The Rene Good Case and the Crisis of Jury Selection

When Millions Watch the Same Video and See Two Completely Different Things

On January 7, 2026, an ICE agent shot and killed Rene Good during an immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis. Notably, multiple cameras captured the encounter from multiple angles. The footage is publicly available, and millions have now watched it.

And yet, ask ten people what they saw, and you will likely get two verdicts: justified or unjustified. Not ten thoughtful, nuanced perspectives. Two. And which conclusion a person reaches often depends less on the footage and more on the beliefs they held before they ever pressed play.

Watch the online discourse. Read the comments. People who have viewed identical footage from identical angles reach diametrically opposed conclusions. Some see an agent acting in self-defense. Others see an unjustified killing. Both sides are certain. Moreover, each side believes the video proves their position beyond any doubt.

For purposes of this article, we take no public position on the Good case, on immigration policy, or on any party involved. That is not the point. The point is what this case reveals about jury selection in America today. For a criminal defense attorney who has spent 25 years selecting juries, this case illustrates something that should concern every citizen: the increasing difficulty of empaneling a jury capable of rendering a verdict based solely on the evidence presented in a courtroom.

Why the Good Case Matters for Every Defendant

If you were charged with a crime tomorrow, would you trust twelve strangers to evaluate your case fairly? Or would you worry that their verdict might depend less on the facts and more on how they feel about people who look like you, talk like you, or hold beliefs like yours?

The Good case is extraordinary only in its visibility. However, the same dynamic plays out in courtrooms across Florida every day—in domestic violence cases, where jurors bring their own relationship experiences to the evidence; in self-defense cases, where jurors project their own beliefs about when violence is justified; and in drug cases, where jurors carry assumptions about addiction, criminality, and personal responsibility.

The Filter We All Carry

Because when we watch a confrontation between a citizen and law enforcement, we are not just watching. We are filtering. Every interaction we have had with police, whether positive or negative, shapes what we perceive. Likewise, every news story we have consumed influences our interpretation. In addition, every opinion we have formed about immigration enforcement, about compliance during traffic stops, about when force is reasonable—all of it becomes a lens through which the supposedly “objective” video evidence passes.

This phenomenon is not limited to cases involving law enforcement. It appears in domestic violence cases, where jurors bring their own relationship experiences to the evidence. Similarly, self-defense cases see jurors projecting their own beliefs about when violence is justified. Furthermore, drug cases reveal jurors carrying assumptions about addiction, criminality, and personal responsibility.

How Personal Experience Shapes Perception

Why the Jury May Be Your Only Fair Shot

In Florida, judges are elected. They are supposed to evaluate the facts and apply the law impartially, without regard to public opinion. But judges are human. And an elected judge facing reelection may be more susceptible to political currents than twelve jurors who have no political career to protect. In high-profile or politically charged cases, that susceptibility can matter.

Many citizens have lost faith in the impartiality of elected judges. Whether that perception is fair or not, it exists. And for a defendant facing serious charges, that perception can make the jury feel like the only truly independent body in the courtroom.

Accordingly, this is precisely why selecting the right jury has never been more important. When jurors carry strong preconceptions into the box, the ability to identify those biases during voir dire becomes the difference between conviction and acquittal.

Voir Dire Has Never Mattered More

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused a trial by an impartial jury. But what does “impartial” mean when the case touches on issues that have become tribal identity markers?

Specifically, in high-profile cases involving police, politics, or social controversy, attorneys on both sides face the same dilemma: how do you find twelve people who can genuinely set aside their preconceptions and evaluate the evidence as presented in court, not as interpreted through cable news, social media, or their own experiences?

Frankly, the honest answer is that it may be impossible to find jurors with no opinions. Instead, the goal becomes finding jurors who possess the intellectual honesty to recognize their biases and the integrity to consciously set them aside. That is a different and far more difficult task than simply finding people who have not heard of the case.

The Sleeper Juror Problem

Experienced trial attorneys, particularly those who have tried death penalty cases, know that some prospective jurors lie to get on a jury. These are called “sleeper jurors.” These individuals have an agenda—they have already decided the verdict they want to deliver. Consequently, they will say whatever is necessary during voir dire to get themselves seated.

A sleeper juror will deny having seen media coverage they have watched extensively. Moreover, such jurors will claim to have no opinion on the ultimate issue when they have already made up their mind. Additionally, they present themselves as open-minded and fair when they are neither. Their goal is to survive voir dire, get seated, and then accomplish their predetermined verdict.

The Fair Jurors Who Fight to Leave

Meanwhile, a perverse opposite dynamic occurs. Many prospective jurors who would be genuinely fair, who have no agenda, and who would evaluate the evidence objectively, lie to get off the jury. Perhaps they cannot afford to miss work. Others have childcare obligations or no paid leave. For these individuals, jury service would create a genuine hardship.

So these fair-minded people manufacture disqualifying biases. As a result, they claim prejudices they do not hold and exaggerate opinions they barely have. Ultimately, they will do anything to get excused and return to the lives they cannot afford to put on hold.

As a result, this creates an environment where the jury pool is systematically skewed. The people most motivated to serve are often the least impartial. Conversely, the people most likely to be fair are often the most motivated to leave. Navigating this reality requires an attorney who has seen it play out hundreds of times.

Why Experience Matters in Jury Selection

Essentially, effective jury selection is part science and part intuition, developed over years of watching how people respond to questions, how they interact with other prospective jurors, and what their body language reveals that their words do not.

Experienced criminal defense attorneys actively read subtle cues. They spot the prospective juror crossing their arms defensively when discussing law enforcement, despite saying the right words. They hear the tone harden when self-proclaimed open-minded jurors discuss certain neighborhoods. Experienced attorneys see the eyes telling a different story, even as a head nods along.

What to Ask Your Attorney

Ultimately, if you or a loved one faces serious criminal charges, the attorney’s experience with jury selection should be near the top of your questions. Consider asking:

Frequently Asked Questions About Jury Selection

The Stakes Have Never Been Higher

Abraham Lincoln once observed that “the greatest service of citizenship is jury duty.” He understood that the jury is the ultimate check on government power. Twelve citizens, drawn from the community, hold the power to stand between an individual and the full force of prosecution. No judge, no politician, no official can override their unanimous verdict of not guilty.

But we live in an era where Americans increasingly sort themselves by belief, consume media that reinforces their existing views, and approach controversial topics with certainty rather than curiosity. The Rene Good case is simply the most visible recent example of a dynamic that plays out in courtrooms every day.

If you face serious criminal charges, your freedom may depend on your attorney’s ability to identify twelve people who can genuinely listen, genuinely deliberate, and genuinely base their verdict on the evidence rather than on the beliefs they carried into the courtroom.

Indeed, Lincoln was right. Jury duty remains the greatest service of citizenship. But for those whose lives hang in the balance, everything depends on who fills those twelve seats.

620 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 205, Tampa, FL 33602

Former Chief Operations Officer, Hillsborough County Public Defender’s Office

Serving Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties

Related Pages

• Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney
• Social Media in Criminal Cases
• Do I need a Criminal Defense Lawyer if I am Innocent?