Derek Chauvin Judge Cahill Says Maxine Waters 'Confrontational' Comments Could Cause Mistrial

[Ocelot II]

38. He didn't, and he denied the motion for a mistrial.

Apparently he thought Rep. Waters' comment was inappropriate, but not something that would warrant a mistrial. It appeared to me that he was basically just telling Nelson he could appeal his decision if he didn't like it.

If Nelson included that issue in the inevitable appeal, he'd have to convince the Court of Appeals that the judge was wrong for refusing to declare a mistrial on the basis of Waters' comment, which would also mean he was appealing the decision not to sequester the jury. This would further require persuading them that the outcome would have been different had the jury not been sequestered, unlikely because all the jurors knew at least something about Floyd's death (how could they not); under the circumstances sequestration is unlikely to have made a difference.

And they would also have to be convinced that the jurors, or some of them, actually heard Waters' remark and that it had influenced their verdict. One might even argue that if any of them had been influenced at all, it might as easily have been in Chauvin's favor as against him.

The purpose of an appeal is only to determine whether the trial judge made a mistake, and not to question the evidence itself or second-guess the jury, and there is a principle of appellate review called "harmless error," which means that even if the judge made a mistake in his handling of the trial, the mistake made no difference as to the outcome. With respect to both the Waters comment and the sequestration issue, I doubt that the judge's decision will affect the jury's verdict and that it will be upheld on appeal unless something goes totally sideways. Considering how carefully this case was tried, I don't think that will happen.