Ex-Brooklyn Center Police officer opposes livestreaming of trial in Daunte Wright shooting death

Former Brooklyn Center police officer Kimberly Potter doesn't want her criminal trial for the shooting death of Daunte Wright broadcast or livestreamed, according to a motion her lawyers filed this week in Hennepin County District Court.

Potter's lawyers Earl Gray and Paul Engh filed a response Tuesday opposing Attorney General Keith Ellison's request to allow cameras and livestreaming of the trial set for Dec. 6 in front of Judge Regina Chu in Minneapolis. The former officer fatally shot Wright during a traffic stop on April 11 and is charged with second-degree manslaughter. Weeks of marches, vigils and civil unrest followed the shooting, which occurred when national attention already was fixed on the Twin Cities because of the murder trial of former Minneapolis cop Derek Chauvin in the death of George Floyd.

The defense lawyers wrote that they don't want cameras in the courtroom, in part because of safety concerns. The memo cited vandalism that occurred at the former California home of a defense expert after he testified in the Chauvin trial. They also wrote that the circumstances were different from Judge Peter Cahill's order allowing Chauvin's trial to be livestreamed because COVID-19 concerns are largely no longer in play.

The lawyers also said the right to a fair trial belongs to Potter and "due process requires that the accused receive trial by an impartial jury free from outside influences," and there is no constitutional right to a livestreamed trial. To the contrary, trials in Minnesota can be broadcast only with the consent of all parties, the lawyers wrote.

"So it is and has been that the First Amendment's core purpose in ensuring public scrutiny of Mrs. Potter's trial can be easily met without live broadcasting," Potter's lawyers wrote, adding that even without livestreaming, spectators are still allowed in the courtroom. The lawyers said they are not opposed to a closed-circuit television in a neighboring courtroom.

"We welcome press scrutiny of Mr. Wright's lawlessness, though space can be limited," the filing reads. "Reporters are not by law in a leveraged line position over the public."

Police said Potter, a 26-year veteran of the Brooklyn Center Police Department, mistook her gun for her Taser when she shot Wright, a 20-year-old Black man, during a traffic stop. Footage from body camera video released after the shooting showed Wright exiting his vehicle. While another officer attempted to handcuff him, he got back into the driver's seat of the vehicle. Potter, who had her handgun pointed at Wright, threatened to Taser him and could be heard yelling, "Taser, Taser" before firing a single shot at Wright, who then sped off and crashed a short time later before he died. Potter resigned before she was charged.

Ellison's office took over the case in late May; it initially was handled by Washington County Attorney Pete Orput, whose home became the site of protests by those who want Potter to also face a murder charge in the shooting.

On behalf of Ellison's office, lawyer Matthew Frank, who also led the Chauvin prosecution team, filed a request for audio and video coverage of the Potter trial. He cited the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy and public trial. He also cited the public and media's First Amendment rights to an open trial.

"The public's substantial deep, passionate interest in this case is likewise reflected by the weeks of vigorous protests in the community," Frank wrote. "These interests will only increase as trial looms closer. Live visual and audio coverage of the trial will vindicate, at minimum, the public and media's right to access this trial of significant interest."

Further, Frank wrote, "The audio and video coverage is necessary to provide the type of openness and transparency that is critical to public trust and respect for the judicial process,"

Potter's attorneys countered the claim, saying "the State argues the trial should be on television because it wants it to be. In the same moment, the State ignores Officer Potter's interests, and suggests her preference, her lack of consent, is inconsequential. The alleged victim's relatives and an undefined community support do not ordain this court's decision."

The current case is a role reversal. Ellison's office initially fought the livestreaming of the Chauvin trial while the defense supported it.

For the Chauvin trial, Judge Peter Cahill ruled that courtroom capacity limits caused by the COVID-19 pandemic combined with massive public interest necessitated the exceptional livestream.

Despite the exception, Potter's defense memo said state court rules "effectively bar electronic coverage of public criminal proceedings."

Chu has yet to rule on the motion.

Rochelle Olson • 612-673-1747

Twitter: @rochelleolson