What do sports and the American judicial system have in common?  Both employ an individual or individuals tasked with responsibility for interpreting and then enforcing the rules.  And in each arena, the measure of an official’s performance is quite counter-intuitive.  The highest benchmark of excellence is often the extent to which that party is invisible.

To understand this maxim, look no farther than the pass interference non-call in the 2019 NFC championship game between the the New Orleans Saints and the Los Angeles Rams.  An otherwise well-played, sustained effort by both teams was overshadowed by what became known as “the snafu under the dome.”  And Bill Vinovich, the game’s referee, became a household name.

I thought about Vinovich as I watched Judge Peter Cahill give final instructions to the jury in the Derek Chauvin trial before they left the courtroom to begin deliberations.  NOTE:  I had to just now look up Cahill’s name as I could not remember it after four weeks of watching him preside over the case.  What higher praise can any legal adjudicator earn?  This is not always the case. (Can you say Lance Ito?  I knew you could.)

It was 5:00 p.m. EDT when the jury was dismissed, just in time to switch to ESPN to get my daily dose of analysis of the previous day’s sports highlights.  However, as I reached for the remote, Cahill indicated he had some unfinished business with the prosecution and defense lawyers.   For the same reason one should never leave a movie theater before the final credits play out, I stayed with the trial coverage, wondering if I might get a preview of what might come post the jury’s verdict, especially if Chauvin was found guilty.

I am glad I did.  What followed was the true test of Cahill’s handling of the proceedings.  If found guilty, Chauvin would be subject to Minnesota sentencing guidelines which have different prison terms and fines depending on whether the crime is considered simple versus aggravated assault.  The defendant  is given the option whether that decision is made by the judge or by a jury.  When asked, Chauvin waived his right to a jury, leaving the decision to Cahill.  Wow!!  Even if convicted of second degree murder, the defendant thought enough of the judge’s fairness during the trial he was willing to trust him with a decision which could mean a significantly greater level of punishment.

It did not end there.  Eric Nelson, Chauvin’s lead defense attorney, then asked for a mistrial.  First, he focused on what he believed was prosecutorial misconduct during the state’s closing arguments.  When prosecutor Jerry Blackwell referred to the defense’s analysis of the evidence as “stories” versus “the truth,” Nelson objected claiming Blackwell’s choice of words was demeaning and violated legal precedent.  Without a moment’s hesitation, Cahill reminded Nelson why he had overruled the objection and why he had also warned Blackwell to be careful how he characterized the defense.

Nelson then suggested California Representative Maxine Waters had influenced the outcome when she called for more protests and confrontation on the streets if Chauvin is acquitted.  Nelson claimed this was a threat of more violence if the jury did not convict his client.  In the tradition of King Solomon, Cahill cut the baby in half.  First he chastised Waters and all other elected officials who showed such disrespect for the judicial system.  Moreover, he warned that Waters words could give the defense the opening it sought to declare a mistrial.  “I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”  SIDEBAR: Where were all Waters’ critics when the former guy incited an insurrection of January 6th?

Then he explained in detail why he would not declare a mistrial.  He trusted the jury.  He had ordered them not to watch the news and had no reason to believe they had not followed his instructions.  In hindsight, I now understood what I thought was an overemphasis on the role of implicit bias during his final instructions to the jury 30 minutes earlier.  He acknowledged we all have such prejudices, but awareness of them gives each of us the opportunity to look beyond these natural predilections.  He was pointing out the difference between opinion and evidence, and the only thing that mattered when it came to the defendant’s guilt or innocence was the evidence.

Regardless of the verdict, the Chauvin trial is one more example that government, in the hands of competent individuals, can fulfill its constitutional potential.  How refreshing after four years of sound bites and tribalism to know the police will not always protect a rogue officer, there are capable prosecutors who rely on the evidence to make their case and there are citizens who fulfill their responsibility as jurors and eye-witnesses in the pursuit of justice.

But above all, if I were to be a defendant in a court of law, when the bailiff asks me to rise because “here comes the judge,” I hope it is Peter Cahill or someone with his wisdom and demeanor.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP