What would be tragically ironic is if Waters' reckless comments result in a later overturning of the trial . . . which could lead to renewed rioting... jonathanturley.org/2021/04/19/tru…
...The record now contains a statement from the court that Waters may have undermined the case and that this is a valid basis for appeal. He also noted that Waters was not just risking the integrity of the case but showing open contempt for the judicial branch.
...Despite the court's objections and many of us who have written about Waters' remarks, the silence of most Democrats (including those joining her lawsuit against Trump) have been deafening.
...The use of such prejudicial comments rarely result in overturning convictions but Waters has added her highly publicized and inflammatory comments to a trial that should have (in my view) been held in a different city with a sequestered jury.
...The reason that such comments do not usually result in overturning verdicts is that the appellate court looks at the totality of evidence in determining impact. However, Waters (as noted by the Court) just gave the defense an additional appellate argument.
I have received a lot of questions from people who think that the judge should have declared a mistrial after Waters' comments. I do not think that Waters comments alone would justify such an order. However...
...I think Judge Cahill acknowledged that, in combination of his decision not to change the venue or sequester, the Waters remarks magnify the concerns over the jury. It is still a very difficult claim to make, but (as the court noted) it is particularly credible in this case.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
