First, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) announced she will introduce a resolution to expel Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) from Congress (story here). Pfft. No credibility.
Then, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said he will introduce a resolution to censure Waters (story here). Pfft, That’s not going anywhere in the Democrat-controlled House. And coming from him, it’s two-faced.
But then Judge Peter Cahill, who’s presiding over the Derek Chauvin trial, criticized Waters for telling protesters,
“We’ve got to stay on the street, and we’ve got to get more active. We’ve got to get more confrontational. We’ve got to make sure that they know that we mean business.”
and also said that if Chauvin is acquitted, she will
“fight with all of the people who stand for justice. We’ve got to get justice in this country, and we cannot allow these killings to continue.”
That prompted Chauvin’s attorney to argue that “Waters’s comments could have prejudiced the jury and were grounds for a mistrial.” Pfft. This from the guy who argued that George Floyd was killed by car exhaust, not the cop’s knee on his neck. Nobody should listen to him.
The judge denied the motion, but said, “I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function. If they want to give their opinions, they should do so … in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution.”
What? Waters was exercising her First Amendment rights, and her remarks were within those rights, so she didn’t violate her oath to the Constitution. If she wants to say the legal system is stacked in favor of the police, and/or against black people, that’s her privilege.
The judge’s real beef, according to The Hill (story here), seems to be that her rant “could give the defense ‘something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.’” That’s superficially understandable, if misguided (in light of Waters’ First Amendment rights), but actually is rather strange considering he’d earlier denied a defense request to sequester the jury despite knowing there were protests and feelings in the community were running high against a possible acquittal.
No matter what Judge Cahill says, he has no jurisdiction over what people say outside the courtroom, and Waters has zero obligation to tell protesters to “respect the rule of law and judicial process, we’ve got to accept the jury’s decision whatever it is.” It might be nice if she did, but black advocates against police brutality aren’t operating on that wavelength right now.
And she’s hardly the worst offender. Trump is, and Greene and McCarthy and all the Republicans who voted against certifying the election are more deserving of censure than she is. So, them first, then we’ll see.
1st Update (4/20/21): A CNN commentator said this: “Incendiary warnings by Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters about the potential outcome of the trial of the ex-police officer charged with killing George Floyd could spike tensions, were legally unwise and raise questions of Democratic double standards. But they also drew out the hypocrisy of pro-Donald Trump Republicans over incitement to violence and ought not to overshadow the profound issues of race and justice raised by a harrowing four weeks in court.” Read the entire op-ed here. So, was it smart? No. But Republicans are hypocrites to complain.
2nd Update (4/20/21): House Democrats blocked GOP leader McCarthy’s resolution to censure Waters on a party-line vote of 216-210. What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander. Read story here.
Yet there is tat darned Sixth and perhaps Fifth Amendment the Judge needs to be concerned with. If a jury feels they will be lynched or attacked unless they find a defendant guilty taints the verdict. A crowd chanting loudly that the defendant is guilty and tat can be heard by the jury is problematic, as the jury must be impartial. An appeals court should find or at least could toss any guilty verdict as things stand. The Defense definitely has something to base an Appeal on, and should the Jury acquit then the state is SOL as there is this concept the accused has rights, and should go free if the state fails to preserve the defendants. rights.
That’s why you sequester juries. The judge chose not to. If he has to retry the case, maybe he will next time.