The Chauvin appeal is "the extreme case" on fair-trial issues

Bill does a good job of leading with the pretrial publicity, security issues, and other events that precluded a fair trial. Bill relies on the two-tier analysis set forth in the United States Supreme Court’s Skilling case to argue that prejudice should have been presumed under the circumstances of this case. Turning to the state’s brief, this statement leaps out at me on page 17 (footnote omitted):

The United States Supreme Court has likewise cautioned that a presumption of prejudice applies only in “the extreme case”—such as those involving “kangaroo court proceedings,” “bedlam,” a “carnival atmosphere,” or a disturbing lack of “judicial serenity.” Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358, 379-381 (2010) (cleaned up).

Again, that is the state speaking in Respondent’s Brief on the law applicable to Chauvin’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial under controlling case law.

This is me speaking. If this wasn’t the extreme case, there never was one and there will never be one.