The Mistrial of Officer Chauvin
Everyone accused of a crime in the United States is guaranteed the right to a fair trial. This right is not revoked by the existence of video evidence, regardless of how extensive that video evidence appears to be. While the State has a responsibility to ensure a defendant's fair trial, it is the judges who supervise the trial and make decisions to protect the rights of the accused.
One of those decisions is to sequester a jury over the course of a trial. In the trial of Officer Chauvin, the Honorable Peter Cahill has denied motions to sequester the jury. Judge Cahill erred in failing to sequester the jury and, through his actions, denied Officer Chauvin the right to a fair trial.
Juries in other high profile criminal trials have been sequestered. Juries were sequestered for the O.J. Simpson trial and the trial of the four LA police officers accused of beating Rodney King. The rationale for sequestering the jury in a notable cases should be obvious. There is a risk that media companies will seek to boost their ratings by interviewing jurors over the course of a trial. There is a further risk that jurors will be exposed to the extensive media coverage given to the trial.
One juror in Officer Chauvin's trial has already admitted that he or she was exposed to media coverage of the trial. It's likely that other members of the jury have been exposed as well. This is not the fault of the jurors. News is no longer relegated to the papers or specific channels on television. News is ubiquitous. Wokeism has destroyed all boundaries between news and entertainment. Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon, television channels dedicated to children's programming, have both aired public service announcements attacking Officer Chauvin and the Minneapolis Police.
There is also a risk that a jury which has not been sequestered will be exposed to events no reasonable person can possibly predict.
The tragic death of Daunte Wright is that black swan event. It is impossible that Judge Cahill could have predicted that another Black male would be killed by police in a Minneapolis suburb. No one could have guessed that a member of the jury deciding Officer Chauvin's guilt would live in that suburb. The protests and riots have continued since Wright's passing were just as unforeseeable. Nevertheless, any reasonable person must believe the jury has been tainted.
How can a jury remain unbiased when it is so plainly obvious what happens when the "wrong" verdict is returned?
There is no good way forward. If Judge Cahill declares an immediate mistrial, the mob will riot. If the trial continues and the verdict is reversed on appeal, the mob will riot. If the trial continues and Officer Chauvin is acquitted, the mob will riot.
But justice requires Officer Chauvin to be judged by an unbiased jury. The only just way forward is for Judge Cahill to admit his error and declare a mistrial.