What Happens in North Minneapolis Doesn’t Stay in North Minneapolis: Arguing Credibility in a Criminal Trial, Rebutting Implicit Jury Bias, and Taking a New Look at Why a Prosecutor Would Tell Jurors that Civilian Witnesses are from a “Different World”

Author

Joshua R. Larson

Date of Award

Spring 2008

Degree Type

Thesis

Degree Name

Juris Doctorate (JD)

School

School of Law

Abstract

In several recent homicide cases from Minneapolis, Minnesota, prosecutors have used a particular rhetorical device in closing argument that suggests to jurors that certain civilian witnesses from North Minneapolis live in a different world than the jurors do and that, therefore, the jurors must consider the witnesses’ unique cultural characteristics when weighing the witnesses’ credibility. Defense attorneys have decried these “different world” arguments, and the Minnesota Supreme Court has expressed concern that such arguments could violate a defendant’s right to a fair trial by insinuating that the defendant is from a different world and by introducing unnecessary racial or socioeconomic considerations.

The due process concerns expressed by the court are genuine and must be appreciated; however, the court’s reaction to these sorts of arguments reveals a somewhat naïve reluctance to grant that jurors apply racial and socioeconomic stereotypes without prompting or that prosecutors are trying to curb – not arouse– this sort of prejudicial thinking.

Indeed, in a situation in which a prosecutor knows or reasonably suspects that jurors harbor prejudices about witnesses from particular neighborhoods within a jurisdiction, it seems reasonable for the prosecutor to address and attempt to move jurors beyond those prejudices so that jurors can properly weigh the credibility of the witnesses based on the evidence and courtroom testimony. Certainly, the highest goal is to eliminate prejudice in the courtroom. The problem for the court to see is that, to persuade jurors to move past their prejudices, a prosecutor may have to raise the jurors’ attention to them. This article suggests that the “different world” argument, for the most part, seeks to do just that. When speaking to a jury of citizens within a community of diverse socioeconomics and human experience, making a “different world” argument may be a reasonable, fair, and just way to vigorously argue for the credibility of the state’s civilian witnesses. The key for the prosecutor is to appreciate how hazardous making a “different world” argument is. The key for the court is to understand and respect the purpose of such an argument so that it can provide proper constraints and clear instruction to attorneys that will ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial.

This article argues that a prosecutor during closing argument should be permitted to acknowledge cultural differences that exist between civilian witnesses and the jurors for the purpose of arguing that, despite those differences, the witnesses are worthy of credibility, as long as the prosecutor refers to evidence in the record and avoids making insinuations about the defendant’s character. This article is divided into six sections. Part II looks at the roles of the prosecutor, witnesses, and jurors in a criminal trial. Part III provides background information about North Minneapolis and Hennepin County, Minnesota to illustrate the real and perceived chasms between North Minneapolis residents and the other residents of the county where North Minneapolis is located. Part IV introduces four recent Minnesota Supreme Court cases, each of which addresses a “different world” argument made by a Hennepin County prosecutor in support of civilian witnesses from North Minneapolis. Part V analyzes the structure of these “different world” arguments and critiques the court’s treatment of these arguments in the context of the law of prosecutorial error, several cases in which the prosecutor erred by improperly aligning himself or herself with jurors to the detriment of the criminal defendant, and the realities of implicit juror bias. Part VI highlights what the court should be considering when weighing whether a “different world” argument is proper or improper. Specifically, the court should be concerned with whether the prosecutor is referring to evidence in the record and whether the prosecutor is making negative insinuations about the defendant’s character.

Recommended Citation

Larson, Joshua R., "What Happens in North Minneapolis Doesn’t Stay in North Minneapolis: Arguing Credibility in a Criminal Trial, Rebutting Implicit Jury Bias, and Taking a New Look at Why a Prosecutor Would Tell Jurors that Civilian Witnesses are from a “Different World”" (2008). School of Law Student Projects. 1.
https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/hsl_all/1