The Derek Chauvin-George Floyd case is set to go to the jury on Monday.  Last year, Floyd’s death sparked a wave of tense protests across the country, and it is likely that there will be a response to the verdict in this case.

Before talking about the potential impact of this decision, it is important to keep several things in mind as this week unfolds.

First, on Monday, the attorneys for both sides will give closing arguments.  The nature of closing arguments is that it is a chance for the attorneys to point out the key evidence in the case and how that evidence supports the requested verdict.  In part, closing argument also points out why the other side’s evidence is not believable.  After the attorneys are done, the court will instruct the jury.  The instructions basically tell the jury what “facts” they have to find in order to return a guilty verdict.  After that, probably some time on Monday afternoon, the jury will begin deliberations.

Second, jury deliberations could take some time.  The jury has to be unanimous to reach a verdict.  It is theoretically possible that the jury could take an initial vote and be unanimous which would mean a verdict by the end of the day on Monday.  In a case like this, it is more common for the jury to want to discuss the evidence and the instructions before taking any vote.  It could be days before we have a verdict.  The delay is nothing to be concerned about.

Third, during jury deliberations, it is not unusual for the jury to send questions or requests to the court.  Typically, these questions ask to see or hear certain evidence or ask if the court can clarify its instructions.  Generally, the jury will get another chance to look at exhibits (pictures, maps, documents, videos) that were actually admitted into evidence, but each state has its own rules on whether the court can read back testimony to the jury.  Also, in most cases, the court will not be allowed to clarify the instructions.  Attorneys and journalists tend to look at these requests and questions as tea leaves about where the jury is and what they are thinking, but the reality is that a request only reflects the concern of one or two jurors with the rest of the jurors going along with that request in the hopes that it will satisfy those jurors and permit the jury to reach a verdict.

Fourth, Chauvin is facing several different homicide charges.  The difference between them has to do with Chauvin’s mental state (how clear it was or should have been to him that he was causing the death of Floyd).  The distinction between them is very subtle and minor.  While each state does things differently, Minnesota apparently requires the jury to reach a verdict on each of the alternatives.  (In my state, the jury would only return one verdict).  If the jury finds Chauvin guilty of multiple counts, the court would sentence him on the most serious counts.

Fifth, in a homicide case, especially one involving police officers, there are defenses available.  Over the past two decades, conservative lobbying groups have greatly expanded what qualifies as self-defense.  Police officers have the same right to use force in self-defense that civilians do.  In addition, police officers have an additional defense related to the right to use reasonable force to detain a suspect or potential suspect.  In this case, Chauvin had the right to arrest Floyd, and the issue is whether he continued to use potentially lethal force after it was no longer necessary.

Sixth, juries are ultimately a collection of individuals who can do weird things.  A lot of this case revolves around what the video shows about how Chauvin was restraining Floyd.  It would not be unusual for the jury to want to see the video and to go over that video multiple times, playing it at different speeds.  Sometimes this process results in the jury “seeing” something that nobody else in the case has ever seen (and which may or may not be accurate).

Seventh, there were apparently multiple factors that contributed to Floyd’s death.  The State has to prove that Chauvin caused Floyd’s death, and cause of death in a case like this can be something of a chicken vs. egg debate.  The arrest and restraint was a “but for” cause of Floyd’s death, but the defense is trying to argue that the actual cause of death was Floyd’s pre-existing physical condition.

In short, we could be looking at extended deliberations, and there is a real possibility of a hung jury or the jury only finding Chauvin guilty of one of the “lesser” counts or even an acquittal.  And, if that happens, there will certainly be a segment of the population who, with some good cause, will say that justice was not done in this case.  Unfortunately, any justice system is run by humans and will be imperfect.  Because this case involves an African-American victim and a white police officer defendant, any unjust decision will be viewed through the lens of a system that has historically been used to oppress minorities.  While I believe that things are gradually changing and that things are much better today than there were forty years ago, it is understandable that minorities are frustrated by the slow pace of change.

The bigger question is what do we as a country do in the aftermath of this case.  There are certain things that deserve a closer look (but which are unlikely to get more than a cursory glance).  First, we do need to roll back some of the expansion of self-defense that has happened recently.  Second, we do need to look at how we train police officers about restraint techniques and when it is appropriate to use lethal force.  Unfortunately, it is easier to train new officers than it is to re-train experienced officers, and experienced officers tend to pass on their bad habits to the new officers regardless of how the new officers are trained.

The tougher issue is the role of police officers.  It is easy to talk about the need to shift some of the community caretaking function away from police officers to other agencies like mental health professionals.  But the reality is that, even if you add social workers to the team when an individual is behaving erratically, you will still need some security presence to protect the social worker which will mean police involvement.  We can and should adequately fund these other agencies, but that does not mean that we can dramatically cut police funding.

The other issue is how we deploy police resources.  Minority communities deserve police protection from crime, but there has been a historical tendency to “over” enforce minor, victimless crimes in minority communities.  This tendency both leads to a distrust of law enforcement in minority communities and, in a time when so many people have guns, multiplies the number of encounters that can go tragically wrong.

The next several weeks will not be easy.  We have been dancing around the issues raised by this case for a long time.  There are no simple answers, but we need to actually start the tough work of addressing these issues.