On September 1, Hennepin County District Court Judge Peter Cahill issued an order establishing the following agenda for the September 11th hearing in the four criminal cases over the killing of George Floyd. [1]
State’s Motions
- Motion for Joint Trial
- Motion to Submit Aggravating Factors to Jury (Blakely)
- Motion for Expert Witness Disclosure
Defendants’ Motions
- Motions for Change of Venue
- Jury Sequestration Motion
- Anonymous Jury Motion
- Motion to Disqualify HCAO [Hennepin County Attorney’s Office]
- Rule 404 Evidence Motions
- Discovery Motions
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
- Jury Selection (Method; Peremptory challenges)
- In-Court Presence/COVID-19 Restrictions
- Overflow rooms/Audio-Visual Coverage
- Overnight/Special Transcript Requests
- Trial Length/Daily Schedule
The Order also stated that this Agenda was “subject to modification at the hearing itself.” In addition: “Further briefing may be ordered or requested by the parties. Barring an order for further submission, the Court will consider those matters to be under advisement as of September 11, 2020 with a 90-day order deadline [or until December 10]. The court will attempt, however, to issue some if not all decisions on or before October 15, 2020. Motions to dismiss for lack of probable cause will be decided on briefs and accompanying exhibits.”
Reactions
Although this blogger had anticipated the court’s issuing an agenda for the upcoming hearing, the above agenda was surprising in several respects.
First, the relegation of the four dismissal motions to the briefs and accompanying exhibits (without oral argument) was the greatest surprise to this retired attorney without any criminal law experience. I had thought the first item on the agenda would be the dismissal motions with Chauvin’s first focused on the murder and manslaughter charges. Then the court would consider the three other dismissal motions focused on the aiding-and abetting issues. Does this relegation of these motions to the papers indicate that Judge Cahill already has made up his mind on these motions and merely needs time to do definitive research and write the decisions?
Second, the “Administrative Matters” all apparently assume the trial or trials will be held by the same court. Does this suggest Judge Cahill already has decided to deny the motions to change venue? Does it also suggest that the Judge has decided to grant the prosecution’s motion for joint trial although that is the first item on the agenda?
Third, although this blogger has frequently checked the court’s public list of materials in these four cases, some of the items in the Court’s agenda for the upcoming hearing are not familiar.
===========================
[1] Scheduling Order and Joint Motion Hearing Agenda, State v. Chauvin, Thao, Lane & Kueng (Hennepin County District Court, State v. Chauvin, Thao, Lane & Kueng, Dist. Ct. File 27-CR-20-12646 [& 12949, 12951 & 12953] September 1, 2020).
Comment: More Informed Reaction to Agenda
The above reactions to the Agenda were those of this blogger, a retired attorney with no criminal law experience.
An attorney friend with extensive Minnesota criminal law experience, as a prosecutor and as defense attorney, did not find anything surprising or unusual about the Agenda and disagreed with the first two of the above reactions. He also made the following additional comments for Minnesota state courts:
• Dismissal motions for alleged lack of probable cause are usually decided on the briefs and existing evidentiary record.
• Separate, but related, criminal cases usually are tried separately. If all four cases were tried in one trial, there would be an issue of fair trial if any one of the four defendants pointed his fingers at any of the other defendants.
• The motions for change of venue are seeking different potential jury pools, not necessarily a different trial judge.