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.

 

 

Hennepin County District Court Enters Order Regarding Trial of Three Former Minneapolis Policemen Over Killing of George Floyd 

On April 25, 2022, Hennepin County District Court Judge Peter A. Cahill issued the Trial Scheduling and Management Order and Memorandum Opinion regarding the June 13, 2022, commencement of the trial of three former Minneapolis policemen (Tou Thao, Thomas Kiernan Lane and J. Alexander Kueng) over the killing of George Floyd on May–, 2020.[1]

Trial Management Order

  1. Specified information about any expert witnesses not previously disclosed shall be submitted by May 1, 2022.
  2. Motions in limine shall be submitted by May 13, 2022, with supporting memoranda by May 20 and responsive memoranda by June 3.
  3. Trial witness lists shall be submitted by May 13, 2022.
  4. Trial exhibit lists and proposed jury instructions shall be submitted by June 10, 2022.
  5. Trial will commence at 9:00 a.m. on June 13, 2022, in Hennepin County Courtroom C-1856.
  6. Limits at trial on the number and conduct of the parties’ attorneys or support staff were specified.
  7. Limits at trial on the number and conduct of spectators at trial for the Media Coalition and the George Floyd and defendants’ families were specified.
  8. Hearing on motions in limine or administrative matters will be heard on June 13, 2022, and, if necessary, on subsequent days.
  9. Jury selection will begin on June 14, 2022.
  10. Jurors and potential jurors shall be partially sequestered.
  11. Opening statements and presentation of evidence will begin on July 5, 2022.
  12. Witnesses, prior to testifying, shall be sequestered.
  13. Audio and video recording and livestreaming of the trial will not be allowed except as expressly permitted by Minn. R. Gen. P. 4.02(d).
  14. At least three overflow courtrooms with audio and video feed from the trial courtroom will be provided for family members of George Floyd and the defendants, the media and the public.

The Court’s Memorandum Opinion

The last 27 pages of this Court document set forth the legal bases for the following conclusions:

  • The Minnesota Rules of Practice Do Not Currently Authorize Livestreaming of Trials Over the Objection of a Party;
  • The Unusual and Compelling Circumstances of the Covid-19 Pandemic at the Time of the Chauvin Trial Have Substantially Abated and the Supreme Court Rules in Force in the First Half of 2021 Mandating Social Distancing, Mask Wearing, and Other Precautionary Measures Due to the Covid-19 Pandemic Are No Longer in Force, Obviating Resort to Rule 1.02;
  • This Court Now Is Precluded by Rule 4.02(d) from Ordering Livestreaming of the Trial Over Objections of the Defendants; and
  • Partial Jury Sequestration Is Appropriate.

Reactions [2] 

An attorney for the Media Coalition, which wanted livestreaming of the trial, said that this order was “deeply disappointing [because] thousands of people interested in this important trial won’t be able to watch it. The court’s decision is based on its view that, with the world returning to normal after the pandemic, it must revert to Supreme Court rules that require everyone involved to consent to cameras before they are allowed. The defendants don’t consent. Our Supreme Court needs to change the rule. They are working on it. I wish they could have worked faster.”

Minnesota Assistant Attorney General, Matthew Frank, in a motion before the issuance of this order, said that prohibiting a livestream after allowing one during Chauvin’s trial could harm public confidence in the process. “In the public’s mind, this trial and Chauvin are linked. If this court eliminates audio-visual coverage at this late hour, the broader public may receive the unintended message that they no longer have the right to observe proceedings.”

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

[1] Trial Scheduling and Management Order and Memorandum Opinion, State v. Thao, Lane & Kueng, Hennepin County District Court files 27-CR-20-12949, 27-CR-20-12951, 27-CR-20-12953 (April 25, 2022).

[2] Mannix, Judge: Trial of 3 ex-Minneapolis police officers in George Floyd death won’t be livestreamed, StarTribune (April 26, 2022); Karnowski (AP), Trial of 3 ex-officers in Floyd death won’t be livestreamed, StarTribune (April 26, 2022).

U.S. State Department’s Latest Report on Cameroon Human Rights

On April 12, 2022, the U.S. State Department released its 2021 Country Reports on Human Rights. This report is the latest annual report for nearly five decades that “strive[s] to provide a factual and objective record on the status of human rights worldwide.” The 2021 report covers 198 countries and territories. [1]

Cameroon Human Rights[2]

Here is the outline of the details on the status of various human rights in each of the 198 countries and territories, including Cameroon:

Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person

  1. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings
  2. Disappearance
  3. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading treatment or Punishment
  4. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention
  5. Denial of Fair Public Trial
  6. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, Or Correspondence

Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties

  1. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media
  2. Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association
  3. Freedom of Religion
  4. Freedom of Movement and the Right To Leave the Country
  5. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced People
  6. Protection of Refugees

Section 3.  Freedom to Participate in the Political Process

Section 4.  Corruption and Lack of Transparency in Government

Section 5.  Governmental Posture Towards International and           Nongovernmental Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights

Section 6.  Discrimination and Societal Abuses

Section 7. Worker Rights

Executive Summary of Cameroon Human Rights

The report on Cameroon begins with the following Executive Summary.

“Cameroon is a republic dominated by a strong presidency. The president retains power over the legislative and judicial branches of government. The ruling political party, the Cameroon People’s Democratic Movement, has remained in power since its creation in 1985. The country held legislative elections in February 2020 that were marked by irregularities. The ruling party won 152 of 180 National Assembly seats. Paul Biya has served as president since 1982. He was last reelected in 2018 in an election marked by irregularities.”

“The national police and the national gendarmerie are responsible for internal security. The former reports to the General Delegation of National Security and the latter to the Secretariat of State for Defense in charge of the Gendarmerie. The army shares some domestic security responsibilities; it reports to the minister delegate at the presidency in charge of defense. The Rapid Intervention Battalion reports directly to the president. Civilian and military authorities did not maintain effective control over the security forces. There were credible reports that members of the security forces committed numerous abuses.”

“Casualties rose in the Anglophone crisis in the Northwest and Southwest Regions. Anglophone separatists used improvised explosive devices with greater success. ISIS-West Africa increased attacks in the Far North Region. The government continued to crack down on the opposition Cameroon Renaissance Movement, and in December several of its members were sentenced to prison for terms ranging from one to seven years following protests in 2020.”

“Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings, including extrajudicial killings by the government and nonstate armed groups; forced disappearances by the government; torture and cases of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the government and nonstate armed groups; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrests or detention; political prisoners or detainees; serious problems with the independence of the judiciary; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; punishment of family members for offenses allegedly committed by an individual; serious abuses in a conflict, including abductions and unlawful recruitment and use of child soldiers by nonstate armed groups; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media, including violence, threats of violence, or unjustified arrests or prosecutions against journalists, censorship, and criminal libel laws; substantial interference with the right of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, including overly restrictive laws on the organization, funding, or operation of nongovernmental organizations and civil society organizations; serious restrictions on freedom of movement; inability of citizens to change their government peacefully through free and fair elections; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; serious government corruption; lack of investigations and accountability for gender-based violence; trafficking in persons; crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex persons; and the existence or use of laws criminalizing same-sex sexual conduct between adults.”

“Although the government took some steps to identify, investigate, prosecute, and punish officials who committed human rights abuses or corruption, it did not do so systematically and rarely held public proceedings. Impunity remained a serious problem.”

“Armed separatists, Boko Haram and ISIS-West Africa, and criminal gangs also committed human rights abuses, some of which were investigated by the government.”

Conclusion[3]

Commenting on this report, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said governments around the world, including Russia and China, grew more repressive last year. One example was the increasingly brazen way governments were “reaching across borders to threaten and attack critics” while some governments such as Cuba, Egypt and Russia were quick to lock up critics at home. Blinken also noted there had been “a serious erosion of human rights” in Afghanistan.

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

[1] U.S. State Dep’t, 2021 Country Reports on Human Rights (April 12, 2022).

[2] U.S. State Dep’t, 2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Cameroon (April 12, 2022).

[3] Crowley, U.S. Report Describes a Global Retreat on Human Rights and Democracy, N.Y. Times (April 12, 2022);U.S. State DRyan, Human rights and democracy eroding worldwide, U.S. finds, Wash. Post (April 12, 2022).

 

U.S. State Department’s Latest Report on Cuban Human Rights

On April 12, 2022, the U.S. State Department released its 2021 Country Reports on Human Rights. This report is the latest annual report that for nearly five decades has striven “to provide a factual and objective record on the status of human rights worldwide.” The 2021 report covers 198 countries and territories. [1]

Cuban Human Rights[2]

Here is the outline of the details on the status of various human rights in each of the 198 countries and territories, including Cuba:

Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person

  1. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings
  2. Disappearance
  3. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading treatment or Punishment
  4. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention
  5. Denial of Fair Public Trial
  6. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, Or Correspondence

Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties

  1. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media
  2. Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association
  3. Freedom of Religion
  4. Freedom of Movement and the Right To Leave the Country
  5. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced People
  6. Protection of Refugees

Section 3.  Freedom to Participate in the Political Process

Section 4.  Corruption and Lack of Transparency in Government

Section 5.  Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights

Section 6.  Discrimination and Societal Abuses

Section 7. Worker Rights

Executive Summary of Cuban Human Rights

The report on Cuba begins with the following Executive Summary.

“Cuba is an authoritarian state. The 2019 constitution codifies that Cuba remains a one-party system in which the Communist Party is the only legal political party. On April 19, President Miguel Diaz-Canel replaced former president Raul Castro as first secretary of the Communist Party, the highest political entity of the state by law. Elections were neither free nor fair nor competitive.”

“The Ministry of Interior controls police, internal security forces, and the prison system. The ministry’s National Revolutionary Police are the primary law enforcement organization. Specialized units of the ministry’s state security branch are responsible for monitoring, infiltrating, and suppressing independent political activity. The national leadership, including members of the military, maintained effective control over the security forces. There were credible reports that members of the security forces committed numerous abuses, and the number of political prisoners increased dramatically, with many held in pretrial detention under extremely harsh and degrading conditions.”

“On January 28, security forces violently arrested more than 20 artists and journalist peacefully protesting in front of the Ministry of Culture for the release of detained artists. On July 11, spontaneous peaceful protests broke out across the island. In the largest and most widespread demonstrations in decades, tens of thousands of citizens across the country poured into the streets to demand an end to repression as well as to criticize the government’s failure to meet their basic needs and its poor response to COVID-19. Social media posts helped spread news of the protests among citizens. Security forces responded with tear gas, beatings, and arrests. First Secretary of the Communist Party and President Miguel Diaz-Canel went on national television to call on “all revolutionaries and communists to confront these protests,” a reference to Article Four of the 2019 constitution, which gives citizens the right to “combat through any means, including armed combat” any who “intend to topple the political, social, and economic order established by this constitution.” Many of those arrested reported cruel and degrading treatment in prison. In October authorities denied permission for a protest planned for November 15 and threatened organizers. The government conducted summary trials for some protesters; sought long prison sentences, some up to 30 years, in hundreds of cases; and held other protesters in extended pretrial detention. Some activists chose to go into exile, and the government forced others to do so.”

“Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings, including extrajudicial killings, by the government; forced disappearance by the government; torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of political dissidents, detainees, and prisoners by security forces; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrests and detentions; political prisoners; serious problems with the independence of the judiciary; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; reprisals against family members for offenses allegedly committed by an individual; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media including violence or threats of violence against journalists, censorship, and criminal libel laws used against persons who criticized government leadership; serious restrictions on internet freedom; severe restrictions on the right of peaceful assembly and denial of freedom of association, including refusal to recognize independent associations; severe restrictions on religious freedom; restrictions on internal and external freedom of movement; inability of citizens to change their government peacefully through free and fair elections, including serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; serious government corruption; a lack of investigation of and accountability for gender-based violence; trafficking in persons, including forced labor; and outlawing of independent trade unions.”

“Government officials, at the direction of their superiors, committed most human rights abuses. As a matter of policy, officials failed to investigate or prosecute those who committed these abuses. Impunity for the perpetrators remained widespread, as was impunity for official corruption.”

Conclusion[3]

Commenting on this report, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said governments around the world, including Russia and China, grew more repressive last year. One example was the increasingly brazen way governments were “reaching across borders to threaten and attack critics” while some governments such as Cuba, Egypt and Russia were quick to lock up critics at home. Blinken also noted there had been “a serious erosion of human rights” in Afghanistan.

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

[1] U.S. State Dep’t, 2021 Country Reports on Human Rights (April 12, 2022).

[2] U.S. State Dep’t, 2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Cuba (April 12, 2022).

[3] Crowley, U.S. Report Describes a Global Retreat on Human Rights and Democracy, N.Y. Times (April 12, 2022).; Ryan, Human rights and democracy eroding worldwide, U.S. finds, Wash. Post (April 12, 2022).

 

Federal Criminal Trial for Killing George Floyd: Jury Deliberations and Verdict

On February 23, U.S. District Court Judge Paul Magnuson gave the Court’s instructions to the jury, and the jury engaged in their deliberations for the rest of the day and most of the next day. On the afternoon of February 24, the jury rendered its verdict. [1]

                                                     Jury Instructions

The Judge told the jurors they must view the evidence in light of what a “reasonable officer at the scene” would have done “without the benefit of 20-20 hindsight” and then “determine whether the decision to use force on Floyd was reasonable under the circumstances that were tense and rapidly evolving.” 

Moreover, “it violates the Constitution for a police officer to fail to intervene if he had knowledge of the force and an ability to do so.” 

On each count, if the jurors find an officer guilty, they must determine whether the officer’s actions caused Floyd’s death. (If the jury so finds, longer sentences would be permissible.)

                                                        Jury Verdict [2]

On the afternoon of February 24, after total deliberations of 13 hours over two days, the jury rendered its verdict that all three defendants were guilty of all charges.

                                            Reactions to the Verdict [3]

Afterwards, Assistant U.S. Attorney LeeAnn Bell said, “[A]s one of the brave bystanders said, ‘George Floyd was a human being.’ He deserved to be treated as such.”

George Floyd’s brother, Philonise Floyd, said, “This is something we want everybody to remember: If you kill somebody, you’re going to get time.”

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison stated, “Once again, the principle that no one is above the law and no one is beneath it has been upheld. The verdicts vindicate the principle that officers have a duty  and a responsibility to intervene and recognize when a fellow officer is using excessive force.”

Christy E. Lopez, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and an expert on police training, commented that this verdict “could significantly change law enforcement culture, compelling agencies to make sure that officers are properly trained and are upholding their duties. It shifts the entire narrative from misconduct being about just acts of commission to misconduct also being about acts of omission.” [4]

Other experts noted that “this case focused on a more widespread problem than a single officer’s act of violence: the tendency of officers to stand by when they witness a fellow officer committing a crime.”

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

[1] Olson & Mannix, Jury wraps first day of deliberating federal civil rights case against 3 ex-Minneapolis officers in George Floyd death, StarTribune (Feb. 23, 2022); Bogel-Burroughs, Jurors to Weigh Fate of Officers Who Restrained George Floyd as He Died, N.Y. Times (Feb. 22, 2022).

[2]Olson & Mannix, Ex-Minneapolis officers guilty on all civil rights charges related to George Floyd’s death, StarTribune (Feb. 24, 2022); Former Minneapolis Police Officers Found Guilty of Violating George Floyd’s Civil Rights, W.S.J. (Feb. 24, 2022); Former Minneapolis officers found guilty of violating George Floyd’s civil rights, Wash. Post (Feb. 24, 2022).

[3] Walsh, Reaction to guilty verdicts ranges from proper police accountability to worries of chilling effect on cops, StarTribune (Feb. 24, 2022); Arango, Bogel-Burroughs & Senter, 3 Former Officers Are Convicted of Violating George Floyd’s Civil Rights, N.Y. Times (Feb. 24, 2022).

[4] See Importance of Pending Federal Criminal Case Over Killing of George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (Jan. 24, 2022)(discussion of Professor Lopez’ work on police training), https://dwkcommentaries.com/2022/01/24/importance-of-pending-federal-criminal-case-over-killing-of-george-floyd/

 

Federal Criminal Trial for Killing George Floyd: Closing Arguments

On February 22, 2022, the United States for the prosecution and the attorneys for the defendants Tou Thao, J. Alexander Kueng and Thomas Lane presented their closing arguments to the jury. [1]

The Charges Against the Defendants

Thao and Kueng are charged with failing to intervene on Floyd’s behalf while the two of them and Lane are charged with with failing to provide medical aid to Floyd while Derek Chauvin was using unreasonable force.

Prosecution’s Closing Argument

Assistant U.S. Attorney Manda Sertich emphasized the length of time that Mr. Floyd had suffered while the officers did not provide aid. They watched and listened, but did not help as Chauvin killed a man “in broad daylight on a public street.” They knew Floyd needed aid. They had been trained that every second counted to start life-saving procedures for an unresponsive man. They had the ability to help, but they didn’t.

Thao had “done nothing” for 4 minutes and 40 seconds as Floyd called out for help. Instead he “mocked” Floyd by telling bystanders that this is “why you don’t do drugs, kids.” During that same time, Kueng ignored Floyd’s pleas as he crouched “shoulder to shoulder” with Chauvin, never urging him to let up. Kueng also laughed when Chauvin said the dying man talked a lot for someone who said he couldn’t breathe. Lane, who was holding Floyd’s legs, had chosen “not to stop the horror unfolding under his nose, only suggesting that Chauvin roll Floyd onto his side, but  “doing nothing to give Floyd the medical aid he knew he so desperately needed.”

Even as Floyd said he could not breathe for a 27th time, the officers “were only halfway through their crime.”

The falsity of the defense is proved by ordinary citizen bystanders, including a nine-year old, who cried out for the officers to intervene. “These civilians didn’t have a badge. They didn’t have other officers who could back them up. They knew these officers had more power than they did, more authority than they did and could cause trouble for them. And they still insisted.”

“These defendants knew what was happening, and contrary to their training, contrary to common sense, contrary to basic human decency,” they “chose not to aid George Floyd, as the window into which Mr. Floyd’s life could have been saved slammed shut. This is a crime. The defendants are guilty as charged.”

Defendants’ Closing Arguments

The three defense counsel collectively argued that their clients had deferred to the judgment of Chauvin, the senior officer on the scene; that their attention had at times been diverted from Floyd’s deteriorating condition; and that restraining Floyd was necessary because he had taken fentanyl and earlier had refused to get into the back of a squad car after being accused of using a counterfeit $20 bill to buy a package of cigarette.

Defense counsel also argued that the prosecution had made misleading arguments and that this case had been brought because of political pressure.

Lane’s attorney noted that he had asked Chauvin if they should roll Floyd onto his side and thus had not been charged with failure to intervene. In addition, when paramedics had arrived, Lane told them that Floyd was unresponsive and then Lane rode with Floyd in the ambulance and applied chest compressions.

Kueng’s attorney said the crowd of bystanders had created an unusual and hostile situation.

Prosecution Rebuttal

Another Assistant U.S. Attorney, LeeAnn Bell, emphasized that the key to the case was a police officer’s duty: “In your custody, in your care.”

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

[1] Mannix & Olson, In closing arguments at trial of three former Minneapolis officers, attorneys spar over ‘willful intent,’ StarTribune  (Feb. 22, 2022); Mannix, Defense of former officers puts Minneapolis ‘paramilitary’ training on trial, StarTribjne (Feb. 22, 2022); Barrett, Prosecutor Says Ex-Officers ‘Chose to Do Nothing’ in Floyd arrest, W.S.J. (Feb. 22, 2022);

Federal Criminal Trial for Killing George Floyd: Defendant Thomas Lane Testimony

On February 22, 2022, Defendant Thomas Lane took the witness stand to provide his testimony in defense of the charges that he illegally deprived George Floyd of his constitutional rights. The following is a summary of that testimony based on the cited newspaper articles. [1]

Lane’s Personal Background

Lane began by his life and background. He grew up in Arden Hills, Minnesota and attended Mounds View High School and earned an associate’s degree from Century College before attending the University of Minnesota and deciding to pursue a career in law enforcement.

He will be turning 39 in a couple of weeks. His wife and he are expecting their first child soon.

Lane’s Minneapolis Police Department Background

In February 2019 he was accepted by the MPD and completed his training in December of that year. The training taught them that in cases of excited delirium officers were to keep the person from “thrashing, hold them in place” until paramedics arrive to inject ketamine. Under cross examination, he admitted that they were trained if someone did not have a pulse to start CPR within 5 to 10 seconds with Lane’s qualifier “if the situation allows.”

During the first five months of 2020 he had been on about 120 calls as a probationary officer.

                              Lane’s Encounter with George Floyd

On May 25, 2020, Lane on his fourth shift as a full-fledged officer and fellow rookie officer, J. Alexander Kueng, were the first officers answering a call of alleged forgery in progress at Cup Foods in south Minneapolis.

After being told by someone at Cup that the suspect was outside in a car across the street, Lane went there and gave commands to the suspect (Floyd) and after he got out of the car, Lane handcuffed him. Soon thereafter Lane had Floyd sit on a sidewalk with his back against a wall and he did not try to get up or escape.

Later when Chauvin arrived and pinned Floyd on the ground with his knee, Lane held down Floyd’s legs and Kueng restrained his midsection. After about four minutes, Lane noticed that Floyd had stopped resisting and Lane said, “Should we roll him on his side?” But Chauvin said, “Nope, we’re good like this.” 

Later Lane said he didn’t always have a clear view of what Chauvin was doing, but that his knee “appeared to be just kind of holding [him] at the base of the neck and shoulder.” When he could not see Floyd’s face, Lane asked again to roll him over to “better  asses” his condition. Chauvin did not respond and instead asked if Lane and Kueng were OK.

Lane felt reassured when an ambulance arrived and a paramedic checked Floyd’s pulse while  retrieving a stretcher without urgency, leading Lane to believe that “Floyd’s all right.” 

Lane choked up and became teary as he described why he went in the ambulance to help the paramedics. “Just based on when Mr. Floyd was turned over, he didn’t look good, and I just felt like , the situation, he might need a hand.”

In the ambulance, Lane realized Floyd had gone into cardiac arrest. 

During cross examination, Lane agreed that “fear of negative repercussions , fear of angering a field training officer [like Chauvin] is not an exception to the duty to render aid.”

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

[1] Olson & Mannix, After Lane takes stand, testimony concludes in the trial of three former Minneapolis police officers charged with abusing George Floyd’s civil rights, StarTribune (Feb. 21, 2022); Arango, Former Officers Finish Defense in Trial   Over George Floyd’s Death, N.Y. Times (Feb. 21, 2022); Bailey, Defense rests after testimony from former Minneapolis officer who said he tried to get Chauvin to reposition Floyd, Wash. Post (Feb. 21, 2022).

Federal Criminal Trial for Killing of George Floyd: Other Witnesses for Defendant J. Alexander Kueng

Federal Criminal Trial for Killing of George Floyd: Other Witnesses for Defendant J. Alexander Kueng  

A prior post reviewed the testimony of Defendant J. Alexander Kueng. Here are summaries of the other witnesses he put forward.1

Joni Kueng. The first witness for Kueng was his mother, Joni Kueng, who testified briefly that he had played the peacemaker among the family siblings.

Steve Ijames, a use-of-force instructor and a retired assistant police chief in Springfield, Missouri, as a defense expert, testified that MPD’s training on an officer’s duty to intervene to stop other officers from using excessive force was ineffective because it relied too heavily on lectures instead of hands-on training and testing to ensure that  trainees learned the right lessons. Indeed, such training must emphasize demonstrations and testing to ensure that the attendees absorbed the subject matter. “Just because you sat through a class doesn’t mean you learned anything.”

Ijames, however, testified that Chauvin’s continued force after Floyd stopped fighting was unreasonable “beyond question.” But according to Ijames, Kueng lacked the training and experience to recognize that inappropriate use of force and thus it made sense for Chauvin to defer to Chauvin. However, Ijames admitted that it was conceivable that Kueng could have walked around and checked Floyd’s neck without moving or disturbing Chauvin.

Gary Nelson, a retired MPD lieutenant and field training officer, testified that it made sense for the other officers to let Chauvin take charge of the scene, especially since Kuenig and Thomas Lane were rookies. “Somebody needs to be in charge” and there isn’t always time to deliberate.

However, under cross examination, Nelson agreed that officers are not obligated to follow clearly unlawful orders and that they are accountable for their actions and inactions.

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

  1. Mannix & Olson, Kueng testifies of attempting to place Floyd in squad: “I felt like I had no control,’ StarTribune (Feb. 16, 2022); Karnowski & Webber, Prosecutors question officer in Floyd killing about training, AP News (Feb. 17, 2022); Mannix & Olson, Kueng says he didn’t see ‘serious medical need’ when George Floyd fell unresponsive, StarTribune (Feb. 17, 2022).

 

 

 

Federal Criminal Trial for Killing of George Floyd: Defendant J. Alexander Kueng’s Testimony 

On February 16-17, Defendant J. Alexander Kueng took the witness stand in his federal criminal trial. Here is a summary of his testimony.[1]

Kueng first described his growing up in north Minneapolis, the oldest of five children as the son of a Black father and white mother. He attended Sheridan Elementary School and Patrick Henry High School. Police officers often came to his home because of problems created by his younger siblings. This prompted his not being a “fan of police” and later his decision to become a police officer to do a better job.

He went to college in New York State to play soccer. But after tearing his ACL, he returned home and graduated from the University of Minnesota with a degree in sociology and criminology. He then worked in security and loss prevention at Macy’s on Nicollet Mall and then was a community service officer with the MPD before the 2018 Super Bowl in the city.

On May 25, 2020, Kueng was a rookie policeman, only a few days off  probationary status.

Although he was in the first squad car on the scene and, therefore, was supposed to be the one in charge, everyone knew “it’s always the senior officer who is in charge,” i.e., Derek Chauvin, who was “very quiet, by the book, knowledgeable and commanding respect from other officers.” Chauvin was “fair but tough.”

At the scene, Kueng discussed his early attempt to push George Floyd into the back seat of a squad car. Floyd pushed back, slamming Kueng’s face on the Plexiglass divider in the car. “His behavior just went to extreme measures. He started shaking very violently and seemed to have no pain response.” This prompted Kueng to wonder if this man was suffering from excited delirium. “I felt I had no control. I felt like any moment he could shove me off.”

A little later Kueng, who was kneeling on George Floyd’s back, while Derek Chauvin had his knee near Floyd’s neck and Thomas Lane held his legs, testified that he was concerned about their ability to stop Floyd from thrashing around and, therefore, disagreed with Lane’s suggestion of changing the restraint. Instead, Kueng trusted and deferred to Chauvin as his senior officer.

Indeed, he agreed with his counsel’s suggestion that cadets are taught unquestioned obedience to their superiors, especially in light of probationary officers being subject to being  fired at will. He believed that Chauvin could still have him unilaterally terminated. As a result, he worried about that possibility on every shift. Therefore, he never told Chauvin to get off Floyd. “I would trust a 19-year veteran to figure it out.”

When Kueng could not find a pulse for Floyd, who was face down on the street, he told Chauvin that he could not find a pulse and assumed that it was up to Chauvin to check for a more accurate assessment and make decisions on the “difficult balance between scene safety and medical care.” Kueng also said he was unable to confirm that  Floyd did not have a pulse because he was unable to check for a carotid pulse as he had been trained.

Kueng also described his training of how to secure a site and the need to check someone’s neck pulse if he or she is in distress.

Under cross examination, Kueng was shown material from an emergency medical responder course he took that said someone might not be breathing adequately even though the person was talking and listed things to check for. Kueng agreed that such a situation called for reassessment and agreed that he was trained to roll someone on his side to help him breathe.

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

[1] Karnowski & Webber, Officer Charged in Floyd killing says he deferred to Chauvin, AP News (Fe. 16, 2022); Mannix & Olson, Kueng testifies of attempting to place Floyd in squad: “I felt like I had no control,’ StarTribune (Feb. 16, 2022); Karnowski & Webber, Officer charged in Floyd killing says he deferred to Chauvin, AP News (Feb.17, 2022); Karnowski & Webber, Prosecutors question officer in Floyd killing about training, AP News (Feb. 17, 2022),  Olson & Mannix, Kueng says he didn’t see ‘serious medical need’ when George Floyd  fell unresponsive, StarTribune (Feb. 17, 2022),