MLIVE recently published an article that definitely raised an eyebrow. It featured Kent County Prosecutor Christopher Becker bemoaning that Jurors are demanding hard evidence, and driving up the number of murder mistrials under his watch.
“Hard evidence only” isn’t the prosecutor’s dream, sadly. But it should be.
Becker has recently sounded the alarm over what he describes as jurors who won’t compromise. They’re “causing” mistrials, he says, edging him (and the courts) into “uncharted territory.”
For the high-profile case involving ex-officer Christopher Schurr, a mistrial ended the possibility of a new trial when the jury split as much as 10‑2 in favor of “not guilty” . Becker lamented that even though his office “put a good case forward,” the jury simply “didn’t buy it.”
Personally? I beg to differ on whether a good case was put forward there, due to the politics, but for other cases where people’s freedom hung in the balance, the mistrials may not be such a bag things. Especially when we live in a country with a penchant for mass incarceration at any cost.
So here’s why (outside of the Schurr case), I don’t see the mistrials as a setback. Instead, I see them as a win for rigor, justice, and the integrity of evidence.
Why High Evidence Standards Serve Us All
1. Jurors as guardians of fairness—not convenience.
“Hard evidence only” jurors ensure that prosecutions for once, rest on facts, not emotion, optics, or coercion. They demand a higher standard of proof.
2. Integrity beats expediency.
When storytellers or prosecutors push weak cases (which is far too often) justice falters and trust erodes. Jurors demanding real proof prevents miscarriages and affirms the founder’s creed: better acquittal than wrongful conviction.
3. Civil society depends on it.
Safe courtrooms and credible verdicts bolster community trust. Even messy mistrials reflect a system holding itself accountable, not caving to shortcuts.
When Evidence Sets Justice in Motion
While covering a Kent County stalking case, we didn’t just report; our coverage supercharged action. The aggressor had harassed a LGBTQ couple relentlessly, the police reports, protection orders, property damage stacked up. But prosecutors sat on it. That changed the day Clutch turned public spotlight on the neglect.
On August 1, 2025, the exact same day Clutch published its exposé, Kent County Prosecutor’s Office filed a felony aggravated stalking charge.
That’s the power of hard-evidence advocacy. When reporters refuse to let facts be ignored, bureaucracies are forced to respond.
Pressure for Proof Is Not Our Enemy
A jury refusing to convict, or convicting only when evidence demands it, can slow prosecutions. And that slowdown encourages deeper investigations, stronger builds, and actual accountability.
It signals to a community, “We’ll only proceed when we can show it.”
When we elevate evidence, not outrage, it becomes both a watchdog and catalyst. We proved the Claypool delays weren’t negligence; they were active choices. And the proof forced action.
Bottom Line: Hard Evidence Is a Force for Good
Juror rigor ensures that only well-supported cases move forward. Public scrutiny, when evidence-backed, accelerates justice. Mistrials aren’t system failures; they’re signs the bar remains high, that the system is working as most people are believed it should (minus the political slant involved in particular cases). Clutch Justice exists to shine light on ignored proof and drive forward momentum for accountability.
Call to Action: Keep Demanding Evidence
Demand evidence-first prosecutions: Champion reforms that require prosecutors to release key evidence summaries pre-trial.
Support investigative media: Reporters who dig for records and follow up with accountability are essential. Like clutch.
See mistrials as warning flags, not setbacks: Every jury that holds prosecutors to evidence strengthens the system.
Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.
