A recent interview by Lisa Christensen, an alternate on the jury that decided on the faith of the former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, has rejected claims that external pressure and the threat of street riots had contributed to the ex-policeman’s guilty verdict.

The fact of the matter, however, is that Christensen never actually alleged anything to that end, points out author Jeff Charles in a commentary for The Red State.

Last week Chauvin was found guilty of all counts in the George Floyd incident that took place in May of 2020.

According to an interview for KARE, Christiansen stated some media misinterpreted her words, as she never said she would vote for Chauvin’s conviction in fear of the riots.


Charles notes that while she certainly expressed concerns over the potential fallout of Derek Chauvin’s trial, she actually made it clear that she had been convinced by the presented evidence, and by nothing else, that the former police officer was guilty.

Christensen was concerned that people would come to her house

Christensen emphasized how she did not want to see riots destroying the streets once again, apparently referring to violent protests after George Floyd’s death last year.

She also stated her concern that those unhappy with the verdict might come to her house, although she understood well that one side would certainly be dissatisfied, given the possible outcomes of the trial.

However, the Red State commentator stresses how these external factors in no way shaped Christiansen’s belief in Chauvin’s guilt.


Even more, the alternate juror stated that at the beginning of the trial she leaned more towards the arguments of the defense made by Chauvin’s attorney Mr. Nelson.

However, according to Christiansen, although the defense’s arguments were seemingly solid, they fell into the water the moment Floyd was knocked to the floor.

While it is possible that potential riots influenced the decision, Charles says there is no evidence to that effect

Charles writes that despite what media concluded, Christensen never suggested that the possibility of incidents influenced her view of the matter.

He acknowledges that it is technically possible that some of the voting jurors might have been influenced by external factors or the threat of riots but states that, for the time being, there has been no evidence of that.


Christiansen, on the other hand, felt like the jurors had taken the trial very seriously, and didn’t want anything to go wrong.

She also thought none of them watched the news or used their phones for social media browsing.

While saying the judge read the rules for deliberation too quickly for her to fully understand them, she said it didn’t affect her decision, and she would have voted guilty to some extent.