On September 23, 2021, Derek Chauvin initiated his appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals from the Hennepin County District Court ‘s June 25th Sentencing Order and Memorandum Opinion holding him guilty of second-degree murder of George Floyd and sentencing Chauvin to 22.5 years imprisonment for that crime.[1]
The document initiating this appeal was Chauvin’s Statement of the Case of Appellant.[2] It stated the following issues for the appeal:
“(1) The District Court abused its discretion when it denied Appellant’s motion for change of venue or a new trial;
(2) The District Court abused its discretion when it denied Appellant’s motion for a continuance or a new trial;
(3) The District Court abused its discretion when it denied Appellant’s motions to sequester the jury throughout trial;
(4) The State committed prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct;
(5) The District Court prejudicially erred when it concluded that the testimony of Morries Hall, or in the alternative Mr. Hall’s statements to law enforcement, did not fall under Minn. R. Evid. 804(b)(3) and was not a violation Appellant’s constitutional confrontation rights;
(6) The District Court prejudicially erred when it permitted the State to present cumulative evidence with respect to use of force;
(7) The District Court abused its discretion when it ordered the State to lead witnesses on direct examination;
(8) The District Court abused its discretion when it failed to make an official record of the numerous sidebar conferences that occurred during trials;
(9) The District Court abused its discretion when it failed to allow Appellant to exercise several cause strikes for clearly biased jurors during voir dire;
(10) The District Court abused its discretion when it permitted the State of amend its complaint to add the charge of third-degree murder;
(11) The District Court abused its discretion when it strictly limited and undercut the admissibility of George Floyd’s May 6, 2019 arrest;
(12) The District Court abused its discretion when it submitted instructions to the jury that materially misstated the law;
(13) The District Court abused its discretion when it by denying Appellant’s motion for a Schwartz hearing;
(l4) The District Court abused its discretion when it denied Appellant’s post-verdict motion for a new trial due to juror misconduct.”
These issues will be presented and argued with citations to legal precedents and the trial record in the subsequent briefs and oral arguments of the parties.
However, a practical problem for Chauvin is the inability of his trial counsel, Eric Nelson, to represent him on this appeal because the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, which had paid Nelson’s attorneys’ fees for Chauvin’s pretrial and trial proceedings, does not pay such fees for appeals after conviction and Chauvin does not have the financial ability to pay for appellate counsel. As a result, on September 23, District Judge Peter Cahill entered an Order Granting In Forma Paupereris Application of Mr. Chauvin. Now Chauvin awaits the Minnesota Supreme Court’s action on his application to reverse its earlier decision denying him a public defender to represent him on this appeal.
===================================
[1] Derek Chauvin Trial: Chauvin Sentenced to 22.5 Years Imprisonment, dwkcommentaries.com (June 28, 2021); Forlitti (AP), Chauvin to appeal conviction, sentence in Floyd’s death, Wash. Post (Sept. 23, 2021); Chhith, Derek Chauvin appeals his conviction in George Floyd’s death, StarTribune (Sept. 23, 2021).
[2] Statement of the Case of Appellant, State v. Chauvin, Minnesota Court of Appeals Case No. A21-1228 (Sept. 23, 2021).
