcement provides transportation from hospitals to residential treatment facilities in the event of involuntary commitment.

Kelly Crosbie - the director of the division of mental health, developmental disabilities, and substance use services at the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services - said transportation by the police is degrading and sends the message that these people are criminals.

"Imagine being in that really vulnerable state where honestly you may be foggy and really not thinking straight," said Crosbie, "and you're anxious and afraid and don't know what's happening to you, and in order to get to the next hospital you're put in the back of a police vehicle, sometimes with handcuffs."

Crosbie noted that law enforcement agencies have also said they don't feel the role is appropriate for them.

The state closed its bid for applications for the transportation pilot programs on Friday. Crosbie said they're reviewing applications and hope to have both a rural and urban pilot running by the end of the year.

Crosbie said in some transportation cases people are experiencing psychotic symptoms or other behaviors, but she also noted that not all cases are this extreme.

"Think of it more just day-to-day," said Crosbie. "You've got a 14-year-old kid who's getting bullied in school and they cut themselves, and their friend saw and their friend called and got some help. I mean, we're talking about these folks too."

Crosbie said it will be important for proposals the state selects to be integrated into their communities.

"Even when we pick the winner, if you will, we'll have an advisory board that will work with us - and especially work in those local communities, because everyone's got to work with this transportation," said Crosbie."Hospitals, providers, law enforcement, they've got to express their needs. We need to make sure this vendor does a good job and works within the system."




get more stories like this via email

Alabama lawmakers are weighing a proposal to overhaul the state's bail system.

House Bill 42, sponsored by Sen. Christopher England, D-Tuscaloosa, would amend the Alabama Bail Reform Act, allowing courts to accept a partial cash deposit from a defendant instead of requiring the full bail amount - if approved by a judge.

England said the change would keep more money within the court system, which would benefit both the state and the people who are owed restitution.

"It affords a defendant an opportunity to get out and pay cash directly to the court," he said. "And what that does is, in the event that that person then does not return, the court keeps the cash - pays fines, pays court costs and also pays restitution."

Under the current law, a defendant must pay the full cash bail amount up front, in order to be released before trial. This bill would allow judges to approve partial cash deposits instead. In a public hearing on the bill this week, opponents raised concerns about accountability.

Victor Howard, vice president of the Alabama Bail Bond Association, warned that what he sees as loosening bail requirements could lead to more defendants skipping court, ultimately making it harder to ensure they face justice.

"If this bill is passed, that's what we're going to be introducing into this state. We're going to have the exact opposite of accountability, people appearing for court," he said. "If they do miss and they're out on a percentage bond, a warrant would be issued. They'll be put on a case administrative docket, and that's it."

England pushed back against those claims, arguing that bail bonds don't guarantee a person's attendance. He noted that the state has missed out on significant court revenue because of bond forfeitures when defendants fail to appear.

"The only way that, nine times out of ten, we get the money to our court system is through a percentage bond on cash," he said. "Basically you're choosing between either that money going to a bondsman - where we don't ever see it in the court system - or we get cash, so in the event that they show up, at least you get some of the money that they owe."

House Bill 42 awaits a vote in the House Judiciary Committee.