The similarities between the two instances aren’t arduous to see. Each concerned defendants who assumed the Black male sufferer was concerned in legal exercise — housebreaking, to be particular. In each instances, the defendants who opened hearth claimed to be performing in self-defense, and the males accountable for the killings weren’t instantly arrested or charged.
When it got here to the trials, in each instances, the protection tried to capitalize on racial stereotypes to advance their positions. The protection in the Zimmerman case, for instance, known as on a white girl dwelling in the neighborhood to testify about having her home burglarized by a Black man. The lady mentioned she was scared to dying, hiding upstairs, whereas the Black man was downstairs ransacking her belongings. The burglar wasn’t Trayvon Martin; the solely factor the two had in widespread was that they have been each Black males. By calling this witness, the protection seemingly sought to convey to the jury that it was affordable for Zimmerman to consider Martin, a Black male he didn’t acknowledge, was as much as no good.
In the Arbery case, Travis McMichael invoked the indignant Black man stereotype on the stand, testifying that when he first pulled up alongside Arbery in a pickup truck, he seen Arbery’s demeanor: “He appears very indignant.” When requested by his legal professional to explain what he meant, McMichael responded, “Mad. It’s clenched tooth. Closed forehead. He was mad.” He proceeded to testify that Arbery grabbed his shotgun, and he shot Arbery as a result of he was afraid that Arbery would use his gun towards him. Studies have shown that folks are likely to see ambiguously hostile conduct by a Black man as harmful, violent and threatening, whereas seeing the identical conduct by a white man as merely taking part in round. On cross-examination, McMichael admitted that when he was requested by the police whether or not Arbery had grabbed his shotgun, he advised them, “I wish to say that he did, however I actually can’t bear in mind.”
In closing arguments, Laura Hogue, an legal professional for Gregory McMichael, went a lot additional, suggesting that Arbery got here into the neighborhood the place he was shot and killed to have interaction in legal exercise, and invoking an unsightly stereotype. Hogue drew gasps from inside the courtroom and harsh criticism from authorized observers when she mentioned, “Turning Ahmaud Arbery right into a sufferer after the decisions he made doesn’t mirror the actuality of what introduced Ahmaud Arbery to Satilla Shores in khaki shorts, with no socks to cowl his lengthy soiled toenails.”
Regardless of these comparable protection techniques, race operated in another way in the two trials in different methods. Most notably, there was a better nationwide deal with the function that implicit racial bias doubtless performed in Arbery’s killing each earlier than and throughout the trial — maybe in the end contributing to the responsible verdicts.
Decades of social science research signifies that when race isn’t highlighted in a trial, jurors are typically extra punitive towards Black defendants and extra forgiving of white defendants even when all different info are equal. When race — and the chance of racial bias — is highlighted, nonetheless, whether or not by the attorneys, a witness or the choose, jurors are likely to deal with Black and white defendants extra equally. In a murder case involving a white defendant who claims self-defense towards a Black sufferer, race must be made salient, so the jury doesn’t subconsciously favor the white defendant over the Black sufferer.
Despite the fact that the failure to arrest Zimmerman unleashed an outcry about race and the legal justice system, there was little deal with race at his trial. The presiding choose made clear that she wished to run a colorblind trial, ruling early on that the prosecution may use the time period “profiling” however not “racial profiling” when describing Zimmerman’s acts. The prosecution acquiesced and avoided references to race during the trial. Certainly, throughout rebuttal closing argument, prosecutor John Man advised the jury, “Race. This case isn’t about race. It’s about proper and unsuitable.” After the trial was over, Angela Corey, the lead prosecutor on the case, advised the press, “This case has by no means been about race.”
In distinction, the racial dynamics in the Arbery case have been readily obvious each inside and out of doors the courtroom. The choose, Timothy Walmsley, appeared delicate to those dynamics. As an illustration, Walmsley expressed concern when the protection struck quite a few Black individuals from the jury, leaving just one Black juror; in the end, although, the choose mentioned he felt he needed to settle for the ostensibly race-neutral causes for the strikes. The choose likewise denied a protection legal professional’s request that he prohibit Black pastors from attending the trial.
Previous to the announcement of the verdicts, some legal analysts criticized prosecutor Linda Dunikoski for not doing extra to focus on race. However Dunikoski needed to be cautious, given the present state of polarization round race in America. She was making an attempt the case in the South and didn’t know whether or not the white individuals on her jury would possibly take offense if she emphasised the racial bias that doubtless precipitated the defendants to see Arbery as a legal and a menace to their security. She wanted to make the jury perceive the racial dynamics of the case with out making any of the 11 white jurors really feel she was accusing them of being racist.
And he or she did that very skillfully.
In her opening assertion, Dunikoski advised the jury, “We’re right here due to assumptions and driveway selections. All three of those defendants did all the things they did primarily based on assumptions.” Whereas she didn’t say the defendants relied on racial assumptions, given America’s racial reckoning over the previous 12 months and a half, it wouldn’t take a rocket scientist to attach the dots. She additionally humanized Arbery and didn’t attempt to conceal the indisputable fact that he was Black, displaying jurors a photograph of him and telling them he was a “brother, uncle and an avid runner.” Dunikoski additionally used the defendants’ personal statements to the police to point out that they noticed Arbery’s race as a menace, telling the jury that when one in every of the defendants known as 911 and was requested, “What’s your emergency?” he responded, “There’s a Black male operating down the road.”
In her closing assertion, Dunikoski was extra express, telling the jury that the defendants “made assumptions as a result of Ahmaud Arbery was a Black man, jogging down that road.” The chilly transcript of this second doesn’t totally seize its influence. Dunikoski paused after she mentioned the phrases “Black man,” so the jury initially heard: “They made assumptions as a result of Ahmaud Arbery was a Black man.” The implication was that the defendants jumped to conclusions about Arbery and thought he had simply dedicated a criminal offense due to his race.
Dunikowski doubtless was aided by the indisputable fact that nationwide protests over the dying of George Floyd in 2020 put a highlight on implicit racial bias and the way that bias can result in deadly outcomes. The jurors have been reminded of this actuality because of the presence of members of Arbery’s household and the Black group in the courtroom every single day.
We don’t know precisely why the jurors in the Arbery case made the determination they did, but when there’s a lesson to be drawn from the verdict, maybe it’s this: Typically to attain racial justice, we have to remind folks that race issues.