CRT Elements in the Kim Potter Trial?

Welcome to the Conversations That Matter podcast. I wanna play something for you because this is how critical race theory garbage gets into the legal profession and subverts justice.

We're seeing it happen now in real time. This is from a court case in Minnesota, the

Kim Potter trial. Now, Kim Potter was a police officer. Well, yeah, she's former now. So she was a police officer spring of 2021, stopped a gentleman named

Dante Wright, who was wanted for, I think it was armed burglary, if I'm not mistaken, but it was burglary.

And there was an arrest warrant out for him. He didn't show up to court. And so they proceeded, she proceeded to try to arrest him and there was a struggle and he tried to get away.

And so she tried to tase him. She reached for the wrong gun and ended up shooting and killing him.

And she's guilt stricken. She can't believe that she did. She's just beside herself. And of course the grace of Jesus Christ and what he's done for us is what she needs if she does not have that, but that's the situation.

And so it's interesting how this has been played. I was just, I watched a few news reports and of course

CNN predictably is bringing in someone to talk about this from a racial angle that there must be some kind of a racial motivation involved in this.

There's no evidence of that. It seems like a genuine mistake. She's, Kim Potter is very sorry that she did this.

At the same time, this could have been prevented also if there wasn't, if Daunte Wright had not have, would not have committed the robbery and then not shown up in court and then not resisted arrest.

There were many, there were many opportunities to avoid what happened. And it's not just Kim Wright.

Of course, what she did though, the mistake she made, it was lethal and wrong. And so there's a court case now about it.

And I wanna hear, I want you to hear what the judge tells the jury, all right? Let's listen in and see what the judge tells the jury here.

The only items on the laptop are whatever is needed to access the exhibits that are on the laptop.

On the laptop, you will see each exhibit identified by number. You can simply click on the exhibit and it should open on the laptop and an additional monitor that has been provided for you in the deliberation room.

If you encounter any difficulty operating the laptop or accessing any exhibit, you may send a note to the deputy who will be outside of your deliberation room.

I will then review the note with the attorneys and an IT person and see if the issue can be resolved.

If the issue cannot be resolved, we may need to replay the exhibit or exhibits in a traditional manner with the judge, parties, and jury reconvening in the courtroom.

So what we're listening to now is just general instructions that would be given to any jury about procedure, okay?

Listen to what she says though in this context of giving these just these general common sense things that we hear all the time from judges.

Look what she inserts. And replaying the recordings in open court and with the jury suspending your deliberations during that time.

After we replay the recordings, you will then return to the jury room to continue your deliberations.

When you return to the jury room to discuss this case, you must select a jury member to be foreperson.

That person will lead your deliberations. Now we all have feelings, assumptions, perception, fears, and stereotypes about others.

Some biases we are aware of and others we may not be fully aware of, which is why they are called implicit or unconscious biases.

No matter how unbiased we think we are, our brains are hardwired to make unconscious decisions.

We look at others and filter what they say through the lens of our own personal experience and background.

Because we all do this, we often see life and evaluate evidence in a way that tends to favor people who are like ourselves or who have had life experiences like our own.

We can also have biases about people like ourselves. One common example is the automatic association of male with career and female with family.

Bias can affect our thoughts, how we remember what we see and hear, whom we believe and disbelieve, and how we make important decisions.

As jurors, you are being asked to make an important decision in this case. You must take the time you need to reflect carefully and thoughtfully about the evidence.

Think about why you are making the decision you are making and examine it for bias. Reconsider your first impressions of the people and the evidence in this case.

If the people involved in this case were from different backgrounds, for example, richer or poorer, more or less educated, older or younger, or of a different gender, gender identity, race, religion, or sexual orientation, would you still view them and the evidence in the same way?

Listen to one another. Resist and help each other resist any urge to reach a verdict influenced by bias.

Each of you have different backgrounds and will be viewing this case in light of your own insights, assumptions, and biases.

Listening to different perspectives may help you to better identify the possible effects these hidden biases may have on decision -making.

Resist jumping to conclusions based on personal likes or dislikes, generalizations, gut feelings, prejudices, sympathies, stereotypes, or unconscious biases.

The law demands that you make a fair decision based solely on the evidence, your individual evaluations of that evidence, your reason and common sense, and these instructions.

In order for you to return a verdict, whether guilty or not guilty, each juror must agree with the verdict.

Your verdict must be. All right, so now we're going on to more stuff here. So this is what I wanted to talk about though.

So there's some truth in what she said, right? And by the way, if you're in the legal profession and that's like normal stuff, let me know.

I would think there would be an instruction about biases. I don't think that's like out of bounds. Like, hey, just realize like, you want to make a decision based on the evidence.

That's the emphasis, right? But you heard the word evidence, what, like once or twice? How often did you hear the word bias?

That's what I wanted to point out is if you just focus on the evidence, then you're not going to be navel gazing at your own biases and afraid that, oh my goodness, how do

I transcend my biases to know if I have them? They're so rooted in me. They're hardwired is what she said.

Well, I have to listen to other experiences to determine where they are. They're implicit. It creates a few problems.

If you think that, if you treat biases like they're that, and look, biases can be strong, but if you treat them like they're so inescapable and then you, on the other hand say, but you have to make a determination based on the evidence, then you're creating a lot of tension there because you're supposed to help the other jurors not make decisions that have, or to make a decision that's not reflective of a bias they have.

You're supposed to root out these biases, right? But that can only work if it's possible to root them out, which means you are capable of an objective opinion in some way.

In some way, at least you can transcend whatever these biases are to look at the facts and to make a determination, right?

That's the goal. That should be the goal. And you heard some of that, but there's a tension in it because you also heard about how implicit they are and just how hardwired they are in you.

And so the other issue that I thought about is that what about the judge? She's got a power. There's a power disparity here.

You have a judge and you have a jury. So the judge is looking at the jury. Well, what if the reason the judge is even telling the jury this is because the judge has a bias against jurors and thinks that jurors are improperly biased and that she then is making that judgment and then she's freaking them out.

So they don't wanna, they're so afraid to make a decision in which their bias is going to determine the verdict that now you're gonna get a hung jury or you're gonna get a jury that like they're just, they're complacent, they can't do anything because they're so afraid of this hardwired bias within them.

And she's now causing this to happen because of the instruction she's given them because she's biased against them.

So how does the judge escape this? Right, so this is the thing that I'm concerned about.

And it's not, is it directly critical race theory? No, every element of critical race theory isn't there. I'm just saying like in the context of 2021 and all the changes that have happened to us fundamentally and critical theory and specifically the iteration critical race theory becoming so mainstream, certain aspects of it, certain components of it, you can see now reflected in other places.

You can see a bit of the standpoint theory, it seems like in the instructions there. And so what is this gonna do long -term?

Is this gonna get worse? How do we then adjudicate anything if we're so trapped in our own biases?

How do you choose a jury that's going to look at the facts objectively? The emphasis should be on the facts.

The emphasis should be on the evidence. The emphasis should be on reason. The emphasis should be on determining if a law was broken.

That should be the emphasis. If you make the emphasis, the person, the bias, the internal emotional hardwiring, then you are going to end up with jurors and people in general who can't make decisions for themselves, they'll be hamstrung by fear that it's not them making the decision, but some hidden bias they didn't realize was there.

You're gonna end up with suspicion being aroused that, well, the only reason the jury made that decision was because they couldn't overcome their bias.

And look at the ethnic makeup of that particular jury. You're introducing a whole host of problems if you don't focus on the evidence.

So it's not wrong to say that, hey, we can have biases, just be careful, but then make the whole emphasis on the evidence.

You don't even actually have to say that. All you have to say is that we must make a decision based on the evidence, focus on the evidence.

But yeah, this is a focus that I'm gonna be watching, I'm concerned about, and I just wanna let you know that this is filtering into the legal profession in a major case right now.

So I wanted to share that with you and hope that was scary and helpful.

It is scary, it really is, because this could get much worse. But just, what are the solutions, right?

Lawyers in my audience, I'd love to hear your thoughts. Put it in the comments section. What are your thoughts about this?

What's the solution? And is this normal? I'm just curious. All right, have a happy new year. God bless.