The latest development in the federal criminal case against former Memphis police officers accused in the fatal beating of Tyre Nichols was shocking and unusual: A new trial for three of the men based on comments by a judge that raised questions that he was biased against them the first time they faced a jury.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Sheryl H. Lipman ordered a new trial for Tadarrius Bean, Demetrius Haley and Justin Smith. They were found guilty in October 2024 of obstruction of justice through witness tampering in the January 2023 beating of Nichols after he fled a traffic stop in Memphis. Two other officers involved in the beating pleaded guilty before the federal trial.

Lipman wrote that the judge who presided over the trial, U.S. District Judge Mark S. Norris, raised “the risk of bias” when he made comments in May that at least one of the officers could be in a gang, and that gang may have been responsible for shooting a law clerk who had worked with Norris on the Nichols case.

David Raybin, criminal defense attorney in Nashville, Tennessee who has represented police officers and the Nashville police union, said the statements were controversial from the judge because he was supposed to be impartial to all parties.

"This particular harm here was the appearance of impropriety or the appearance of bias that might have affected all the defendants because of the judge's perception that the police department was rife with gang members and that one or more of the defendants had targeted his law clerks," said Raybin. "So he clearly felt strongly about this. This impacted the judge's personnel themselves. And I think that the judge who granted the new trial was absolutely spot on. That was required in this case."

Raybin said the prosecutors got convictions, although not on the most serious charges, so they may be willing to consider re-opening plea negotiations with the three officers.

Charles Geyh, professor of law at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, said it was rare to see a judge's comments cause a re-trial.

"It clearly signals to me that this was a judge who essentially ceased to be mindful of his responsibilities to do everything within his power to appear as evenhanded as possible because he was as upset as he was," said Geyh.