Derek Chauvin’s team did in fact invoke Rep. Maxine Waters’ comments in challenging the verdict. In the trial court, Chauvin moved for a mistrial on April 19, 2021, explicitly citing Waters’ remarks that protesters should “stay on the street” and “get more confrontational” if he were acquitted; Judge Cahill denied the motion. (law.justia.com) On direct appeal, Chauvin argued that pervasive publicity and prejudicial statements by elected officials (including Waters) required a change of venue, a continuance, sequestration, or a new trial, but the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the district court had taken sufficient steps to mitigate publicity, verified that jurors could be fair and impartial, and therefore had not abused its discretion—i.e., no actual or presumed prejudice was shown. (law.justia.com) The court affirmed his conviction, and both the Minnesota Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to disturb that result. (en.wikipedia.org) There has been no appellate finding that Waters’ comments contaminated the jury or warranted reversal, and the conviction has been upheld against all such publicity-based challenges. (ny1.com) This matches Sacks’ prediction that the defense could try to use Waters’ remarks on appeal, but that absent proof of actual jury contamination, the conviction would be upheld on that issue.