Gilson thinks while the jury was clear on Nucera being a racist, it got “tripped up” on whether Nucera acted.
“We’ve seen, at least as presented by defense counsel, the notion that the witnesses for the prosecution have changed their story, that they are testifying to protect only themselves,” he said, “and as a result, it’s not clear whether or not [Nucera] actually took the action that he’s accused of doing.”
Gilson is doubtful that the second mistrial will have a wide impact on similar cases going forward, noting that the Justice Department has always been “rather conservative” in bringing hate crime cases to trial because the “standards in these cases are so high and the elements are very difficult to prove.”
Jeannine Bell, an author and law professor at Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law, thinks prosecutors will be “exceedingly reluctant” to bring other hate crime cases to trial, whether police officers are involved or not.
“This is going to weigh heavily on their minds,” she said. “They’re going to think that they do not have good chances of winning cases that, quite frankly, are probably winnable.”
Bell adds that a hate crime case comes down to the jury. Though she has not seen research on hate crime juries specifically, Bell said if you extrapolate from other areas of criminal justice, the racial makeup of a jury matters.
“The assumption is that you need two members of a minority group if you’re going to have an influence on a jury,” she said. “You can’t have one person because they don’t have anyone else to support them.”
In the most recent trial, there was only one Black person on the jury of 12. The remaining jurors were white.
Bell also said that having a winning case also depends on whether a jury can accept that a police officer can be biased.
“If you don’t have that, it becomes a harder case to prosecute,” she said.