On their lunch break, potential jurors in a murder trial witnessed a victims’ memorial at Denver’s courthouse – which featured the parents of murdered children and calls to “put murderers away for life.” But doing so did not violate the defendant’s right to an impartial jury, a federal judge ruled on Monday.

There was “no connection between the memorial and Petitioner’s case, aside from both generally involving the crime of murder,” wrote U.S. District Court Judge Christine M. Arguello in a March 15 order. Further, “none of the five jurors who said they were affected by the memorial sat on the jury.”

Juan Johnson was on trial for murder when his attorney alerted the judge to a “press conference” outside the courthouse involving then-Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey. The event, which occurred during a break in jury selection for Johnson’s trial, reportedly featured victim advocates and others speaking about “what people can do to put murderers away for life.”

Johnson’s attorney asked to dismiss the entire jury pool because the event happened “literally 20 feet” from the courthouse. At the very least, he continued, the judge should question “anybody who was exposed to anything.” When the prospective jurors returned, then-District Court Judge Christina Habas inquired who listened to the memorial, and whether the event affected their ability to be impartial. Five people raised their hands, and they were ultimately dismissed from the jury pool for various reasons.

The defense reiterated the request to dismiss everyone, believing other jurors might be afraid to speak up about the degree to which the memorial affected them, and that the whole scenario was “incredibly inappropriate.”

“There is no way I can control absolutely everything that happens during a trial,” Habas responded. “It is clear that that had no connection to this case, that it wasn’t dealing with this particular victim, which I’m grateful for.”

After both parties had exercised their rights to excuse jurors, Habas ultimately instructed the assembled jury to not listen to the news that night because of the media’s coverage of the memorial.

The Colorado Court of Appeals upheld Johnson’s conviction in February 2015, finding there was no evidence any of the jurors learned anything from the event about Johnson’s case in particular, and Habas went “above and beyond what was required” to ensure a fair trial.

Writing in his federal court filing, Johnson alleged the memorial service made a difference for his case, as his first trial ended in a mistrial and “the only difference” in the second trial was the courthouse event for murder victims.

“After all that was done and said at this event, the emotional statements by all involved, the playing of bag-pipes, releasing of doves, interviews with the families and friends of the murdered victims, and the chanting,” he wrote, it was “not fair for the accused on trial for murder.”

Attorney General Phil Weiser’s office opposed Johnson’s request for a new trial by arguing Johnson “has not pointed to any biased juror who deliberated in his case.”

Arguello, the federal judge, disagreed with Johnson’s argument that Habas should have dismissed all jurors who witnessed the memorial, not simply the ones who identified themselves as affected. While Johnson had a right to an impartial jury under the Sixth Amendment, she determined it was impossible to shield jurors from every hypothetical influence on their verdict.

Because Johnson’s trial and the memorial service were unrelated, “there was hardly a risk that jurors would be exposed to prejudicial information – i.e., information about Petitioner’s trial or information not admissible at Petitioner’s trial,” Arguello wrote.

The case is Johnson v. Long et al.