This is a letter I did not intend to write, but was goaded into it by many of your readers.

It revolves around the issue of whether the toxic atmosphere surrounding the Chauvin trial allowed for a fair trial. My letter of April 29 (“American Judicial System Is Main Victim in Chauvin Murder Trial”) said it could not, but Carl Singer objected, and in his letter of May 6 (“The Chauvin Trial”) claimed it was a fair trial.

Carl and I have been good friends for many years. I value his opinion, admire his success in both his military and civilian careers, and am proud to be a fellow member of The Jewish Link “Fan of the Month” Club. I therefore accepted his respectful letter as a difference of opinion among friends and prepared to let it go at that. Unfortunately, many of your readers, apparently anticipating a spirited exchange, expressed their disappointment at my lack of response, so I am writing this short note to appease your more excitable readers.

I think the best support for my position can be found in an article in The Wall Street Journal of May 14, “Judge Delays Trial in George Floyd Case,” about justice
officials who themselves were involved in the trial proceedings. Hennepin County District Judge Peter Cahill, who denied a defense motion to move the trial of three former Minneapolis police officers accused of aiding and abetting Chauvin, was quoted as saying of the trial now scheduled for March 2022: “The bottom line is that this case is not going to trial in August [2021]. We need some distance from all the publicity that has occurred and is going to occur.”

Also, the judge had suggested earlier in the year that to avoid “a circus,” prosecutors submit affidavits as to their involvement in a leak early this year to The New York Times, which led to a February 10 article saying that Chauvin had agreed to plead guilty to third-degree murder and serve more than 10 years in prison. You can read the article at https://on.wsj.com/3bGerFf.

I reiterate my position that in view of the fact that the judge, prosecutors, defense attorneys, witnesses and jurors were bombarded—before and even during the trial—with a barrage of inflammatory rhetoric outside the courtroom, it is inconceivable that it didn’t affect or influence the proceedings inside the courtroom.

I hope this lays the matter to rest so that Carl, your readers and I can turn to other very serious matters.