Randall Levine, managing partner of Levine & Levine, spoke with WWMT reporter Autumn Pitchure about the jury selection in the murder trial of former Grand Rapids police officer Christopher Schurr in the 2022 shooting death of Patrick Lyoya.
As the jury selection process began Tuesday, April 22, Levine told WWMT an unbiased jury is especially important in this high-profile trial as its had widespread news coverage since Lyoya's death in April 2022.
WWMT: We’re talking about the Christopher Schurr trial – jury process is underway and is a very big deal. Can you tell us what this process of the jury selection?
Randall Levine: It’s going to be difficult to get a jury in this high-profile case. It doesn’t mean that it’s impossible, but it’s an exhaustive, questioning process that the lawyers engage in, which is designed to eliminate those persons who for one reason or another have formed an opinion or cannot be fair. Those are called challenges for cause. Lawyers have an unlimited number of challenges for cause. There are also preemptory challenges. And that’s when lawyers don’t have to give a reason. And in a murder case, each lawyer has 12 of those.
So the process takes a while, especially in a case like this where there’s been a lot of publicity. The law is that there is no change of venue until the court has engaged in the process and comes to the conclusion that the process is futile because there is just no one who can hear this case based on what they have already heard.
WWMT: You’ve said it right there – this case has gotten a lot of publicity. The judge is trying to make sure it’s fair with its selection:
Randall Levine: The judge is obligated during the voir-dire process to question jurors. In a case like this, it would not be uncommon for there to be juror questionnaires that have been distributed in advance of the jurors being brought in the courtroom. So that the lawyers, both the government lawyers and the defense lawyers, can see right off the bat before they waste a lot of time in the courtroom questioning jurors – who has heard about the case, what is it that they’ve seen and what kind of an opinion they may have formed.
WWMT: Do you think the news coverage over the years that people have seen will play a huge role in this process and choosing the jurors?
Everybody knows about this case. There was civil unrest in the city of Grand Rapids. We have a white police officer, who was in an encounter with a black motorist; and the black motorist died at the hands of the white officer. That is known by everyone in this community. The questions that will become – and these are jury questions – whether or not the police officer and whether or not the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the police officer intended to kill and whether or not the police officer’s actions were justified under the law because he was, perhaps during the encounter, put in fear for his life and may have acted in self-defense.
People already have strong opinions about what occurred based on what they’ve seen. But the court will instruct them that the only evidence that they are to consider is evidence that they hear in the courtroom under the strict conditions imposed for the admissibility of things in a courtroom. And they have to disregard anything that they’ve seen previously, just as they would need to disregard any opinions that they may have formed based on what they’ve seen previously – if they’re going to sit in judgement of Mr. Schurr in this case.
WWMT: How is the judge going to make sure that the jurors who are selected are unbiased?
Randall Levine: Nobody has a crystal ball. Jurors, when they’re brought in and sworn in to answer questions, are obligated to tell the truth. It’s up to the lawyers and the judge to question jurors to try to determine if the bias that they may have, if they do have bias, would interfere with their ability to hear the evidence, present it and be fair – not only to the government, but also to the defense.
WWMT: Do you know if the judge is selecting only jurors who are not familiar with this case?
Randall Levine: I don’t know that – and I think it would be virtually impossible to find 12 jurors who have never heard anything about this case – and the law does not require that. What the law requires, on the other hand, is if the jurors have heard, seen or read about this case, that they put aside whatever they’ve read and whatever opinions they have formed to sit and hear the case that’s presented in the courtroom, follow the instructions that the judge gives them when they’re retired to deliberate and render a fair and just verdict based on the evidence, not based on community sentiment or other things that really are not relevant when a man is on trial for murder.
WWMT: We heard the judge is going through over 200 jurors. Why are they going through so many jurors for this trial?
Randall Levine: That’s not uncommon. In a case like this, that I believe has gained national notoriety as “the Michigan George Floyd case” if you will, I think that 200 jurors is probably a pretty good estimate of where to start and I wouldn’t be surprised, based on the kind of coverage this case has engendered, that the court doesn’t call in another panel and exhaust the 200 jurors it has before it sees a jury.
WWMT: We know the trial is slated to begin on Monday, April 28. Anything else you would like to say about this case?
Randall Levine: I would like to point out that the jury selection process is going to be important because there are hot button issues in this case. There’s the issue of a white police officer and a black defendant. There’s the issue of police officers in general and the danger that they operate on the day-to-day when they do their job. There’s the issue of substance abuse because it’s alleged that (Patrick Lyoya) was three times the legal limit and how his behavior may have impacted the decisions that the police officer made – what his state of mind was. All of these are interesting questions and all of these things are areas where lawyers are entitled to probe the jury on to see whether or not they can, once again, decide this case just on the evidence and disregard whatever preconceived notions and opinions they may have formed.
Watch the full interview: