Court Affirms Livestreaming of George Floyd Criminal Trial  

On November 5, Hennepin County District Court Judge Peter Cahill ordered that the joint criminal trial of the four defendants—Derek Chauvin, J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao–subject to the conditions contained in the order, including livestreaming. Thereafter the State objected to livestreaming while it was supported by the Media Coalition. [1]

On December 18, the Judge affirmed its original order for such coverage of the trial and denied the State’s motion to reconsider that order. [2]

The latest order conceded that the Court’s allowing audio and video coverage exceeds that allowed by Minn. Gen. R. Prac 4.02(d), but pointed out that another provision of these rules (1.02) ‘provides that ‘[a] judge may modify the application of [the General Rules of Practice] in any case to prevent manifest injustice.’

The Court concluded this latest order with this statement.  “[T]he State’s suggested procedures to accommodate the Defendants’ Sixth Amendment rights [to a public trial] and the public’s and press’ First Amendment rights to a public trial would be, at best, inadequate, and at worst, mere lip-service to the Defendants’ and the public’s constitutional rights.” (P. 7.)

Conclusion

With this order and the previous order denying the motions for sanctions against the State for alleged deficiencies in discovery, the only pending motions awaiting decision are (i)  Lane’s motion to reconsider joinder of the four defendants for one trial; (ii) the  State’s objection to evidence of Floyd’s prior incident with the Minneapolis police; and (iii) Chauvin and Lane’s objections to the State’s intent to offer evidence of prior incidents involving Chauvin’s alleged use of excessive force.[3]

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

[1] Court’s Orders Regarding Criminal Trial of Defendants in George Floyd Killing, dwkcommentaries.com (Nov. 5, 2020)(order for livestreaming); Parties’ Latest Reactions to Issues for Trial in George Floyd Criminal Cases, dwkcommentaries.com (Nov. 18, 2020)(includes State’s objection to livestreaming); Recent Developments in George Floyd Criminal Cases, dwkcommentaries.com(Dec. 12, 2020)(summary of State’s arguments against livestreaming); George Floyd Cases: Media for Livestream; Chauvin Criticizes State’s Disclosures, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 15, 2020).

[2] Order Denying Motions To Reconsider and Amend Order Allowing Audio and Video Coverage of Trial, State v. Chauvin, Dist. Ct. File 27-CR-20-12646 (Dec. 18, 2020); Sawyer, Judge upholds decision to livestream trial of officers in George Floyd killing, StarTribune (Dec. 18, 2020).

[3] Parties’ Latest Reactions to Issues for Trial in George Floyd Criminal Cases, dwkcommentaries.com (Nov. 18, 2020).

Court Issues Order on Expert Disclosures in George Floyd Criminal Cases     

On December 17, Hennepin County District Court Judge Peter Cahill ordered the following:[1]

  • On January 11 at 3:00 p.m. a Zoom remote hearing will be held for consideration of “[v]arious motions by Defendants for continuation of the trial date, attorneys’ fees, and other sanctions for the State’s alleged discovery violations.” (Para. C)
  • By January 15, “All Defendants shall provide initial expert disclosures of experts’ names, curricula vitae and general subject matter on which they will give testimony. (Para. A)
  • By January 19, “the State shall disclose expert reports and findings, and complete written summaries of the subject matter of each expert’s testimony.” (Para. B)
  • By February 8, “Defendants shall disclose expert reports and findings, and complete written summaries of the subject matter of each expert’s findings.” (Para. B)
  • All such expert disclosures “must include all findings, opinion, or conclusions by which each expert is expected to testify; the basis for the findings, opinions and conclusions; and each expert’s qualifications, if not already evident from curricula vitae.” (Para. B.)

On the next day, December 18, the State filed a brief responding to defendant Thao’s motion for sanctions.[2] Its Introduction succinctly says what is amplified in the reset of its pages:

  • “At issue in Thao’s motion are two documents held by the United States Attorney’s Office: notes taken by and FBI agent of an interview of Dr. Baker [the Hennepin County Medical Examiner] and a letter from Dr. Baker, through his legal counsel, clarifying those notes. The State did not initially have possession or control of these documents, but diligently sought to obtain them.” Once the State obtained them, the State promptly disclosed the documents to the defendants in a matter of days.”
  • Although Thao allegedly found out about this purported discovery violation on October 28 [when these two documents were provided by the State, he] filed this motion on December 11, just four days before his December 15 deadline to make expert witness disclosures. . . {Therefore, his] unfounded allegation of a discovery violation appears to be nothing more than cover for a request for more time to meet his discovery violation.”

This skirmish over discovery seems obviated by the above Court order.

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

[1]  Order, Expert Witness Disclosure Deadlines and Hearing on Defendants’ Motions for Trial Continuance, State v. Chauvin, Dist. Ct. File 27-CR-20-12646 (Dec. 17, 2020).

[2]  State’s Response to Defendant Thao’s Motion for Sanctions and Hearing Regarding Discovery by State, State v. Thao, Dist. Ct. File NO. 27-CR-20-12949 (Henn. Cty. Dist. Ct. Dec. 18, 2020). Thao’s motion for sanctions is discussed in the fourth section of Recent Developments in George Floyd Criminal Cases, dwkcomentaries.com (Dec. 12, 2020).