Chauvin Appellate Brief Regarding State Court Conviction for Murder of George Floyd

On April 25, 2022, attorneys for Derek Chauvin submitted a brief in support of his appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals from his conviction and sentencing by the state District Court for his involvement in the death of George Floyd.

Chauvin’s Brief for the Appeal[1]

Here are the principal points of Chauvin’s brief:

• The pervasive prejudicial publicity, jurors’ concerns for their safety if they did not convict Chauvin and physical threats to the courthouse required the court to change venue, continue the trial, or fully sequester the jury and its failure to do so violated Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 25.02 and the U.S. Constitution’s 6^th and 14^th
• More specifically, the pretrial publicity surrounding the case, which was pervasive and overwhelmingly hostile to Chauvin and law enforcement in general, combined with the riots, the threat of violence from a possible acquittal, the City of Minneapolis’ announcement of its $27 million settlement of claims by the Floyd family in the middle of jury voir dire, jurors’ express concerns for their own personal safety and at least two jurors expressing negative views of the Minneapolis Police Department, the media’s spying on the attorneys and disclosing courthouse security measures required the court to change venue, continue the trial or fully sequester the jury, and its failure to do so violated Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 25.02 and the U.S. Constitution’s 6^th and 14^th Amendments.
• The third-degree murder charge against Chauvin, for which he was convicted, must be dismissed because his actions were directed only against one person—George Floyd—and because the Minnesota Supreme Court has decided that such a charge requires actions against more than one person.
• The second-degree felony-murder charge against Chauvin was invalid because as a police officer he was authorized to “touch” or “assault” Floyd as he resisted arrest and because the court did not instruct the jury that the reasonable use of force by a police officer must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.
• The trial court also erred by allowing cumulative evidence by seven expert witnesses on their opinions on the reasonable use of force by Chauvin.
• The court improperly excluded evidence of MPD training materials showing a police officer placing his or her knees on a suspect’s back.
• The court erroneously excluded testimony by Morries Hall, a passenger in Floyd’s car, on Floyd’s ingestion of fentanyl and being in a state of excited delirium.
• The court erroneously failed to take actions to correct prosecutorial misconduct regarding failure to timely disclose certain evidence.
• The court erroneously failed to make a record of defense counsel’s “sidebar” arguments.
• The court erroneously used Chauvin’s alleged abuse of a position of authority as an aggravating sentencing factor to justify an upward departure from the presumptive sentencing range.

We now await the prosecution’s responses to these arguments.

Chauvin’s Guilty Plea to Federal Criminal Charges Over Floyd’s Death[2]

Presumably the prosecution will find counter arguments in Chauvin’s December 15, 2001, guilty plea in federal court to two counts of depriving Mr. Floyd of his federally-protected civil rights by pinning his knee against Mr. Floyd’s neck  and by failing to provide medical care for him on May 25, 2020, ultimately causing his death.

In the Plea Agreement and Sentencing Stipulations in that federal case, which Chauvin signed and stipulated that he “fully understands the nature and elements of the crimes with which he has been charged  [in that federal case]” and “admits that the following facts are true, and that those facts establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt [to those charges].”

• Chauvin “held his left knee across Mr. Floyd’s neck, back, and shoulder, and his right knee on Mr. Floyd’s back and arm. As Mr. Floyd lay on the ground, handcuffed and unresisting, [Chauvin] kept his knees on Floyd’s neck and body, even after Mr. Floyd became unresponsive. This offense resulted in bodily injury to, and the death of, George Floyd.”
• “On May 25, 2020, [Chauvin] was on duty and acting under color of law as a patrol officer for the [MPD]. Through his experience as an MPD patrol officer, [Chauvin] was familiar with MPD policies and training regarding the authorized use of force, including the requirement that an officer use force only in proportion to a subject’s resistance and the requirement that an officer stop using force when a subject is not resisting. . . . [Chauvin] was also aware of MPD policy and training that once an arrestee is in custody, the arrestee is the officer’s responsibility to protect, and accordingly, officers are required to provide emergency medical aid to an arrestee who needs it, including CPR immediately if there is not pulse and other basic first aid, even while awaiting Emergency Medical Services (EMSA). Finally, [Chauvin] was trained that if an arrestee is in the prone position, that position may make it more difficult to breathe, and thus, officers should move that arrestee to a side recovery or seated position.”
• “After an attempt to seat Mr. Floyd in a squad car, [Chauvin] and Officers Kueng and Lane maneuvered Mr. Floyd, who was handcuffed and requesting to be placed on the ground, out of the vehicle and face-down on the street. Mr. Floyd remained restrained, prone and handcuffed on the ground for approximately ten minutes. During this entire period, [Chauvin] held his left knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck, back, and shoulder area and his right knee on Mr. Floyd’s left arm and upper back.”
• “After the initial restraint, Mr. Floyd stopped resisting officers. [Chauvin] admits that no later than the time the officers decided not to apply the hobble to Mr. Floyd, [Chauvin’s] continued use of force became objectively unreasonable and excessive based on a totality of the circumstances. After that point, [Chauvin] continued his unreasonable restraint of Mr. Floyd until after the paramedics arrived.”
• “[Chauvin] admits that in using this unreasonable and excessive force, he acted willfully and in callous and wanton disregard of the consequences to Mr. Floyd’s life. [Chauvin] knew that what he was doing was wrong, in part, because it was contrary to his training as an MPD officer. [Chauvin] chose to continue his use of force even though he knew from MPD policy and training that once Mr. Floyd was compliant, [Chauvin] should have gotten off of him and moved him into a side recovery or seated position.”
• “[Chauvin] also knew there was no legal justification to continue his use of force because he was aware that Mr. Floyd not only stopped resisting, but also stopped talking, stopped moving, stopped breathing, and lost consciousness and a pulse. [Chauvin] chose to continue applying force even though he knew Mr. Floyd’s condition progressively worsened. [Chauvin] also heard Mr. Floyd repeatedly explain that he could not breathe, was in pain, and wanted help.”
• “[Chauvin] knew that what he was doing was wrong-that continued force was no longer appropriate and that it posed significant risks to Mr. Floyd’s life based on what he observed and heard about Mr. Floyd.”
• “[Chauvin] also willfully violated Mr. Floyd’s constitutional right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, which includes an arrestee’s right to be free from a police officer’s deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. [Chauvin] admits that he failed to render medical aid to Mr. Floyd, as he was capable of doing, and trained and required to do.”
• “At the time [Chauvin] failed to render medical aid to Mr. Floyd, [he] saw Mr. Floyd lying on the ground, in serious medical need, and eventually unconscious and pulseless, and recognized Mr. Floyd was in clear need of medical aid. At no point during the entire period that Mr. Floyd was on the ground did [Chauvin] or anyone else move Floyd onto his side, start CPR, or provide medical aid of any kind to Mr. Floyd. [Chauvin’s] failure to render medical aid resulted in Mr. Floyd’s bodily injury and death.”
• “[Chauvin] agrees that the appropriate base offense level is second-degree murder because he used unreasonable and excessive force that resulted in Mr. Floyd’s death, and he acted willfully and in callous and wanton disregard of the consequences to Mr. Floyd’s life. [Chauvin] admits that his willful use of unreasonable force resulted in Mr. Floyd’s bodily injury and death because his actions impaired Mr. Floyd’s ability to obtain and maintain sufficient oxygen to sustain Mr. Floyd’s life.”

Conclusion

Given these express written admissions by Chauvin, why is it necessary for the Minnesota Court of Appeals, the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office and Chauvin’s attorneys to go through the intensive and costly process of examining the various issues in Chauvin’s appeal of his state court conviction and sentencing?

This blog welcomes comments expressing why such efforts are necessary.

=============================

[1] Appellant’s Brief, State v. Chauvin, Minn. Ct. Appeals, No. A21-1228 (April 25, 2022); Assoc. Press, Chauvin appeals murder conviction for killing George Floyd, StarTribune (April 28, 2022); Chappell, Derek Chauvin appeals his conviction for George Floyd’s murder, MPRNews (April 27, 2022); Scully, Derek Chauvin asks court to  overturn conviction in George Floyd killing, The Hill (April 27, 2022); Wolfe & Rose, Derek Chauvin appeals his murder conviction in death of George Floyd, CNN.con (April 27, 2022).

[2] Derek Chauvin Pleads Guilty to Federal Criminal Charges Over Killing George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 16, 2021); Plea Agreement and Sentencing Guidelines (pp. 2-6), U.S. v. Chauvin, U.S. Dist. Ct., D. MN (Case No. 21-CR-108 (PAM-TNL) (Dec. 15, 2021). The federal court’s Docket Sheet for this case has the following entries, but the referenced documents are currently not available to the public: (a) 4/1/22 entry for erroneous filing of transcript of 12/15/21 Change of Plea Hearing; (b)  4/5/22 entry for filing of corrected version of that transcript; and (c) 4/27/22 entry for Preliminary Presentence Report on Chauvin.