Jeffrey Sterling was tried for espionage in 2015 and makes a strong case that jury trials can be partial:
> Julian will face the same court that unfairly convicted me. He will not receive an impartial jury.
> The jury pool from which they will be selecting in the Eastern District of Virginia is made up of individuals who all have some sort of tie — family, their own experience — to the intelligence community or the military apparatus there. And they’re familiar with security clearances. And so that already creates a bias because individuals are not going to want to do anything that may make them look bad, when it becomes time for their security assessment. These individuals know nothing about Julian Assange, other than what our politicians and prosecutors have been saying for years and years — that he’s a terrorist, for the most part.
> Another key aspect is that there are certain constitutional rights that I should have been guaranteed during my trial — facing all of the evidence, and understanding and having all of the prosecution case put before me. Yet that was not the case. Mr Assange will have no guarantees of any constitutional protections, should he be tried in the Eastern District of Virginia.
> I think that court has, time and time again, shown itself to be pro-CIA and pro-US government, and pretty much allowed the government to rule the case and take it in whatever direction they want. And that’s going to be to paint Julian in the worst light, with a favorable jury, and, overall, to go for a conviction.
https://jacobin.com/2021/04/cia-whistleblower-julian-assange...
I don't think Assange compares to Depp or Rittenhouse. Sure, there was media frenzy around the latter two, but the government didn't have the same kind of interest in seeing them punished.