Thread by @ASFleischman

Mark Weaver argues that Chauvin has a shot based on a 1966 US Supreme Court case, Sheppard, which held that failing to sequester the jury, or order them not to read newspaper coverage, and where the jurors admitted to getting outside information that prejudiced them.

https://twitter.com/MarkRWeaver/status/1385221126226333706

It's an interesting look at an earlier view of free speech, where the Court is scandalized that participants in the trial were talking to the press, and suggests that witnesses should have somehow been prevented from giving newspaper accounts.

I suspect that this precedent won't be of much help to Chauvin, though, since the central reason so many people came to believe he was guilty was also the central piece of evidence at trial--a video of him kneeling on a man's neck while onlookers begged him to stop.

What Weaver doesn't really grapple with here, other than the factual distinctions, is how Minnesota law restricts asking jurors about their deliberations, and how the AEDPA, enacted in 1996, now makes it almost impossible to overturn state court judgments.

Here's my piece explaining some of the difficulties of proving juror prejudice.

arcdigital.media/p/chauvins-con…

In a more recent case, Skilling, the Supreme Court held that a nationally famous Enron executive could be tried in Houston because of the large population and amount of time that elapsed (although Skilling also beat 9 counts, which was a major factor).

oyez.org/cases/2009/08-…