Yesterday’s post and comment provided a preview for today’s hearing.[1] Here are some more details for the hearing, again following the Agenda for the hearing.
State’s Motions
- Motion for Joint Trial.[2]
On September 10, the State submitted a 28-page reply in support of its motion for a joint trial, but time constraints do not allow for its examination and summary in this post.
One of the issues for this motion is whether or not the defendants have antagonistic defenses. Here are more details on that issue.
Chauvin’s attorney has said that his client did not know the full picture of what was happening when he and Thao arrived later on the scene to find Lane and Kueng struggling to get Floyd into the back seat of their squad car. The attorney also suggested that these other two had mishandled the scene by not doing enough to try to calm Floyd, by failing to administer naloxone and by delaying the request for an ambulance and thereby causing the death.
Chauvin and Thao also may argue that as late arrivals on the scene they were deferring to Lane and Kueng irrespective of their lack of seniority and rank.
Thao will emphasize his “human traffic cone” role while the other three were physically restraining Floyd.
Lawyers for Lane and Kueng, both rookies, have emphasized that they were following the orders of their superior, Chauvin, and that Lane twice tried to intervene to get Floyd turned over, but Chauvin refused. Kueng also may testify about faulty training by Chauvin on how to handle a detention while Kueng and Thao may point to the history of 18 complaints about Chauvin’s conduct as an officer.
Lane’s attorney said, “It is plausible that all officers have a different version of what happened and officers place blame on one another.”
All four, however, apparently are arguing that Floyd’s death was accelerated by drugs in his system
Defendants’ Motions
- Discovery Motions.[3]
Late on September 9, the State submitted a response to such motions from all four defendants. Here are its main points:
- The State already had disclosed the Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s complete file and that although the State had no obligation to disclose the autopsy reports by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner and by experts retained by the Floyd family (Drs. Baden and Wilson), the State had asked these persons for these documents and if they are so provided, the State would provide them to the defendants.
- With respect to Floyd’s 5/5/19 incident with the MPD, the State had requested any body worn camera footage from the MPD and, if it exists, it would be provided; the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office has no record of a referral for prosecution; and any other prosecuting agencies are not within the State’s control.
- The State stated there is no factual basis for the request for documents on Floyd’s acting as an informant and gang affiliations and the requests were denied.
- If possible, the State will produce the MPD training PowerPoints in the original format.
- The State denied the request for the State’s document indices as privileged attorney work product.
- The State already has produced the MPD Internal Affairs Public Summaries for all four defendants, but opposes any other disclosure.
Conclusion
On a separate note, there are planned protests near the courthouse on the day of the hearing. As a result, windows on government buildings have been boarded up and law enforcement officials are setting up a perimeter to keep protesters at a distance.
In fact, the hearing will be held in the nearby Family Justice Center, where the Hennepin County Family Court is located, in downtown Minneapolis.
==============================
[1] Preview of 9/11/20 Hearing for George Floyd Criminal Cases, dwkcommentaries.com (Sept. 10, 2020); Comment: Rule 44 Evidence Motions: More Details, dwkcommentaries.com (Sept. 10, 2020). See also Xiong, Several key issues at stake Friday morning in Hennepin County court hearing in George Floyd case, StarTribune (Sept. 10, 2020).; Collins, Judge to hear arguments Friday in Floyd killing case, MPRNews (Sept. 11, 2020).
[2] State’s Reply in Support of Motion for Joinder, State v. Chauvin, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Hennepin county District Ct. Sept. 10, 2020); Bailey, Former Officers charged in George Floyd killing turn blame on each other, Wash. Post (Sept. 10, 2020),
[3] State’s Response to Defendants’ Motions To Compel Disclosure, State v. Chauvin, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Hennepin county District Ct. Sept. 9, 2020)