BRUNSWICK, Ga. (AP) — Three white men serving life in prison for the murder of Ahmaud Arbery in 2020 have returned to court to request a new trial.
Attorneys for Greg McMichael, his son Travis McMichael, and their former neighbor William “Roddie” Bryan presented various arguments, including claims of a tainted jury and ineffective counsel for one defendant. Superior Court Judge Timothy Walmsley, who presided over their 2021 murder trial, allocated up to two days to hear their legal motions.
The McMichaels armed themselves and pursued Arbery, a 25-year-old Black man, after spotting him running past their home on February 23, 2020, in a Brunswick neighborhood. Bryan joined the chase in his pickup truck and filmed video of Travis McMichael shooting Arbery, who subsequently fell fatally injured in the street.
During Thursday’s proceedings, Travis McMichael’s attorney, Pete Donaldson, asserted that testimony would be provided indicating that a juror had concealed his bias favoring the Arbery family during jury selection.
Donaldson identified the juror as No. 380 and recounted that in 2022, during questioning by a private investigator from the defense team, the juror expressed pressure, saying, “I felt like the weight of the whole Black race was on my shoulders.”
Judge Walmsley permitted the juror to testify under restrictions, prohibiting any discussion of jury deliberations, deemed confidential by law.
The investigation into Arbery’s killing faced delays as no arrests were made for over two months. The case gained momentum after Bryan’s cellphone footage was publicly released, prompting the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to take over the case from local police. The incident contributed to a larger discourse around racial injustice alongside the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor.
Defense attorneys claimed that the armed pursuit by the McMichaels and Bryan was justified, asserting that they suspected Arbery of theft. Travis McMichael testified that he acted in self-defense when Arbery allegedly attacked him. However, there was no evidence found to substantiate claims that Arbery had committed any crimes in the neighborhood.
Greg McMichael’s attorney, Jerry Chappell, supported Donaldson’s question on the fairness of the trial verdict. Additionally, Bryan’s lawyer, Rodney Zell, criticized his client’s prior attorney for being ineffective, particularly for having allowed Bryan to be interviewed twice by authorities prior to his arrest. Bryan’s admissions about the chase were utilized against all three men in court.
Kevin Gough, who represented Bryan during the trial, acknowledged taking calculated risks by cooperating with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, hoping to establish Bryan as a witness rather than a suspect. “There was never a legally binding agreement for Mr. Bryan’s cooperation,” he noted.
The pursuit of a new trial represents the initial effort by the three men to contest their murder convictions. Judge Walmsley sentenced both McMichaels to life in prison without the possibility of parole, while Bryan was given a chance for parole.
All three men were also convicted on federal hate crime charges in a separate trial in February 2022, where the jury concluded they targeted Arbery due to his race. Evidence presented included numerous social media posts and text messages displaying racist language from the defendants.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is currently reviewing arguments from attorneys seeking to overturn the hate crime convictions, with a decision still pending.
___
This story has been corrected to show the juror was identified in court as No. 380, not No. 30.
Discussion Section
In this sensitive topic surrounding racial justice and the legal system, we reached out to several experts to provide their insights:
Guests:
- Dr. Mark Anthony, a criminologist specializing in racial profiling.
- Linda Carter, a civil rights attorney with extensive experience in wrongful conviction cases.
- Professor James Lee, a sociologist who has studied the impact of media on public perceptions of justice.
- Judge Monica Anders, a retired judge with insights into jury selection processes.
Moderator: “Thank you all for joining this important discussion. Dr. Anthony, can you share your thoughts on how the jury’s composition might impact the trial outcome?”
Dr. Anthony: “Absolutely. Diverse juries tend to deliberate longer and consider different perspectives, which can greatly influence the verdict. In cases with racial elements, it’s crucial that jurors reflect a range of experiences.”
Judge Anders: “And I can attest that jury selection is a careful process that should address potential biases. Allowing a juror to bring personal experiences into their decision is a double-edged sword. It can provide depth but might compromise impartiality.”
Linda Carter: “The concept of bias in jury selection is not new, but it deserves closer scrutiny, especially in racially charged cases like this one. If a juror felt overwhelmed by their representation of a race, that’s concerning.”
Professor Lee: “Media portrayal of trials also shapes public perception and jury behavior. The case of Arbery has not only resonated through courtrooms but has stirred societal debates about racism and justice. This can lead jurors to feel external pressures.”
Moderator: “It’s clear this case touches many facets of our judicial system. What do you think the implications of this potential new trial could be, Professor Lee?”
Professor Lee: “A new trial could either reinforce or challenge previous rulings, effectively shaping how future cases are approached. It may also reignite public discourse on juror bias and systemic racism.”
Call to Action
Join the conversation! What are your thoughts on the implications of juror bias in high-profile cases? Share your opinions in the comments below!