It’s never a good idea for a president to declare guilt or innocence in a criminal trial before the jury reaches a verdict.
“Innocent until proven guilty” is the central tenet of the American criminal justice system. Public opinion is a different matter. While judges and juries must grant the accused the presumption of innocence until proven in a court of law, ordinary citizens are free to conclude, and declare, “that guy’s guilty as sin.” A lot of people believe O.J. Simpson committed two murders, even though a court found him not guilty. (Other figures who were acquitted in court but who remained infamous include Lizzie Borden, Fatty Arbuckle, and Casey Anthony.)
If Joe Biden was just a retired vice president, his declaration that “I’m praying the verdict is the right verdict. The evidence is overwhelming in my view,” would be no big deal – just another private citizen weighing in with his two cents. But for a president, it’s trickier. The jury’s verdict is a decision of the judicial branch. But the president exercises a lot of influence over what happens within the judicial branch. He nominates judges to the federal bench. He appoints an attorney general, U.S. attorneys, and other Department of Justice staff. He can fire and appoint FBI directors and other directors of federal law enforcement agencies.
The president is not a judge, but because of his influence over federal law enforcement, it is best if he minimizes his commentary about ongoing trials.
In 1970, President Richard Nixon commented about the media coverage of the then-ongoing trial of Charles Manson, saying Manson “was guilty, directly or indirectly, of eight murders without reason.” Manson’s lawyers moved for a mistrial because of the president’s remarks. The judge rejected their arguments, but Nixon realized he had stepped in it by declaring Manson guilty before the jury had reached its verdict.
President Nixon asserted today that Charles Manson, a hippie cultist now on trial in California, “was guilty, directly or indirectly, of eight murders without reason.”
But, faced with criticism that he had prejudged the outcome of the Manson trial, Mr. Nixon, issued a statement on his arrival here tonight saying that “the last thing I would do is prejudice the legal ‘rights of any person, in any circumstances.”
One of the strengths of our system is that even a figure as malevolent and manaical as Charles Manson has a right to a fair trial, and that the jurors in his trial should not be influenced by outside factors – factors like the president of the United States declaring him guilty.
The Derek Chauvin trial jury is sequestered, so there’s no reason to worry that Biden’s comments will influence the deliberations. But it’s still not a good idea for Biden to weigh in too much on criminal cases. Every defense attorney wants to argue that his client is the target of a political vendetta or that the indictment was driven by politics, not facts and the law.
Comments from presidents, no matter the intention, at least open the door to this argument on appeal. Former attorney general William Barr publicly complained that President Trump’s tweets “make it impossible for me to do my job.”
The president always has enough on his plate; there’s no good reason to play legal commentator. The fact that Jen Psaki had to implausibly claim Biden’s comments did not represent “weighing in on the verdict” indicates that some people in the White House understand this was a mistake as well.