Critical Race Theory and the American Justice System: How Juries Wrestle with Racial Prejudice

When a trial lawyer stands before a jury to argue a case about a Black victim killed by a white person, how should the lawyer best argue the case? Critical race theorists (CRTs) are pessimistic that a white jury can set aside its own racism in judging the Black victims’ actions, and are skeptical of a jury’s ability to fairly judge a white actor’s motives. Before the George Floyd and Ahmaud Arbery killings, there was strong evidence (The Innocence Project) that the CRTs were right. After all, the prosecutors in the Ahmaud Arbery case were so convinced that a white jury in a Georgia county would not convict white vigilantes, that they initially didn’t even charge the killers with a crime. However, then, back-to-back, in both cases, prosecutors prosecuted, and the jury returned guilty verdicts. They convicted Derrick Chauvin of murder. They convicted Travis and Gregory McMichael and “Roddie” William Bryant of murder. This book examines the how and why of these verdicts and asks whether they hold lessons vital to withstanding CRT challenges to the American justice system.