Federal Prosecution Proposes Criminal Sentences for Ex-Officers Lane, Kueng and Thao’s Convictions for Involvement in the Killing of George Floyd

On June 29 , federal prosecutors asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to impose a sentence of up to 6.5 years for Thomas Lane’s conviction for his involvement in the May 2020 killing of George Floyd. The prosecutors also asked on June 29 and 30 for higher sentences for ex-officers J. Alexander Kueng and Tou Thao, who also have been convicted for their involvement in that killing.[1]

The prosecution’s reasons for these recommendations were very detailed in compliance with the requirements of the federal statute for the imposition of sentences (18 U.S.C. sec. 3553).

All of these convictions are based upon a February 2022 federal jury’s verdict of guilty for these three men for violating Floyd’s civil rights by failing to give Floyd medical care while Kueng also was found guilty of not trying to stop Derek Chauvin from using excessive force. [2]

Reasons for Proposed Sentence of Lane[3]

According to the prosecution, a “within guideline range sentence of 63 months (5.25 years) to 78 months (6.5 years) [for Lane] is reasonable and appropriate in light of the serious consequences of . . . Lane’s criminal omissions and in consideration of the 18 U.S.C. sec. 3553(a) factors.”

“As the jury necessarily found, . . . [Lane] recognized that  . . . Floyd was suffering from a serious medical need and failed to provide him with the basic medical aid and that . . .[Lane] was trained and duty-bound to give such aid at a time when that would have made a difference. . . . . [Lane’s] failure to provide medical aid had serious consequences for Mr. Floyd, Mr. Floyd’s family, . . . Lane’s fellow law enforcement officers, and the broader community. . . . [This proposed sentence] is justified by the gravity and impact of his inaction.”

The prosecution then rejected, with appropriate legal citations, the following Lane objections to this proposed sentence:  (1)  the victim was lawfully restrained; (2) Lane was a minimal participant in the restraint; (3) there was double counting of Lane’s status as someone acting under color of law; and (4) Lane’s guilty plea justifies a downward adjustment because it came after conviction at trial.

Next the prosecution argued that the section 3553(a) factors justified a within-guidelines sentence for Lane: the nature and circumstances of the offense (Lane was well placed to save Floyd’s life) and Lane had information about Floyd’s condition and information and training of how to respond to this condition. In addition, a guideline-range sentence will most appropriately capture the significance of Lane’s inaction, the lasting harm his inaction inflicted on Floyd, the other officers and the larger community.”

Lane’s being a police officer is another reason justifying a higher sentence, and his relative inexperience as an officer is undermined by Lane’s recognition of Floyd’s condition and Lane’s initial training and knowledge.

A within-guidelines sentence of Lane “will remind other officers of their constitutional obligations as law enforcement officers, including an affirmative obligation to protect the lives and safety of those in their custody and thus serve to protect the American public by promoting respect for the law.

Therefore, Lane “should be sentenced to a within-guidelines sentence of 63 months (5.25 years) to 78 months (6.5 years).”

This statement by the prosecution also constitutes a rejection of Lane’s motion for a downward sentencing variance.

Reasons for Proposed Sentence of Kueng[4]

The prosecution argued that a sentence of Kueng should be “significantly more “ than the proposed sentence of 63 to 78 months for Lane because (1) Kueng abused state powers to cause the death of . . . Floyd; (2) Kueng lacked “acceptance of responsibility , including his (at time obstructive and incredible) trial testimony;” (3) the need to promote respect for the law and deter other police officers from standing by as their fellow officers inflict abuses on unresisting arrestees,” and (4) “the need for consistency with respect to other cases in which officers have been convicted of failing to intervene to protect an arrestee from abuse.” The prosecution also argued that Kueng’s sentence should be less than the expected sentence of 240-300 months of imprisonment for Derek Chauvin.

Reasons for Proposed Sentence of Thao[5]

The prosecution argued that Thao’s sentence would be less than the 240-300 months’ anticipated sentence for Chauvin and “significantly more that the Guidelines range applicable to . . . Lane . . . of 63 to 78 months’ imprisonment. Such a sentence is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. sec. 3553(a).”

This proposal, said the prosecution, was justified by the following: (1) ‘the offense resulted in the death of . . Floyd, and thus caused the gravest of harms;” (2) “Floyd was in [Thao’s] custody and care and [he] knew he had a duty to protect . . . [Floyd];” (3) Thao “had the knowledge, opportunity, information and time to recognize the need for action to stop the unreasonable force and to provide medical aid—and yet he failed to act;” (4) Thao’s “lack of acceptance of responsibility, including his (at times incredible)  trial testimony merits a significant sentence;” and (5)  “a significant sentence is needed to promote respect for the law and to deter other police officers from standing by as their fellow officers commit a crime.”

Thao, on the other hand, stated he believes the appropriate calculated Guidelines Range for him is 24-30 months  and requested the Court to impose a sentence of 24 months imprisonment. “This sentence would be sufficient, but not greater than necessary to achieve the goals outlined in [section] 3553.”

Conclusion

We all now wait to see if these defendants offer any other contrary arguments and the decisions on the sentences by Judge Magnuson.

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

[1] Montemayor, Federal prosecutors seek up to 6 ½ years for ex-officers for violating George Floyd’s civil rights, StarTribune (June 29, 2022); Karnowski (AP), Prosecutors seek prison for 3 ex-cops in Floyd killing, StarTribune (June 29, 2022); Montemayor, Feds ask for up to 6 ½ years  in prison for ex-MPD officer Thao for failing to help George Floyd, StarTribune (June 30, 2020).

[2] Federal Criminal Trial for Killing George Floyd: Jury Deliberations and Verdict, dwkcommentaries.com (Feb. 25, 2022).

[3]  United States’ Sentencing Memorandum, U.S. v. Lane, Case 0:21-cr-0018, U.S. Dist. Ct., D. MN (June 29, 2022); Ex-Officer Thomas  Lane Pleads Guilty State Charge of Aiding and Abetting Manslaughter of George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (May 18, 2022).

[4]  Government’s Position with Respect to Sentencing, U.S. v. Kueng,, Case 0-21-cr-00188, U.S. Dist. Ct. MN (June 29, 2022); Defendant Kueng’s Motion for a Sentencing Variance, U.S. v. Kueng,, Case 0-21-cr-00188, U.S. Dist. Ct. MN (June 29, 2022).

[5] Government’s Position with Respect to Sentencing, U.S. v. Thao, U.S. Dist. Ct. MN, Case No. 0:21-cr-00108 (June 30,2022); Defendants’ Position with Respect to Sentencing, U.S. v. Thao, U.S. Dist. Ct. MN, Case No. 0:21-cr-00108 (June 30,2022).

 

Resetting State Criminal Trial Date for Kueng and Thao for Killing of George Floyd

On June 6, Hennepin County District Court Judge Peter Cahill, in a well-reasoned opinion, postponed the date for the criminal cases against J. Peter Kueng and Tao Thao  to January 5, 2023.[1]

On June 21, Judge Cahill heard arguments on two motions for changing the date for the start of the trial.

Prosecution’s Motion[2]

The prosecution’s one-page letter merely stated, “On behalf of the family of George Floyd, the state requests a speedy trial as provided in the Victim’s Rights Act, Minn. Stat. sec. 611A.033(a), and Minn. R. Crim. P. 11.09(b).”

Kueng’s Motion[3]

Kueng’s motion requested a continuance to a date after April 3, 2023. For background, his motion stated, “On June 17, 2022 the State entered a speedy trial demand. . . . The State’s demand for a speedy trial followed a teleconference . . . [on June 27] wherein the instant continuance request was discussed [and] Counsel for Mr. Thao has informed the Court that he has no objection to this continuance request.” In addition, “On March 9, 2022 and May 27, 2022 the Court conducted chambers conferences with the parties to discuss plea negotiations, trial scheduling and other matters. During each of those meetings Counsel for Mr. Kueng informed the Court and parties that he was unavailable for trial from January through March 2023. Counsel’s unavailability is due a scheduling conflict of a personal nature.”

The Court’s Decision[4]

After hearing from the attorneys, Judge Cahill apologized to Thomas Plunkett, the attorney for Kueng, that he had forgotten that the attorney previously had told the Judge that he had a personal commitment ‘etched in stone’ in January and that he’d rather give up his law license than miss it. Judge Cahill then announced that he was changing the date for commencement of the trial to October 24, 2022 although he was still weighing the need for publicity from the federal trial and former officer Thomas Lane’s May guilty plea to aiding and abetting manslaughter to die down.

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

[1] State Criminal Trial for Thao and Kueng Postponed to January 2023, dwkcommentaries.com (June. 6, 2022); Walsh, State requests speedier start for state trial of ex-officers Thao and Kueng in George Floyd killing, StarTribune (June 20, 2022).

[2] Letter, Frank (Assist. Att. Gen.) to Judge Cahill, June 17, 2022).

[3] Defendant Kueng’s Notice and Motion for Continuance, State v. Kueng, Henn. Cty. Dist. Ct. File No. 27-CR-20-12953 (June 19, 2022).

[4] Olson, Judge agrees to move trial of two former Minneapolis officers to October in George Floyd’s death, StarTribune (June 21, 2022).

State Criminal Trial for Thao and Kueng Postponed to January 2023

On June 6, Hennepin County District Court Judge Peter Cahill granted motions byTou Thao and J. Alexander Kueng to postpone their criminal trials with a new date of January 5 for their commencement. The court also denied the defendants’ motion to change venue and the motion of the Media Coalition to reconsider the court’s previous barring of audio and video coverage of this trial.[1]

The Reasons for Changing the Trial Date

 The Minnesota Supreme Court has recognized that “continuance of a trial date has been recognized as an effective tool to diminish the effect of prejudicial pretrial publicity.” Here, the defendants have cited two such events.

  • First, on May 18, 2022 (less than four week prior to the scheduled start of the trial co-defendant Thomas Lane pled guilty to aiding and abetting second-degree manslaughter. [2]
  • Second, on February 24, 2022, Thao, Kueng and Lane were found guilty by a federal jury of violating George Floyd’s civil rights “based largely on the same evidence as will be introduced in Defendants Thao’s and Kueng’s joint state trial.”[3]

“These two recent events and the publicity surrounding them are significant in they . . could make it difficult for jurors to presume Thao and Kueng innocent of the State charges.” A postponement of the trial for nearly seven months should “diminish the impact of this publicity on the Defendants’ right and ability to receive a fair trial from an impartial and unbiased jury.”

The Reasons for Denial of Change of Venue

Although there has been “saturation news coverage in the Twin Cities in print and broadcast media” of the George Floyd killing and subsequent court proceedings, the same is true “throughout the entire State of Minnesota—not to mention nationally.”

Moreover, “a prospective juror’s exposure to pretrial publicity does not alone create a reasonable likelihood of an unfair trial. . . . Instead, the issue is whether a prospective juror can set aside his or her impressions or opinions based on pretrial publicity, be fair and impartial, and render an impartial verdict.” In addition, this court has taken extensive measures in the earlier Chauvin trial and is now implementing those same measures for the trial of Thao and Kueng.

In addition, postponing the trial to January 2023 will put more than two and one-half years since the killing of Mr. Floyd; more than 20 months since the jury verdict in the Chauvin case; [4] almost eleven months since the jury verdict against Thao and Kueng in the federal civil rights trial; and probably four to six months since their upcoming sentencing in that federal trial.

Finally, this court has continued to impose “appropriate steps to ensure the selection of an impartial jury” and Hennepin County is “the most populous and diverse county in the state.”

The Reasons for Denial of Audio/Video Coverage

“With the reduction in the number of defendants, . . . [the trial courtroom] can now be configured, with the relaxed COVID protocols, to accommodate at least eighteen seats for the public . . . [which] does not amount to a courtroom closure.”

However, “if there is a significant rule change in place by [the commencement of this trial next January], the court would reconsider allowing audio and video coverage.”

Another Consideration

Another consideration favoring the postponement of the trial not mentioned by Judge Cahill was providing additional time for these two defendants, especially after their federal sentencing, to consider attempting to negotiate an agreement with the prosecution for their pleading guilty to the state charges.

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

[1] Walsh, State Trial for fired Minneapolis officers Thao, Kueng delayed until January, Star Tribune (June 6, 2022); Order and Memorandum Opinion Concerning Trial, State v. Thao & Kueng, Court Files Nos. 27-CR-20-12949 & 27-Cr-20-12953, Hennepin County District Court (June 6, 2022).

[2] Ex-Officer Thomas Lane Pleads Guilty to State Charge of Aiding and Abetting Manslaughter of George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (May 18, 2022). Comment: More Details on Lane’s Guilty Plea, dwkcommentaries.com (May 19, 2022).

[3]  Federal Criminal Trial for Killing George Floyd: Jury Deliberations and Verdict, dwkcommentaries.com (Feb. 25, 2022).

[4] Derek Chauvin Trial: Week Seven (Conviction), dwkcommentaries.com (April 21, 2021); Derek Chauvin Trial: Chauvin Sentenced to 22.5 Years Imprisonment, dwkcommentaries.com (June 28, 2021).

 

Derek Chauvin and City of Minneapolis Sued for Alleged Use of Excessive Force in 2017

On May 31, 2022, Derek Chauvin, the City of Minneapolis and certain other Minneapolis police officers were sued in two federal court cases for compensatory and punitive damages for Chauvin’s alleged use of excessive force in 2017.

John Pope Case[1]

In September 2017, John Pope, then 14 years old, alleges that he was alone in his bedroom on the floor using his cellphone when two Minneapolis police officers came into his room and said he was under arrest. When Pope asked why, one of the officers hit him on the head with a flashlight and choked him until he passed out. When he woke up, one of the officers had his knee on the back of Pope’s neck, and Pope asked the officer to move his knee to Pope’s lower back to help him breathe. The officer responded, “Are you going to flounce around,” before he moved his knee. At the time, Pope did not know the name of the officer, but after seeing photos of Chauvin after the killing of George Floyd, Pope believed that Chauvin was the officer in the encounter.

Thereafter Pope, now a soft-spoken bank supervisor and college student studying criminal justice, retained attorneys who investigated the case and with the aid of body-worn camera footage determined the following:

  • “That night Chauvin was acting as a field-training officer for officer Alexander Walls when the two responded to a domestic assault call at 8:45 p.m. to Pope’s home on the 5700 block of Chicago Avenue S. Pope was there with his sister and his mother, Deanna Jenkins.”
  • “Upon arrival, the officers called in a ‘Code 4,’ meaning the situation was under control and no assistance was needed. But Jenkins, who was obviously drunk, the lawsuit said, told Chauvin and Walls she wanted Pope and his sister arrested for using electricity to charge their phones.”
  • Jenkins “claimed Pope had grabbed her from behind, and with Chauvin watching, she filled out domestic assault paperwork.” The officers then went to talk to Pope in his bedroom, according to the lawsuit.
  • “The lawsuit said Chauvin held him down for 15 minutes while Pope was ‘completely subdued and not resisting,’ but crying out that he couldn’t breathe. Citing body-camera footage, the lawsuit said Jenkins asked Chauvin eight times to get off of Pope.”
  • “At least eight officers, including Walls and five others named in the lawsuit, saw Chauvin kneeling on an unmoving Pope but did nothing to stop the restraint. Chauvin was still on Pope when paramedics showed up, the lawsuit said.”
  • “Pope was taken to the hospital for stitches and then the Juvenile Justice Center where he was charged with fifth-degree domestic assault, a misdemeanor, and obstructing the legal process, a gross misdemeanor, but the charges were quickly dropped.”

In addition, the lawsuit alleges that the “kneeing maneuver” Chauvin used on Pope, Floyd and “likely many others” was Chauvin’s “calling card” despite officers knowing it posed serious risk of injury and death from positional asphyxia and that the MPD culture “encourages and enables racist, predatory police officers and unconstitutional force practices.”

Moreover, according to the lawsuit, “Chauvin’s treatment of Pope and [Zoya] Code [the plaintiff in the other new case] was available to MPD supervisors because the city maintains electronic storage of all body-worn camera footage through evidence.com. ‘But the city buried its head in the sand regarding such evidence or even worse, reviewed it and did nothing, in either case continuing to condone such actions by officers.’”

As a result, says the lawsuit, “Chauvin and six other officers violated . . . [Pope’s] constitutional right to be free from excessive force” and “that rather than discipline Chauvin for his treatment of Pope, the officer was “‘left free to prowl for more Black persons to subjugate and torture.’”

More specifically, the Complaint asserts the following claims:

  • Count I: Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Violations against Chauvin individually for compensatory and punitive damages plus costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.
  • Count II: Race Discrimination—Fourteenth Amendment Violation against Chauvin individually for compensatory and punitive damages plus costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.
  • Count III: Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Violations against six other officers individually for compensatory and punitive damages plus costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.
  • Count IV: Civil Rights Violations (Monell v. Dept. of Social Services) against the City of Minneapolis for compensatory damages plus costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.
  • Count V: Violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against the City of Minneapolis for compensatory damages plus costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.

Zoya Code Case[2]

Code, a 39-year-old mother of five alleges that in 2017 Chauvin held his knee on her back and traumatized her. She said, “I didn’t know his name. All I knew was he was a police officer with Minneapolis Police Department. I didn’t know what precinct he was at. All I knew was his face. [Chauvin] haunted me until I seen him on top of George [Floyd].” The legal bases for the five counts of this Complaint and the claimed relief are the same as the Complaint by Mr. Pope, except the latter’s Count III is only against one other officer.

Plaintiffs’ Attorneys

Mr. Pope and Ms. Code are represented by the prestigious Minneapolis law firm of Robins Kaplan LLP and three of its partners (Robert Bennett, Andrew Noel and Kathryn Bennett) along with Counsel Marc E. Betinsky and Associate Greta Wiessner.

The skills of these attorneys are demonstrated by the obviously well researched and written complaints. They are ready for battle if that is needed.

City of Minneapolis’ Reactions

In a statement, Minneapolis City Attorney Peter Ginder called the accounts of Pope and Code “disturbing. “We intend to move forward in negotiations with the Plaintiffs on these two matters and hope we can reach a reasonable settlement. If a settlement cannot be reached on one or both lawsuits, the disputes will have to be resolved through the normal course of litigation.”

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

[1]  Complaint, Pope v. Chauvin, U.S. Dist. Ct., D. MN, No.0:22-cv-01434 (May 31, 2022); Olson & Robiou, Chauvin, Minneapolis police named in two federal excessive-force lawsuits dating to 2017, involving teenager, woman, StarTribune (May 31, 2022); Vancleave, [Videotape]: Minneapolis teen recalls violent arrest by Derek Chauvin years before George Floyd, StarTribune (May 31, 2022).

[2]   Complaint, Code v.  Chauvin, U.S. Dist. Ct., D. MN, No. 0:22-cv-01438 (May 31, 2022); Olson & Robiou, Chauvin, Minneapolis police named in two federal excessive-force lawsuits dating to 2017, involving teenager, woman, StarTribune (May 31, 2022).

 

 

 

Remaining Ex-Cops in Criminal Case Over Killing of George Floyd Ask for Delay and Change of Venue for Trial

On May 31st Defendants Tou Thao and J. Alexander Kueng asked Hennepin County District Court Judge Peter Cahill to postpone their criminal trial now scheduled to start on June 13 to after federal sentencing and to change the venue for the trial to another county outside the Twin Cities.[1] They contend that it will be impossible to select an impartial jury in light of the following recent developments: the recent guilty plea from their co-defendant, Thomas Lane;[2] the February guilty verdicts for all three former officers in federal court;[3] the settling of costly civil rights lawsuits and public comments from politicians like Attorney General Keith Ellison; and the May 31st premier of the PBS Frontline/StarTribune documentary of the George Floyd killing and its aftermath.[4]

The prosecution (State of Minnesota) opposes these motions.[5] It states that this is a belated attempt “to move this case to somewhere else in Minnesota or delay proceedings for yet another year. This newest motion—Defendant Kueng’s fourth such request—does not offer new facts that warrant this court revisiting its earlier decisions and changing course at this late hour. . . . [This] latest filing is nothing more than a last-ditch attempt to evade judgment.”

Conclusion

These motions, in the opinion of this blogger, will promptly be denied.

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

[1] Defendant’s Fourth Motion for Change of Venue or Continuance, State v. Kueng, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12953 (May 28, 2022); Notice of Motion and Motion for a Change of Venue or in the Alternative a Motion for Continuance, State v. Thao, Hennepin County District Court, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12949 (May 30, 2022); Mannix, Two former Minneapolis officers charged in George Floyd killing ask judge to delay, relocate trial, StarTribune (May 31, 2022).

[2] Ex-Officer Thomas Lane Pleads Guilty to State Charge of Aiding and Abetting Manslaughter of George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (May 18, 2022);

[3] Federal Criminal Trial for Killing of George Floyd: Jury Deliberations and Verdict, dwkcommentaries.com (Feb. 25, 2022).

[4] ‘Frontline’ teams up with StarTribune for documentary on Minneapolis police, StarTribune (May 31, 2022).

[5] State’s Opposition to a Change of Venue or a Continuance, State v. Kueng & Thao, Hennepin County District Court, Court File Nos. 27-Cr-20-12953 & 27-CR-20-12949 (May 30, 2022).

President Biden’s Executive Order on Policing

On May 25, 2022, President Joe Biden signed the Executive Order on Advancing Effective, Accountable Policing and Criminal Justice Practices to Enhance Public Trust and Public Safety.[1] This lengthy Order calls for the creation of national standards for the accreditation of police departments and a national database of federal officers with substantiated complaints and disciplinary records, including those fired for misconduct. It also will instruct federal law enforcement agencies to update their use-of-force policies to emphasize de-escalation. The Order also restricts tactics like chokeholds and no-knock warrants and grants incentives to encourage state and local agencies to adopt the same standards while also banning the transfer of most military equipment to police.[2]

The signing was done on the second anniversary of the killing of George Floyd in the presence of members of his family as well as Vice President Harris, members of his Cabinet and lawmakers.

President Biden’s Comments on the Order

This order is “a measure of what we can do together to heal the very soul of this nation; to address the profound fear and trauma, exhaustion that particularly Black Americans have experienced for generations; and to channel that private pain and public outrage into a rare mark of progress for years to come.”

“Two summers ago, in the middle of a pandemic, we saw protests [about the killing of George Floyd] across the nation the likes of which you hadn’t seen since the 1960s.They unified people of every race and generation.  Athletes and sports leagues boycotted and postponed games.  Companies and workers proclaimed ‘Black Lives Matter.’  Students staged solidarity walkouts. From Europe to the Middle East to Asia to Australia, people saw their own fight for justice and equality in what we were trying to do.”

“The message is clear: Enough!”

“[A]lmost a year later, a jury in Minnesota stepped up and they found a police officer guilty of murdering George Floyd, with officers and even a police chief taking the stand to testify against misconduct of their colleagues.  I don’t know any good cop who likes a bad cop.”

But for many people, including many families here, such accountability is all too rare.  That’s why I promised as President I would do everything in my power to enact meaningful police reform that is real and lasting. That’s why I called on Congress to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, to send it to my desk.”

“This is a call to action based on a basic truth: Public trust, as any cop will tell you, is the foundation of public safety.  If they’re not trusted, the population doesn’t contribute, doesn’t cooperate.”

“For the wheels of justice are propelled by the confidence that people have in their system of justice.  Without that confidence, crimes would go unreported.  Witness[es] fear to come forward; cases go unsolved; victims suffer in isolation while perpetrators remain free; and ironically, police are put in greater — greater danger; justice goes undelivered.”

“Without public trust, law enforcement can’t do its job of serving and protecting all of our communities.  But as we’ve seen all too often, public trust is frayed and broken, and that undermines public safety.”

“The families here today and across the country have had to ask why this nation — why so many Black Americans wake up knowing they could lose their life in the course of just living their life today — simply jogging, shopping, sleeping at home.  Whether they made headlines or not, lost souls gone too soon.”

“Members of Congress, including many here today . . . spent countless hours on the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act to find a better answer to that question. The House passed a strong bill.  It failed in the Senate where our Republican colleagues opposed any meaningful reform.”

“So we got to work on this executive order, which is grounded in key elements of the Justice in Policing Act and reflects inputs of a broad coalition represented here today. Families courageously shared their perspectives on what happened to their loved ones and what we could do to make sure it doesn’t happen to somebody else. Civil rights groups and their leaders of every generation who have given their heart and soul to this work provided critical insights and perspectives. The executive order also benefits from the valuable inputs of law enforcement who put their . . . lives on the line every single day to serve.”

“Here today, I want to especially thank the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Fraternal Order of Police, as well as the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the Federal Law Enforcement [Officers] Association, the Police Executive Research Forum, Major City Chiefs Association, and others who . . . stepped up and endorsed what we’re talking about today.”

“This executive order is going to deliver the most significant police reform in decades.  It applies directly, under law, to only 100,000 federal law enforcement officers — all the federal law enforcement officers.  And though federal incentives and best practices they’re attached to, we expect the order to have significant impact on state and local law enforcement agencies as well.”

“Here are the key parts:

“First, the executive order promotes accountability.  It creates a new national law enforcement accountability database to track records of misconduct so that an officer can’t hide the misconduct. It strengthens the pattern-and-practice investigations to address  systemic misconduct in some departments.  It mandates all federal agents wear and activate body cameras while on patrol.”

Second, the executive order raises standards, bans chokeholds, restricts no-knock warrants, tightens use-of-force policies to emphasize de-escalation and the duty to intervene to stop another officer from using excessive force. . . .”

Third, “the executive order modernizes policing.  It calls for a fresh approach to recruit, train, promote, and retain law enforcement that [is] tied to advancing public safety and public trust.
Right now, we don’t systematically collect data, for instance, on instances of police use of force.  This executive order is going to improve that data collection.”

Other Comments on the Order

As an executive order, it is not as comprehensive as a federal statute on these subjects, but because of Republican opposition Congress has refused to adopt such legislation this term. Moreover, as a federal order it cannot and does not compel state and local law enforcement agencies to adopt the policies set forth in the order; instead, as previously noted, it provides incentives for state and local agencies to do so.

“Larry Cosme, president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, said the order will have the most direct impact on the nation’s 100,000 federal officers, given that Biden’s ability to act unilaterally on policies for local and state police is limited. But Cosme [also] said the document could serve as a ‘national role model for all law enforcement around the country. We’ve engaged in hundreds of hours of discussions, and this can inspire people in the state and local departments to say: ‘This is what we need to do.’”

“Cosme emphasized that the order will include sections aimed at providing more support for officer wellness, including mental health, and officer recruitment and retention at a time when many departments are facing low morale and staffing shortages. ‘No officer wants anyone, not the suspect or the victim, to lose their life. We want the maximum safety for everyone in the country.’”

The order also drew support from other leaders of major policing organizations.

Jim Pasco, the executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, said he thought the order’s revised use-of-force language would “bring more clarity and better guidance to officers” but without causing them to become so risk-averse that they fail to protect themselves and others when necessary. “It’s not a question of stricter or less strict,” Mr. Pasco said. “It’s a question of better framed. And a better-constructed definition of the use of force.” He added: “It’s not a sea change.”

Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, “It’s the nature of American policing. We don’t have a national police force, no national standards and no way of making every department comply with national standards. What this does is, when you don’t have Congress acting on a police bill, you have the president of the United States setting the tone: ‘Here’s what I expect of federal agencies and, therefore, I think state and local will follow.’”

Another supporter of the order, the NAACP by its President, Derrick Johnson, said, ‘We know full well that an executive order cannot address America’s policing crisis the same way Congress has the ability to, but we’ve got to do everything we can. There’s no better way to honor George Floyd’s legacy than for President Biden to take action by signing a police reform executive order.’”

Marc Morial, a former New Orleans mayor who is president and chief executive of the National Urban League, called the order ‘a very important step. We recognize that this process is not going to be easy. This is a long fight. I’m going to accept this first important step by the president because it’s a powerful statement, and it reflects what he can do with his own executive power.’”

The American Civil Liberties Union by Udi Ofer, its deputy national political director, offered cautious support for the executive order, saying much would depend on how it was carried out. “Correct implementation of this standard will be pivotal for its success,” he said. “We have seen jurisdictions with strong standards where officers still resort to the use of deadly force, so just having these words on paper will not be enough. The entire culture and mentality needs to change to bring these words to life, and to save lives.”

Christy E. Lopez, a Georgetown University Law professor and expert on policing issues, [3] praised the order, but noted, that the order is not self-executing, but “will take an enormous amount of effort and focus, particularly by Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Justice Department, but by other federal agencies as well, to ensure that the mandated guidance, studies, grants, task forces and databases are not only created but remain faithful to the goals of the executive order. And that is going to require advocates to keep persistent pressure on the government.” This order “is not legislation. This means, for example, that those of us who support modifying qualified immunity for officials accused of violating a plaintiff’s rights, or creating direct municipal liability for police misconduct, must still push Congress to pass the necessary laws. An even bigger limitation is that while the executive branch can provide state and local governments support and incentives to reduce the harms of policing, it cannot direct them to do so. The bulk of that work must continue to be done in cities, counties and states across the country.”

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

[1] White House, Executive Order on Advancing Effective, Accountable Policing and Criminal Justice Practices to Enhance Public Trust and Public Safety (May 25, 2022);

[2] White House, Remarks by President Biden and Vice President Harris at Signing of Executive Order to Advance Effective, Accountable Policing and Strengthen Public Safety (May 25, 2022); Biden Set to Issue Policing Order on Anniversary of George Floyd Killing, N.Y. Times (May 24, 2022); Biden signs executive order on policing on the anniversary of George Floyd’s death, Wash. Post (May 25, 2022); Biden signs police reform executive order on anniversary of George Floyd’s murder, Guardian (May 26, 2022); Lopez, Biden’s order is a good start on police reform, But Congress must also act, Wash. Post (May 27, 2022)

[3] See Importance of Pending Federal Criminal Case Over Killing of George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (Jan. 24, 2022).

Kueng and State Agree on Guilty Plea While Thao Agrees to Judge Cahill’s Deciding His Case on Existing Record

On May 18, 2022, former Minneapolis Police Officer Thomas Lane in state court pleaded guilty to the charge of aiding and abetting manslaughter of George Floyd on May 25, 2020. [1]

Before Hennepin County District Court Judge Peter Cahill, this guilty plea was part of a plea agreement which dismissed the separate charge of aiding and abetting second-degree murder and for a sentence of three years imprisonment in federal prison to be served concurrently with his upcoming sentence for his February 2022 conviction in federal court for violating Floyd’s civil rights. The state court sentencing is scheduled for September 21.[2]

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison issued a statement saying, “Today my thoughts are once again with the victims, George Floyd and his family. Nothing will bring Floyd back. He should still be with us today.” Ellison then said, “I am pleased Thomas Lane has accepted responsibility for his role in Floyd’s death. His acknowledgment he did something wrong is an important step toward healing the wounds of the Floyd family, our community, and the nation. While accountability is not justice, this is a significant moment in this case and a necessary resolution on our continued journey to justice.”  Lane’s attorney, Earl Gray, however, declined to comment on this development.

Two other ex-MPD officers, Tou Thao and J. Alexander Kueng still face state charges of aiding and abetting second-degree murder and manslaughter in Floyd’s death. That trial is scheduled to commence on June 13. [3]

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

[1] Olson, Ex-MPD officer Thomas Lane pleads guilty to manslaughter charge for role in George Floyd’s murder, StarTribune (May 18, 2022); Forlitti & Karnowski (AP), Ex-cop pleads guilty to manslaughter in George Floyd killing, Wash. Post (May 18, 2022); Ex-Minneapolis police officer pleads guilty to manslaughter in George Floyd’s death, NBC News (May 18, 2022); Minnesota Attorney General, ‘Pleased Thomas Lane has accepted responsibility ‘: Attorney general Ellison statement on guilty plea in death of George Floyd (May 18, 2022). Apparently in April, Lane, Kueng and Thao rejected a plea deal (details not publicly available) offered by the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office. (Jimenez, 3 former police officers charged in George Floyd’s death reject plea deal, CNN.com (April 13, 2022).

[2] Federal Criminal trial for Killing George Floyd: Jury Deliberations and Verdict, dwkcommentareis.com (Feb. 25, 2022).

[3] Hennepin County District Court Enters Order Regarding Trial of Three Former Minneapolis Policemen Over Killing of George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (April 30, 2022).

Presidential Historian Jon Meacham’s Remarks About Walter Mondale at His Memorial Service

At the May 1st Memorial Service for former Vice President Walter Mondale, Presidential Historian Jon Meacham delivered the following remarks.[1]

“The story begins the year before he was even old enough to vote. It was a late July afternoon in 1948, and Fritz Mondale, then all of 20, had been put in charge of the Second Congressional District for Hubert Humphrey’s U.S. Senate campaign. No one knew what second prize was. The annual Martin County Farm Bureau Federation picnic at Fox Lake Park needed a speaker, and Mr. Mondale arranged for Humphrey to headline the event.”

“The political climate was charged and complicated in that American summer. There was anxiety at home, communist aggression abroad, as a Democratic president sought to govern a fractious party and a divided country. As Mark Twain once said, history may not repeat itself, but it does rhyme. Seen as too liberal by the right and too conservative by the left, Harry Truman would say he didn’t give Republicans hell; he just told them the truth and they thought it was hell.”

“In his own party President Truman faced opposition over his desegregation of the military and his push for civil rights. Only weeks before the Martin County picnic, Mayor Humphrey’s civil rights speech at the Democratic convention in Philadelphia had helped send Dixiecrats, segregationist Dixiecrats, out of the hall and back into the Old Confederacy.”

“But far from the Olympian drama of Philadelphia, in Martin County, after the 4-H club band had played, Humphrey took the stage. He was passionate and funny. He said, ‘Kick the rascals out, and vote the new rascals in.’ Afterward Humphrey thanked his young ally, telling Mr. Mondale: ‘Your work is needed. We have so much to do.’”

“Mr. Mondale was over the moon. ‘After that day,’ he recalled, ‘I think I never stopped.’”

“’I think I never stopped.’ And we live in a better, nobler, more perfect Union because Walter Frederick Mondale never stopped.”

“Now, for the politicians in the room — and there might be one or two of you who snuck through customs — an election result: In 1948, Humphrey carried Mondale’s territory, the very Republican Second District, by 8,500 votes. It was Mr. Mondale’s first victory, and it was a sweet one, second only perhaps to his seven dates-in-six-months courtship of Joan Adams.”

“The son of a Methodist minister and farmer, as a child Walter Mondale absorbed a gospel that he never stopped seeking to put into practice: That we are summoned to love our neighbors as ourselves, to lift up the most vulnerable among us — to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to strengthen the weak.”

“There’s nothing more important — nothing more American — than that: To enlist in the perennial battle to make real the founding ideal of this nation, that we are in fact created equal.”

“Now, we can, and we will, and we do disagree about the means of governance. But at our best, Americans have agreed on the end of our common project: To give everyone, in Lincoln’s phrase, ‘an open field and a fair chance.’”

“Walter Mondale devoted his life to that cause. He never stopped seeking a fuller, freer, fairer America. And his years in the arena are testament to a truth of human experience: That the polls and the passions of the moment are just that — of the moment. Headlines come and go; history endures. The tumult of politics rage; true service stands long after the furies of the moment have passed.”

“Walter Mondale understood something fundamental: That we are at our best not when we build walls, but when we build bridges; not when we point fingers, but when we lend a hand; not when we fear, but when we hope. And from age to age, history honors those who put ‘We the People’ above the will to power; the rule of law above the reign of party; and difficult truths above self-serving fictions.”

“Now, the Mondales were a stoic people. His father, Theodore, fought a stutter, struggled to farm, went to seminary, and raised a son, Fritz, who knew hardship but lived in hope.”

“It was a hope that drove him all his life. He was born a year before the stock market crash. His childhood was shaped by the Great Depression. He believed in hard work — he liked to say that he was the only pea-lice inspector to ever become Vice President of the United States. I didn’t check it, but I think he’s on safe ground. Some might have preferred it. He served in the U.S. Army, went to law school on the GI Bill, and always gave back to the country that had made his life possible.”

“Now, he was often caricatured, as you all know, as a big-government liberal. But he’s better understood as a Cold War liberal — a man devoted, at home and abroad, to freedom and to fairness.”

“Freedom and fairness: Bear those words in mind. For they are the words that shaped Walter Mondale’s consequential life — and Lord knows they are the words that must guide us still.”

“In the struggle between democracy and dictatorship in the 20th century, Fritz Mondale cast his lot with neither the utopians of the left nor the reactionaries of the right. He stood, instead, for the centrality of the individual, for the sanctity of liberty, and for the pursuit of possibility against the totalitarian impulse.”

“As attorney general of Minnesota he was instrumental in the Gideon case that gave indigent defendants the right to counsel. He brokered the deal that would end segregation forever in the Democratic Party, long the bastion of Jim Crow.”

“And then, he came to the Senate. In the mid-1960s, in the seat that Hubert Humphrey had won the year of that Farm Bureau picnic, Sen. Mondale sensed a vital intersection of forces. To him, as he put it, it was ‘as if we took the intellectual heritage of Franklin Roosevelt, the moral inspiration of John Kennedy, and a decade of pent-up demand for social change and converted them into social reality.’ As a senator he was a crucial voice for the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He led the battle for fair housing in 1968, mastering the Senate in that essential hour.”

“And he never stopped. His causes included Title IX to open opportunities for women. Head Start and elementary and secondary education. Filibuster reform. Nutrition and antipoverty programs. Workers’ rights. Environmental protections. Consumer protections. Early attention to the crisis of climate change. The domestic side of the Church Committee, which revealed the FBI’s wiretapping and harassment of Martin Luther King Jr. The transformation of the vice-presidency in the Carter years. A challenge to apartheid that ignited the chain of events that led to the release of Nelson Mandela. And the nomination of a woman, Geraldine Ferraro, to run with him on a national ticket.”

“Walter Mondale was a giant of the Senate, a formidable vice president, and a truth-telling presidential nominee of his party who never stopped standing by principle.”

“To be sure, it was not always the smoothest of rides. Fritz Mondale knew the vicissitudes of politics as well as any American ever has. When he explored a run for president in 1976, he recalled that ‘after a year I was running six points behind ‘I Don’t Know’ … and I wanted to challenge him to a debate.’ Mr. Mondale would tell the story of Sam Donaldson’s asking Ronald Reagan in 1984, ‘What do you want for Christmas?’ And Reagan: ‘Minnesota.’ When Mondale went to ask George McGovern when did it stop hurting to lose the presidency, Sen. McGovern said, ‘I don’t know. I’ll tell you when it happens.’”

“Walter Mondale loved his family. He loved fishing, Shakespeare, Dairy Queen, the United States Senate, Hubert Humphrey, cigars and the state of Minnesota.”

“And most of all he loved America — its complexities and its hopes, its promise and its possibilities. He thought of himself as a public servant, as a citizen with an obligation to the common good. To him, government was not the enemy, or the problem, but rather a manifestation of love of neighbor and of country.”

“On the night of his defeat in 1984 he spoke not only to the moment, as painful as it was, but to history, saying: ‘Let us continue to seek an America that is just and fair. That has been my fight … I’m confident that history will judge us honorably.’”

“And so it has.”

“One of Mr. Mondale’s favorite verses of scripture tells us much. ‘I have fought the good fight,’ St. Paul said; ‘I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.’” [2 Timothy 4:7]

The first part of that chapter of Second Timothy is quoted less often, but is worth remembering. ‘Preach the word,’ the apostle wrote; ‘be prepared in season and out of season.’” [2 Timothy 4: 1-2]

“In season and out of season — justice knows no season. Truth knows no season. Freedom knows no season. Fairness knows no season. Walter Mondale knew that. He lived by that. And today we salute him for that.”

“There are children in America today who will not go hungry because of Fritz Mondale. There are Black people in America today who can vote, and work, and live more freely and fairly because of Fritz Mondale. There are women in America today who see no limit to their dreams because of Fritz Mondale. There are safer cars in America, there are rivers of clean water in America, there are enclaves of untouched wildlife in America today because of Fritz Mondale.”

“He never stopped believing in this country. He never stopped fighting for its people. And thankfully, he never stopped defending democracy.”

“He never stopped. And nor, in his memory, must we.”

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

[1] Read presidential historian Jon Mecham’s remarks at Walter Mondale’s memorial service, StarTribune (May 2, 2022). Professor Meacham is the Carolyn T. and Robert M. Rogers Chair in American Presidency at Vanderbilt University.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Memorial Service for Walter Mondale 

On May 1, 2022, a memorial service for Walter “Fritz” Mondale was held at the University of Minnesota’s Northrup Auditorium. He had died on April 19, 2021, but a service at that time was not possible because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and his son, Ted, said his father “didn’t want to lie in state; he didn’t want to be in Washington, he wanted to be here with you” because “you reflected what he would care about and who he is.”[1]

Remarks at the Service

Remarks at this service were provided by U.S. President Joe Biden, former U.S. Presidents Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, Minnesota’s U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, former Minnesota Governor Arne Carlson, University of Minnesota President Joan Gabel, Larry Jacobs (the Walter F. and Joan Mondale Chair for Political Studies at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota), Jon Meacham (the Robert M. Rogers Chair in the American Presidency at Vanderbilt University), Josie Johnson (Minnesota civil rights icon), Rev. Tim Hart-Andersen (senior pastor at Mondale’s Minneapolis church, Westminster Presbyterian) and Mondale’s sons, Ted and William. (Some of these comments will be contained in subsequent posts.)

Similar comments were voiced by others in the Washington Post.[2]

The Song “Tomorrow”[3]

The song “Tomorrow” from the musical “Annie,” one of Mondale’s favorite songs, was sung at the memorial service by 14-year-old Lillian Hochman from Hopkins, Minnesota. She had met Mondale when she was in preschool with his granddaughter and subsequently joined her family for weekend breakfasts with Mondale while he followed her budding stage career with Minneapolis’ Children’s Theater Company. Although he was out of town when she performed in “Annie” in 2017, he told her that the show was his favorite.

Lillian is pretty sure she knows why this song was a favorite for Mondale. She said the title character in the show sings this song to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, promising that despite the Great Depression, “the sun’ll come out tomorrow.” The song is “really about bringing hope to a nation and to the president, which I think is one reason for it’s [being Mondale’s] favorite song and show.”

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

[1] Bierschbach & Nelson, Leaders, family and friends remember “Fritz” Mondale, StarTribune (May 1, 2022); Vice President Walter F. Mondale ’56 Eulogized at Memorial Service at Northrup, University of Minnesota (May 1, 2022); Remarks by President Biden at the Memorial Service of Vice President Walter Mondale, White House (May 2, 2022); Baker, Biden Extols Mondale as ‘One of the Great Giants of American History,’ N.Y. Times (May 1, 2022); Regan & Viser, Biden pays tribute to friend and mentor Walter Mondale, Wash. Post (May 1, 2020); Mena, Biden Honors Walter Mondale at Memorial, W.S.J. (May 1, 2022); Klobuchar Delivers Remarks At Memorial Service for Former Vice President Walter Mondale (May 1, 2022); Excerpts from speeches and letters read at Walter Mondale’s memorial service, StarTribune (May 2, 2022); Read presidential historian Jon Mecham’s remarks at Walter Mondale’s memorial service, StarTribune (May 2, 2022).

[2] Mannes, Analysis: Her’s what Kamala Harris owes to Walter Mondale, Wash. Post (April 25, 2021); Balz, Mondale lost the presidency but permanently changed the office of vice presidency, Wash. Post (April 19, 2021); Tumulty, Opinion: Walter Mondale reinvented the vice presidency. Both Biden and Harris should thank him for it, Wash. Post (April 19, 2021).

[3] Hewitt, ‘Annie’ star sang tribute to family friend Walter Mondale at memorial, StarTribune (May 2, 2022).

 

 

 

 

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 6th and 14th
  • 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 6th and 14th 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.