Pre-Trial Hearing in Federal Criminal Case Over Killing of George Floyd

On January 11, 2022, U.S. District Court Judge Paul Magnuson held a pre-trial hearing in the federal criminal case against three ex-Minneapolis police officers (J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao) on charges of violating the civil rights of George Floyd in connection with his May 2020 killing. The trial is scheduled to start on January 20.[1]

The Judge expressed his concern about the potential impact of COVID-19 on the trial. “Move the case along and get it tried in a shorter time. The longer we are in the courtroom, the more exposure we have to COVID. And if we get to that point and we don’t have 12 people sitting here, you know what happens. We all go home.” The Judge also expressed concern about the threat of  “outside pressures” that could interfere with the case.

With the prosecution’s filing a list of 48 potential witnesses, the Judge said the case was “getting out of proportion” and that the parties needed to reduce the number of witnesses. The Judge also ruled that a 10-year-old witness will not be allowed to testify and that other witnesses may testify in uniform only if they are appearing in their “official function” and thus an off-duty firefighter [at the scene of the killing] will not be allowed to wear her uniform on the witness stand.

Judge Magnuson also stated that he expects the 12 jurors and six alternates to be selected in two days (January 20 and 21) and the opening statements to begin the following Monday (January 24). There will be no live-streaming of the trial and thereby not allowing the public to follow every minute. Instead there will be only a  few journalists and members of the public in the courtroom while a small group of other journalists and members of the public will watch a video feed of the trial from other rooms in the courthouse.

The next day (January 13), the prosecution filed a brief saying that prohibiting  some witnesses from testifying in the upcoming civil rights case against three former Minneapolis officers will hinder their argument and “deprive the government of its right to a fair trial.” Although they plan to shore up their witness list and heed the concerns for the virus interfering with the trial, “the pursuit of justice should not become a subordinate interest to brevity here. This case involves constitutional violations by sworn law enforcement officers that resulted in the death of a man, and neither COVID nor concerns about security should limit the government or the defense from presenting its case.”[2]

The prosecution also said the nine-year-old witness  is not a mere prop, and objectively serious medical need, “meaning one that is so obvious that even people with no formal medical training would recognize that care is required. Viewed through this lens, it is significant that a then-9-year-old observed and immediately understood that Mr. Floyd needed medical attention.”

In addition, the prosecution also objected to Magnuson’s ruling that calling multiple medical experts to testify would be “inefficient” and “improper.” Prosecutors plan to call two medical experts, including Andrew Baker, who they say is limited to his specialized expertise as Hennepin County Medical Examiner, who”only treats the dead.” As a result, the prosecution wants to call a second expert who can speak to medical issues such how the officers’ compression on Floyd’s airway and torso could hinder his ability to breath, how resuscitation could have saved him and specific effects of the combination of fentanyl and methamphetamine.

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

[1] Mannix, With opening arguments on horizon, judge worries COVID outbreak could upend trial of three former Minneapolis officers, StarTribune (Jan. 12, 2022).

[2] Mannix, Prosecutors say barring witnesses in case against ex-officers in George Floyd death deprives them of fair trial, StarTribune (Jan. 13, 2022).

Postponement of State Court Trial of Ex-Policemen for Killing of George Floyd                 

On January 12, 2022, Hennepin County District Court Judge Peter Cahill postponed the commencement of the state trial of three Minneapolis ex-policemen (J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao) on charges of aiding and abetting the May 2020 second-degree murder and manslaughter of George Floyd. [1]

The Judge ordered the parties’ attorneys to meet before January 16 to select a new trial date between March 14, 2022 and January 9, 2023. If they cannot agree on a new date, the trial will start on March 7 as previously scheduled.

In the meantime, the three men are scheduled to go on trial in federal court starting January 20 on charges of violating Mr. Floyd’s civil rights during his arrest. If that trial has not concluded by the new date for the state trial, the latter shall be continued on a daily basis until the attorneys are available.

In addition, Judge Cahill stated that in the state case the attorneys should set aside three weeks for jury selection and five weeks for trial testimony.

All of these developments happened after the state court trial, conviction and sentencing of Derek Chauvin to 22.5 years imprisonment for second-degree and third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter of Mr. Floyd.[2] And then in mid-December 2021 Chauvin unexpectedly pleaded guilty to the federal charges against him over the killing of Mr. Floyd with Chauvin to serve the state and federal sentences concurrently in a federal prison.[3] Thus ended Chauvin’s criminal charges and trials over Floyd’s death.

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

[1] Xiong, State trial of three officers charged in George Floyd killing postponed from March date, StarTribune (Jan. 12, 2022); Order Granting Joint Request To Continue Trial Date, State v. Thao, Lane, Kueng, Henn. Cty Dist. Ct., File Nos. 27-CR-20-12949, 12951 & 12953 (Jan. 12, 2022).

[2]  See the “Derek Chauvin State Criminal Trial” and “State Court Sentencing of Derek Chauvin” sections of List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: George Floyd Killing.

[3] Derek Chauvin Pleads Guilty to Federal Criminal Charges Over Killing of George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 16, 2021).

Comments on International Religious Freedom

Article 1(A)  of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 189 U.N.T.S. 150, defines “refugee” to include someone who has “a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of  . . . religion” and who after satisfying other stated requirements is entitled to certain protections.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 (III), U.N. Doc. A/810 at 71 (1948), has the following provisions:

  • “ Everyone is entitled to all of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration without distinction of any kind, such as . . . religion. . . .” (Art. 2)
  • “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to . . . religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.” (Art. 16(1).)
  • “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.: (Art. 18.)

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI)(1966), provides the following:

  • “(1) Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect to ensure to all Individuals in its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as  . . . religion . . . “  (Art.  2(1))
  • “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.” (Art. 18(1))
  • “No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of his choice.” (Art. 18(2))
  • “freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.” (Art. 18(3))
  • “The State Parties to present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.” (Art. 14(4))

These comments are in response to a reader of this blog who wanted guidance on international religious freedom and set forth just a few of the international treaties on that subject. There are many books where others can be found.

 

 

Derek Chauvin Pleads Guilty to Federal Criminal Charges Over Killing of George Floyd

On December 15, 2021, at the Minneapolis’ federal courthouse Derek Chauvin pleaded guilty to two counts of depriving George Floyd of his federally-protected civil rights by pinning his knee against Floyd’s neck and by failing to provide medical care for Floyd on May 25, 2020, ultimately causing his death.[1]

At this hearing, Chauvin also pleaded guilty to separate federal charges for holding down with his knee a 14-year-old boy in 2007 and failing to provide medical care to the boy and thereby causing non-fatal injuries.

His only comments during the hearing were short answers to questions by U.S. District Court Judge Paul Magnuson. These questions and answers undoubtedly followed the Plea Agreement and Sentencing Stipulations in his federal case over the killing of Mr. Floyd and other papers regarding pleading guilty to the 2017 mistreatment of the juvenile.

The federal court subsequently will conduct a sentencing hearing on these charges, but Chauvin and the federal prosecution have agreed that he will serve these sentences in a federal prison concurrently with his state sentence and that the federal prosecutors intends to recommend a sentence of 300 months.

Background[2]

On June 2, 2020, Chauvin in a superseding complaint was charged with these crimes under Minnesota state law regarding the killing of M. Floyd:  Second Degree Murder (Unintentional While Committing a Felony), Third Degree Murder (Perpetrating Eminently Dangerous Act and Evidencing Dangerous Mind) and Second Degree Manslaughter (Culpable Negligence Creating Unreasonable Risk).

After the district court had denied his dismissal motion, Chauvin alone went on trial, starting March 8, 2021. On April 20, 2021, the jury convicted him on all three counts: second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter.

On June 25, 2021, the court at a hearing sentenced Chauvin to 22.5 years imprisonment. At that hearing, Chauvin stated to the judge and several members of the Floyd family, “At this time due to some additional legal matters at hand, I’m not able to give a full, formal statement at this time. Briefly though, I do want to give my condolences to the Floyd family. There’s going to be some other information in the future that would be of interest, and I hope things will give you some peace of mind. Thank you.”

Observers immediately speculated, rightly so by Chauvin’s recent change of his plea to guilty, that attorneys for the prosecution and Chauvin were working on details of an agreement for a guilty plea and their negotiation of the terms of such an agreement reached fruition at the December 15th hearing.

Along the way, Chauvin has clearly indicated his preference for federal over Minnesota prisons. Perhaps that is because in state prison he is more likely to encounter fellow inmates who have had bad experiences with Minneapolis policemen, including Chauvin himself, and who as a result might have incentives to mistreat Chauvin.

Conclusion

The Chauvin guilty plea to the state charges obviously will result in the dismissal of his appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

It also leaves the other three ex-officers with the challenging decision of whether to change their pleas to guilty to the state and federal criminal charges against them and thereby eliminate the necessity of state and federal criminal trials, which might include Chauvin’s testimony against them.

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

  1. Zapotosky & Bailey, Derek Chauvin signals he will plead guilty to violating George Floyd’s civil rights, Wash. Post (12/12/21); Mannix, Derek Chauvin to change plea in federal civil rights case, StarTribune (12/13/21); Plea Agreement and Sentencing Guidelines, U.S. v. Chauvin, U.S. Dist. Ct., D. MN (Case No. 21-CR-108 (PAM-TNL) Dec. 15, 2021); Mannix,  Derek Chauvin pleads guilty to civil rights charges in George Floyd’s killing, StarTribune (12/15/21); Bailey, Derek Chauvin pleads guilty to violating George Floyd’s civil rights, Wash. Post (12/15/21);Bogel-Burroughs, Derek Chauvin Pleads Guilty to Violating George Floyd’s Rights, N.Y. Times (12/15/21); Derek Chauvin pleads guilty to civil rights charges in killing of George Floyd, Guardian (12/15/2021);
  2. This blog’s many posts about the state criminal cases over the killing of Mr. Floyd are listed in List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: George Floyd Killing. This post specifically references the following posts: The Criminal Complaint Against Derek Chauvin Over the Death of George Floyd (June 12, 2020); Court of Appeals Reverses District Court’s Refusal To Follow Precedent on Third-Degree Murder Charge Against Derek Chauvin, (Mar. 5, 2021); Derek Chauvin Trial: Week One (Mar. 15, 2021); Derek Chauvin Trial: Conviction (Apr. 21, 2021); Derek Chauvin Trial: Chauvin Sentenced to 22.5 Years Imprisonment (June 28, 2021).

Federal Criminal Cases Over George Floyd Death Seem Ready for Trial in Mid-January

On November 18, U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson mailed questionnaires to prospective jurors ordering them to report to the Federal Courthouse in Minneapolis on January 20, 2022, and be ready to serve from mid-January to mid-February on the federal criminal cases against Derek Chauvin, J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao.[1]

The Judge’s letter said, “In trials of this nature, the Court and the attorneys need to ask probing questions of prospective jurors, including questions about their views on law enforcement, various interest groups, and events that have taken place over the past year-and-a-half. We do this not because we wish to pry into the private lives of prospective jurors, but because we are obligated to ensure that the jurors who hear the case will be fair and impartial.”

The Judge also asked those responding to the questionnaire to avoid media coverage related to this case.

This development looks as if it will interfere with the commencement of the state criminal trial of J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao, previously scheduled to start on March 7, 2022.[2]

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

1/ Mannix, Federal civil rights trial for ex-Minneapolis-cops in George Floyd killing on track for mid-January,  StarTribune (11/30/21).

2/ Xiong, State trial postponed to March 2022 for ex-officers charged with aiding and abetting murder in George Floyd death, StarTribune (May 13, 2021).

Federal Criminal Cases Over George Floyd Death: Four Policemen To Be Tried Together  

As previously noted, four Minneapolis policeman—Derek Chauvin, J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao–face a federal grand jury indictment over the death of George Floyd in the District of Minnesota. They are charged with  allegedly using the “color of the law” to deprive  George Floyd of his constitutional rights to be “free from the use of unreasonable force” when Chauvin held Floyd down by the neck for more than nine minutes while the others did nothing to stop Chauvin. In addition, all four are charged with failing to help provide medical care to Floyd and “thereby acting with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of harm.” [1]

All four of the defendants have pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Denial of Severance of the Four Cases

On November 29, U.S. Magistrate Judge Tony Leung denied the motions by the last three ex-policemen to sever their federal cases from the one against Derek Chauvin. [2]

The Magistrate Judge said said the attorneys making the motions had failed to prove that Chauvin’s conviction would prevent their clients from receiving a fair trial.

Elaborating on the reasons for that conclusion, the Magistrate Judge said the charges against Chauvin are not identical to the others, but there is “significant overlap and interplay” in the allegations. “Also, the Government will be using essentially the same substantive evidence against each of the Defendants at trial. There will be witnesses. A number, if not a majority, of these same witnesses will be called to testify regardless of whether Chauvin is tried jointly with Thao, Kueng and Lane. The events at issue occurred during a short temporal period on a single day in a single location. In addition to the discrete unities of time and place, there can be no genuine dispute that all four Defendants were at the scene of the events giving rise to this case.”

This decision was made “without prejudice,” meaning that if these three defendants object to this ruling, U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson, who will be presiding over the trial, may make his own ruling on the motion.

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

[1] Indictment, U.S. v. Chauvin, Thao, Kueng and Lane, U.S. Dist. of Minn. (Case 0:21-cr-00108-PAM-TNL (May 6, 2021); Federal Court Charges Against Ex-Minneapolis Policemen Over George Floyd’s Killing, dwkcommentaries.com (May 7, 2021).

[2] Mannix, Former Minneapolis officers should be tried together in federal case, says magistrate judge, StarTribune (11/29/21).

Chauvin and Ex-Wife Plead Not Guilty to Tax Evasion Charges 

As a previous  post reported, on July 22, 2020, Derek Chauvin and his then wife Kellie Chauvin were charged with Minnesota felony tax crimes dating back to 2014 for alleged failure to report more than $400,000 in income  and resulting failure to pay $21,853 in Minnesota taxes which  with interest and late filing and fraud penalties then amounted to $37,868. This was done in Minnesota District Court for Washington County, where they then lived. [1]

On November 5, 2021, a Washington County District Court Judge entered pleas of not guilty for the pair after each waived a pretrial hearing in two brief remote court sessions. The next date for a court hearing in the case was set for January 21, 2022.[2]

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

[1]  Chauvin and Wife Now Charged with Minnesota Tax Crimes, dwkcommentaries.com (July 22, 2020).

[2]  Olson, Derek Chauvin and his ex-wife plead not guilty to tax evasion, StarTribune (Nov. 5, 2021); Karnowski (AP), Chauvin, ex-wife plead not guilty to tax evasion charges, StarTribune (Nov. 5, 2021).

More Criticism of U.S. Means of Addressing Immigration Needs of Afghan Evacuees  

This blog previously discussed the complexity of meeting the U.S. immigration needs of Afghan evacuees, estimated at 65,000 to 199,000 less than two weeks ago.[1] This analysis has been underscored by John T. Medeiros, an experienced U.S. immigration attorney and the Chair of the Minnesota/Dakotas Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.[2]

According to Medeiros, this subject was the focus of a recent conference call with nearly 100 immigration lawyers across the U.S.

He noted that he and many other immigration lawyers have been focused on assisting “family members and friends of Afghan allies in applying for humanitarian parole, which the federal Immigration Service says “is used to bring someone who is otherwise inadmissible to the United States for a temporary period of time due to an emergency.”

This conference call emphasized the following current status of this situation:

  • “Within the past two months there have been over 17,000 applications for humanitarian parole filed with the USCIS.”
  • “Each application includes a filing fee of $575; in the past two months the USCIS has received an estimated $9.8 million in fees.”
  • “While there is an option to request a fee waiver, almost all applications filed with a fee waiver have been rejected by the USCIS.”
  • “For the pending 17,000 applications there are a total of six USCIS adjudicators.”
  • “Since Sept. 1, USCIS has not processed any applications for individuals still in Afghanistan.”
  • “Since that same date, USCIS has processed ‘a handful of applications’ for Afghan nationals displaced in a third country.”
  • “USCIS is expected to soon announce its plans to adjudicate those applications that remain pending, with priority given to individuals who are not physically in Afghanistan. The rationale for this decision is that third-country nationals would be able to obtain the required travel permission in the form of a visa at a U.S. consular post in the third country, while visa services have been suspended within Afghanistan.”
  • “It is unclear if [U.S.] visas will be issued to displaced Afghan nationals who are not in possession of a valid passport.”

This horrible situation, said Medeiros, caused the participants in this conference call to demand the following actions:

“[We] call on Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to immediately allocate sufficient resources to the USCIS for the swift adjudication of the pending 17,000 applications for humanitarian parole and to approve applications for fee waivers for applicants who meet the eligibility criteria.”

“After these applications have been approved, we call on Secretary of State Antony Blinken to expedite the vetting process and the issuance of visas to displaced Afghan nationals, including those who are not in possession of a valid passport.”

“[We] call on the office of the White House to authorize the U.S. Department of Defense to send military flights to countries with concentrations of displaced Afghan nationals, and evacuate those with valid claims to asylum, Special Immigrant Visas or any other immigration benefit.”

“[We] call on Congress to swiftly pass the Afghan Adjustment Act, which would provide a path to permanent residence for those Afghan evacuees who have risked their lives in support of U.S. military efforts. It is the least we can do to honor the sacrifices our Afghan allies have made for the benefit of American democracy.”

Conclusion

These recommendations are endorsed by this blogger, who is a retired lawyer who did not specialize in immigration law, but who in the mid-1980s learned certain aspects of immigration and asylum law and then served as a pro bono lawyer for asylum seekers from El Salvador and other countries.[3]

This endorsement is also buttressed by my current service on the Refugee Co-Sponsorship Team at Minneapolis’ Westminster Presbyterian Church, which is now co-sponsoring an Afghan family with the assistance of the Minnesota Council of Churches. [4]

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

[1]  Immense Problems Hampering U.S. Efforts To Resettle Afghans, dwkcommentaries.com (Oct. 22, 2021).

[2] Medeiros, We’re still failing Afghan allies. Why no outrage?, StarTribune (Nov. 2, 2021); John t. Medeiros [Biography];  American Immigration Lawyers Association, Minnesota/Dakotas Chapter.

[3]  Becoming a Pro Bono Asylum Lawyer, dwkcommentareis.com (May 24, 2011); My Pilgrimage to El Salvador, April 1989, dwkcommentaries.com (May 25,  2011); Teaching the International Human Rights Course, dwkcommentaries.com (July 1, 2011).

[4]  Schulze, Campbell & Krohnke, Our Sojourners Have Arrived, Westminster News, p.7  (Nov. 2021).

More Details on Jurors’ Comments on Derek Chauvin Trial 

The blog previously has discussed the court’s decision last week to release on November 1 certain information about the jurors in the Derek Chauvin trial and the October 28th Don Lemon program on CNN  with seven of the 14  jurors (including two alternates). [1] Now additional details about this development have been reported by the Washington Post, New York Times and StarTribune. [2]

The Washington Post has reported the following:

  • Several jurors said their views on race did not factor into the verdict. According to Juror Nicole Deters, ““We got here because of systemic racism within the system, right, because of what’s been going on. That’s how we got to a courtroom in the first place. But when it came down to all three verdicts, it was based on the evidence and the facts one hundred percent.”
  • Several jurors said “they probably would have come to the same verdicts if Chauvin had testified in his defense, but they said they would have liked to hear what he was thinking. Videos of the killing, recorded by bystanders and others, factored into the jurors’ decision-making, they said.”
  • Juror Sheri Belton Hardeman said, “The camera doesn’t lie. And it was in slow motion at times while you were sitting there in court. … So it was hard. It played a huge role though. It truly did.”
  • Juror Jodi Doud told CNN the video “bothered me so much. How could somebody do that to someone else? And it was a slow death. It wasn’t just a gunshot and they’re dead.”

The New York Times added the following report:

  • Half of the 12 jurors declined to comment or could not be reached on November 1st after their names had been publicly released. At the home of one of them, this sign was posted on the front door: “Please, no press no soliciting” while a “Black Lives Matter” poster was prominently displayed in a window.
  • Juror Brandon Mitchell, who previously had made public comments on the trial, said on November 1, , 2021, that all of the jurors have been keeping in touch on an email chain since the trial. “They’re scared of the unknown and of becoming a public figure instead of spending their lives in peace.”
  • Juror Jodi Doud had said on the CNN program, “This is not what he [Chauvin] did, but more or less what he didn’t do. He did not provide lifesaving measures for George Floyd when he knew that the guy was in pain or needed medical attention.”

The Times article also reported that the prospective jurors questionnaires “reveal a diverse range of opinions from the jurors, who were from throughout Hennepin County and ranged in age from their 20s to their 60s. Four of the jurors were Black, six were white and two were multiracial; seven of the 12 were women.”

The StarTribune noted that two jurors and an alternate previously had made the following public comments about the trial:

  • “25-year-old Journee Howard, of Minneapolis, said she was especially swayed by the testimony of Dr. Martin Tobin, who bolstered the prosecution’s contention that Floyd died from asphyxiation as a direct result of being pinned face down on the pavement at 38th and Chicago for more than nine minutes by Chauvin and two other officers.”
  • Brandon Mitchell said the jury deliberations were “smooth” with a strong focus on the evidence and the terminology of the law, but did not include discussions about race or the broader issue of police killing civilians.
  • Alternate Lisa Christensen, 56, of Brooklyn Center, said she was “sad and disappointed” when she was excused before deliberations began but agreed with the verdicts.

The StarTribune also added that a jury questionnaire disclosed that the jury foreperson was a 31-year-old man from Minneapolis, who was engaged at the time of the trial, has degrees in accounting from the University of St. Thomas, and works as an audit manager and that almost all of the  responses to the questionnaire said the prospective jurors disagreed with the statement that “the police treated white and Black people equally” while all agreed that “Police in my community make me feel safe.”

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

[1]  Judge Orders Release of Jurors Names in Derek Chauvin Trial, dwkcommentaries.com (Oct. 28, 2021); Discussion of Derek Chauvin Trial By Seven of Its Jurors, dwkcommentaries.com (Oct. 30, 2021).

[2]  Shammas & lati, Race was not part of Chauvin jurors’ decision, they say, Wash. Post (Nov. 1, 2021); Bogel-Burroughs, Jurors Who Convicted Derek Chauvin Are Identified for First Time, N.Y. Times (Nov. 1, 2021); Walsh, More than 6 months after verdicts, court releases names of jurors in Derek Chauvin trial, StarTribune (Nov. 1, 2021).

 

 

 

Discussion of Derek Chauvin Trail by Seven of its Jurors  

On October 28, seven of the 12 jurors in the trial of Derek Chauvin who delivered the guilty verdict on all three counts were interviewed by CNN’s Don Lemon. [1]

Theses jurors all provided intelligent comments and conveyed a great sense of the jury’s seriousness, cooperation and appreciation for one another.

Most importantly, they said a very important piece of evidence  was the Minneapolis Police Department motto, “In our custody, in our care.” Clearly, they said, George Floyd was in the custody of the four policemen, but they did nothing to provide care to him when his pain and loss of breathe were obvious.  That observation made the guilty verdict obvious, they said.

Now on November 1, most of the trial evidence will be made public at the Hennepin County Government Center.[2]

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

[1]  Sanchez, Exclusive: Derek Chauvin jurors speak out for the first time, recalling ‘traumatic experience’ and that light-bulb moment, CNN (Oct. 28, 2021).

[2]  Judge Orders Release of Jurors Names in Derek Chauvin Trial, dwkcommentareis.com (Oct. 28, 2021).