The court’s discussion of the issue at pages 14-20 has an air of unreality that is entirely in keeping with the trial itself. “[W]ith a few very limited exceptions, the [pretrial} publicity was generally factual in nature.” The court drops footnote 4 in that sentence referring “statements by the MPD police chief and the commissioner of public safety describing the incident as a ‘murder’ before he was convicted. However,” the court adds, “because the district court took numerous mitigating steps and verified that the jurors could decide the case fairly and impartially, we conclude that this properly eliminated any potential prejudice among the seated jurors.” The court does not note that Governor Walz and Attorney General Ellison did so as well, or that the pervasive atmosphere in the Twin Cities was one of mob justice. As I say, unreal.

I asked Bill for a comment on the decision. He texted me this this note on the law: “The big issue is at pages 18-20 – whether prejudice is presumed. The court addresses the argument at the bottom half of page 19. The court does not really address the arguments I made. Moreover, the discussion about the other cases bothers me – yes, Chauvin’s facts are different than the Sheppard case. There was not a carnival at Chauvin’s trial. There also were not any National Guard troops surrounding the Cleveland courthouse in Sheppard and the citizens of Cleveland did not burn down half of Cleveland after Sheppard’s wife died!”