More Details on 9/11/20 Hearing in George Floyd Criminal Cases

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

  1. 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

  1. 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)

Preview of  the 9/11/20 Hearing in George Floyd Criminal Cases

This preview will follow the Agenda for the 9/11/20 hearing in the four George Floyd criminal cases that has been set by the Hennepin County District Court Judge Peter Cahill.[1]

State’s Motions

  1. Motion for Joint Trial[2]

On August 12, the State asked the court to consolidate all four of the cases for one trial on the grounds that the charges and evidence in all four cases are similar; that there would be less negative impact on witnesses and family members; the defenses of the four ex-officers were not antagonistic; and the interests of justice would be advanced.

Unsurprisingly all of the four defendants are opposing this motion. Here is a summary of their arguments: Chauvin: other defendants likely to blame Chauvin, whose defenses are likely to blame the others and thus they are mutually antagonistic; trying Chauvin first is the sensible approach which would dictate the need for, and scope of, any other trials. Kueng: different evidence on whether and how the defendants worked in close concert; no particularly vulnerable witnesses; antagonistic defenses; interests of justice do not favor joinder. Lane: likely antagonistic defenses with each defendant having different version of what happened and who is to blame, forcing jury to choose between defendants’ testimonies. Thao: Minnesota has favored separate trials; unknown if “overwhelming majority” of evidence will be same in all the cases; Thao did not work in close concert with the others; impact on Floyd family is not a factor; nature of Floyd’s death does not favor joinder; antagonistic defenses are highly likely; COVID-19 favors separate trials with smaller gatherings at each.

  1. Motion to Submit Aggravating Factors to Jury (Blakely)[3]

Under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 2996 (2004), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial can be violated any time the court imposes a sentence greater than that called for in the guidelines, even when the sentence imposed is below the maximum punishment permitted by the legislature.

On August 28, the State gave notice of its intent to seek an upward sentencing departure for Chauvin on the grounds that Floyd was particularly vulnerable and was treated with particular cruelty by Chauvin, that Chauvin abused his position of authority, committed the crime as part of a group of three or more offenders who actively participated in the crime and in the presence of multiple children.

  1. Motion for Expert Witness Disclosure[4]

On August 28, the State moved for establishing deadlines of disclosure of expert witnesses with the following suggestions: Initial Expert Disclosures (12/08/20) and full Expert Disclosures (01/08/21).

Defendants’ Motions

  1. Motions for Change of Venue[5]

All four defendants have moved for change of venue with the following arguments: Chauvin (excessive pretrial publicity in Twin Cities); Lane (transfer to Washington or Dakota County because fair trial impossible in Hennepin County); Thao (fair trial impossible In Hennepin County; change to St. Louis, Clay or Crow Wing County); Kueng (prejudicial publicly in Hennepin County; change to  another county “outside the seven-county metro area, such as Stearns County or another county with appropriate facilities and demographics”).

  1. Jury Sequestration and Anonymity Motion[6]

On August 28, Thao moved for jury sequestration and juror anonymity due to “the notoriety of the case.”

  1. Motion to Disqualify HCAO [Hennepin County Attorney’s Office][7]

The only apparent motion to disqualify the HCAO was filed on August 6 by the attorney for Kueng on the ground that the County Attorney had made prejudicial comments about the defendants, and the very next day (August 7) Judge Cahill denied the motion.

Thus, this must be an erroneous agenda item.

  1. Rule 404 Evidence Motions[8]

On August 27, Kueng gave notice that he may offer at trial evidence regarding  (1) the circumstances of (a) Floyd’s 05/06/19 arrest by MPD; (b) Floyd’s 05/06/19 medical intervention at Hennepin County Medical Center; and (c) Floyd’s 08/09/07 arrest and subsequent conviction in Texas for Aggravated Robbery with a Deadly Weapon.

  1. Discovery Motions[9] On August 24, Thao filed a motion to compel discovery of the following regarding the investigation and death of Floyd; (1) complete Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Office file; (2) any and all reports and autopsies performed by Dr. Michael Baden; (3) any and all reports and autopsies performed by Dr. Allecia Wilson; and (4) entire Office of the Armed Forces Medical examiner file.

On August 28, Chauvin filed a motion for the State’s disclosure of (1) body worn camera/audio from MPD CN-201 9-127538 from Floyd’s arrest; (2) files pertaining to Floyd’s cooperation as an informant for the MPD, FBI or any other state or federal law enforcement agency; (3) files documenting Floyd’s activity as a gang member or affiliate within the past five years; (4) information regarding Floyd’s 05/06/19 drug possession/sale investigation; (5) training materials with active imbedded links to video portions; and (6) index to State’s document disclosures.

Administrative Matters

  1. Jury Selection
  • Method
  • Preemptory Challenges
  1. In-Court Presence/COVID-19 Restrictions
  2. Overflow rooms/Audio-Visual Coverage
  3. Overnight/Special Transcript Requests
  4. Trial Length/Daily Schedule

Substantive Matters

The Judge already has announced that the only substantive matters—the four defendants’ motions to dismiss for alleged lack of probable cause for the criminal charges—will be decided on the briefs and factual record without argument at the hearing.[10] The only new details on these motions is the State’s recent opposition to Defendant Kueng’s dismissal motion and its future opposition to the recent Chauvin motion. [11]

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

[1] Agenda for Court’s 9/11/20 Hearing in George Floyd Criminal Cases, dwkcommentaries.com (Sept, 2, 2000); Comment: More Informed Reaction to Agenda, dwkcommentaries.com (Sept. 7, 2020).

[2] Prosecution Requests One Trial for the Four Former Policemen Charged with Floyd Killing, dwkcommentaries.com (Aug. 13, 2020); Chauvin’s Memorandum of Law Opposing the State’s Joinder Motion, State v. Chauvin, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Hennepin County Dist. Ct. Sept. 8, 2020); Lane’s Defense Objection to State’s Motion for Joinder, State v. Lane, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12951 (Hennepin County Dist. Ct. Sept. 8, 2020); Kueng’s Objection to the State’s Motion for Joinder, State v. Kueng Court File No. 27-CR-20-12953 (Hennepin County Dist. Ct. Sept. 8, 2020); Thao’s Memorandum in Opposition to State’s Motion for Joinder, State v. Thao, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12949 (Hennepin County Dist. Ct. Sept. 8, 2020);  Xiong, Attorneys for former officers in George Floyd murder case want separate trials, StarTribune (Sept. 8, 2020).

[3]  State’s Notice of Intent To Seek an Upward Sentencing Departure, State v. Chauvin, et al.,Court File No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Hennepin County Dist. Ct. Aug. 28, 2020).

[4] State’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Expert Disclosure Deadlines, State v. Chauvin, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Hennepin County Dist. Ct. Aug. 28, 2020).

[5] Chauvin’s Notice of Motions and Motions To Change Venue and Reserve Ruling, State v. Chauvin, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Hennepin County Dist. Ct. Aug. 28, 2020); Lane’s Notice of Motion and Motion To Change Venue, State v. Lane, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12951 (Hennepin County Dist. Ct. Sept. 8, 2020);  Thao’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Change of Venue, State v. Thao, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12949 (Hennepin County Dist. Ct.Aug. 28, 2020); Defendant Kueng Moves for Dismissal and Change of Venue in George Floyd Case, dwkcommentaries.com (Aug. 28, 2020).

[6] Thao’s Notice of Motion and Motion To Sequester Jurors, State v. Thao, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12949 (Hennepin County Dist. Ct.Aug. 28, 2020).

[7]  Court Denies Ex-Officer Kueng Motion To Remove County Attorney from George Floyd Criminal Case, dwkcommentaries.com (Aug. 7, 2020).

[8] Kueng’s Notice of Additional Evidence, State v. Kueng, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12953 (Hennepin County Dist. Ct. Aug. 27, 2020).

[9] Thao’s Motion to Compel Disclosure, State v. Thao, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12949 (Hennepin County Dist. Ct.Aug. 24, 2020); Chauvin’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Disclosure, State v. Chauvin, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Hennepin County Dist. Ct. Aug. 28, 2020).

[10] See these posts to dwkcommentaries.com: Ex-Officer Lane Moves for Dismissal of Criminal Charges for George Floyd Killing (July 9, 2020);  Comment: Prosecutors Oppose Ex-Cop Thomas Lane’s Dismissal Motion (Aug. 12, 2020); Prosecution Opposes Lane’s Dismissal Motion (Aug. 21, 2020); Lane’s Reply to Prosecution’s Opposition to Dismissal of Complaint (Aug. 22, 2020); Ex-Officer Thao Moves for Dismissal of Criminal Charges for George Floyd Killing  (July 30, 2020); Defendant Thao’s Dismissal Motion (Aug. 25, 2020); Prosecution Opposes  Defendant Thao’s Dismissal Motion for George Floyd Killing (Aug. 27, 2020); Defendant Kueng Moves for Dismissal and Change of Venue in George Floyd Case (Aug. 28, 2020); Chauvin Motion To Dismiss Criminal Complaint (Sept. 9, 2020).

[11] State’s Response Opposing Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Probable Cause, State v. Kueng, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12953 (Hennepin County Dist. Ct. Sept. 8, 2020); Exhibits to State’s Response Opposing Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Probable Cause, State v. Kueng, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12953 (Hennepin County Dist. Ct. Sept. 8, 2020). See generally List of Posts to dwkcommentaries–Topical: George Floyd Killing.

 

Agenda for Court’s 9/11/20 Hearing in George Floyd Criminal Cases      

On September 1, Hennepin County District Court Judge Peter Cahill issued an order establishing the following agenda for the September 11th hearing in the four criminal cases over the killing of George Floyd. [1]

State’s Motions

  1. Motion for Joint Trial
  2. Motion to Submit Aggravating Factors to Jury (Blakely)
  3. Motion for Expert Witness Disclosure

Defendants’ Motions

  1. Motions for Change of Venue
  2. Jury Sequestration Motion
  3. Anonymous Jury Motion
  4. Motion to Disqualify HCAO [Hennepin County Attorney’s Office]
  5. Rule 404 Evidence Motions
  6. Discovery Motions

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

  1. Jury Selection (Method; Peremptory challenges)
  2. In-Court Presence/COVID-19 Restrictions
  3. Overflow rooms/Audio-Visual Coverage
  4. Overnight/Special Transcript Requests
  5. Trial Length/Daily Schedule

The Order also stated that this Agenda was “subject to modification at the hearing itself.” In addition:  “Further briefing may be ordered or requested by the parties. Barring an order for further submission, the Court will consider those matters to be under advisement as of September 11, 2020 with a 90-day order deadline [or until December 10]. The court will attempt, however, to issue some if not all decisions on or before October 15, 2020. Motions to dismiss for lack of probable cause will be decided on briefs and accompanying exhibits.”

Reactions

Although this blogger had anticipated the court’s issuing an agenda for the upcoming hearing, the above agenda was surprising in several respects.

First, the relegation of the four dismissal motions to the briefs and accompanying exhibits (without oral argument) was the greatest surprise to this retired attorney without any criminal law experience.  I had thought the first item on the agenda would be the dismissal motions with Chauvin’s first focused on the murder and manslaughter charges. Then the court would consider the three other dismissal motions focused on the aiding-and abetting issues. Does this relegation of these motions to the papers indicate that Judge Cahill already has made up his mind on these motions and merely needs time to do definitive research and write the decisions?

Second, the “Administrative Matters” all apparently assume the trial or trials will be held by the same court. Does this suggest Judge Cahill already has decided to deny the motions to change venue? Does it also suggest that the Judge has decided to grant the prosecution’s motion for joint trial although that is the first item on the agenda?

Third, although this blogger has frequently checked the court’s public list of materials in these four cases, some of the items in the Court’s agenda for the upcoming hearing are not familiar.

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

[1]  Scheduling Order and Joint Motion Hearing Agenda, State v. Chauvin, Thao, Lane & Kueng (Hennepin  County District Court, State v. Chauvin, Thao, Lane & Kueng, Dist. Ct. File 27-CR-20-12646 [& 12949, 12951 & 12953] September 1, 2020).

 

Judge Cahill’s Memorandum Opinion Explaining His Order for Release of BodyCam Videos  

On August 11, Hennepin County District Court Judge Peter Cahill issued a Memorandum Opinion providing the factual findings and legal conclusions [1] for his August 7th Order granting the motion of the Media Coalition for copies of two of the BWC (body-worn camera) videos of George  Floyd’s arrest and killing.[2]

Preliminarily the Judge said, with citations of decisions by the U.S. and Minnesota Supreme Courts, “Cases that generate intense public interest and media scrutiny highlight the tension between two fundamental rights: the right guaranteed under the federal and state constitutions to criminal defendants to receive a fair trial before an impartial jury, on the one hand, and the right of the public and press to attend public trials, on the other hand.” Moreover, “The open processes of justice serve an important prophylactic purpose, providing an outlet for community concern, hostility, and emotion,” as was true in this very case. (P. 4.)

“The Court is committed to the management of pretrial proceedings and the eventual trial(s) not only to vindicate the public’s and press’ right of access guaranteed by the First Amendment, the common law, and court rules but also Lane and his fellow co-defendants’ Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial, and this Court’s and the parties’ interests in seeing that justice be done by a fair and objective jury determining the facts based solely on evidence that will be admitted at trial.” (P.8.)

In so doing, the court has conducted “all hearings in these cases in public . . . [with] overflow courtrooms to facilitate the presence of interested members of the public and press.” The court “has also created special websites for each of these cases in which all publicly-available documents that have been filed . . are made available to the public and press by remote access.” (P. 9.)

The court had issued a Gag Order on July 9th in an attempt “to mitigate what some colloquially characterize as efforts ‘to try the case in the press, to seek to avoid or at least to ameliorate the prospects of unduly tainting the prospective jury pool engendered by the intense media interest and reporting on these cases, and to seek to vindicate the Defendants’ rights and the State’s interest in ensuring justice is done in these cases by a fair and impartial jury deciding whether the Defendants or guilty or not guilty on the State’s charges based solely upon the evidence produced during trial, not based upon media reporting, public speculation, and extraneous information, inadmissible at trial, circulating during the months of pretrial preparation.” (Pp. 10-11.) [3]

The Memorandum Opinion then set forth its legal reasoning for its conclusions: (1) the Media Coalition has standing to intervene (pp. 11-13); (2) the media and the public have a right under the common law and court rules to obtain copies of the BWC videos, under cited U.S. and Minnesota Supreme Court decisions and Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure and Rules of Public Access to Records of the Judicial Branch. (Pp. 13-19.)

Important for the court, “based on the representations [of all counsel] were the following ” all council expect the [two BWC videos in question] . . . will be admitted into evidence at the trial, that allowing members of the public and the press to obtain copies of those BWC videos does not, at this stage of the proceedings, present a substantial likelihood of interfering with the fair and impartial administration of justice and the defendants; rights to a fair trial.”

The court did not find it necessary to decide whether the media had a first amendment right to obtain copies of the videos. (Pp. 19-22.)

In a footnote, the court noted that “the fractious, highly partisan, and segmented niches served by the modern-day media and journalists . . . should resoundingly dispel the notion that journalists, as a profession, can be depended on ‘to produce complete, accurate accounts of what transpires.” (Fn. 8 at 7-8.)

Conclusion

 This was a well-reasoned and written opinion.

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

[1] State v. Lane, Opinion on Order Granting Motion of Media Coalition To Obtain Copies of Publicly-Filed Body-Worn Camera Video Evidence, (Court File No. 27-CR-20-12951, Hennepin County District Court, Aug. 11, 2020); Xiong, Judge says he withheld broad distribution of bodycam videos in George Floyd killing to preserve fair trial, StarTribune (Aug. 12, 2020).

[2] State v. Lane, Order Granting Motion of Media Coalition To Obtain Copies of Publicly-Filed, Body-Worn Camera Video Evidence, (Court File No. 27-CR-20-1295, Hennepin County District Court, Aug. 7, 2020); Court Orders Public Release of Bodycam Footage of George Floyd Arrest and Killing, dwkcommentaries.net (dwkcommentaries.net (Aug. 8. 2020).

[3] See Gag Order in George Floyd Murder Cases, dwkcommentaries.com (July 9, 2020).

Prosecution Requests One Trial for the Four Former Policemen Charged with Floyd Killing

On August 12, the prosecution in the four George Floyd murder and manslaughter cases asked  the trial court to consolidate all the cases for one trial, currently scheduled to start on March 8.[1]

Technically this was a motion for joinder of the four cases under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 17.03, subd. 2, which “when two or more defendants are charged with the same offense,” the court has discretion for them to be tried jointly after considering the following four factors: (i) “the nature of the offense charged;” (ii) “the impact on the victim;” (iii) “the potential prejudice to the defendant;” and (iv) “the interests of justice.”

The brief in support of the motion said, “First, the nature of the offenses supports joinder because of the similarity of the charges and evidence against all four Defendants. Second, the victim-impact factor favors joinder because this factor has been interpreted broadly to include the impact on eyewitnesses and family members who would likely be traumatized by multiple trials. Third, Defendants are unlikely to be prejudiced by joinder because their defenses are not antagonistic. Finally, the interests of justice favor joinder because, among other things, separate trials would cause delay and impose burdens on the State, the Court, and witnesses, and trial-related publicity may compound the difficulty in selecting a jury in subsequent trials. This Court should therefore grant the motion and order the joinder of all four Defendants’ trials.”

For this retired attorney without criminal law experience, this sounds like a very strong argument. The toughest point appears to be whether or not any of the four defendants would be prejudiced by a consolidated trial.

According to the Minnesota Supreme Court, says the prosecution, “the potential prejudice to the defendants—weighs against joinder only if Defendants show that they will present ‘antagonistic defenses’ at trial,” i.e., “when they seek to put the blame on each other and the jury is forced to choose between the defense theories advocated by the defendants.” Moreover, says the prosecution, The Minnesota Supreme Court has identified two narrow categories of cases in which antagonistic defenses are likely to be present;” (1) “where the state introduce[s] evidence that show[s] only one of the defendants killed the  victim, thus forcing each defendant to ’point the finger’ at the other;” and (2) “when the jury is ‘forced to believe the testimony of one defendant or the testimony of the other’ in order to reach a verdict.” Moreover, under Minnesota Supreme court precedents, “arguments about disparate levels of responsibility among the defendants are not enough to render defenses antagonistic.”

Moreover, the prosecution says, “the four defendants are likely to raise common defenses.,” such as the use of force was reasonable or necessary, or that the Defendants’ actions did not cause Floyd’s death.”

The evidence for the motion was provided in exhibits to the Affidavit of Assistant Attorney General Matthew Frank: the body worn camera video of defendants J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao (Exs. 1-3);[2] copies of the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension interviews of Lane and Thao (Exs. 4 & 5); Minneapolis Police Department’s Policy and Procedure Manual (pertinent portions) (Ex. 6); Hennepin County Medical Examiner Autopsy Report (Ex. 7); Hennepin County Medical Examiner Press release Report (Ex. 8); and Armed Forces Medical Examiner report (Ex. 9).

The defendants’ responses to this motion are due September 8 for the September 11 hearing.

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

[1] Xiong, Prosecutors seek permission for one trial for all four former officers charged in George Floyd’s killing, StarTribune (Aug. 12, 2020); State v. Chauvin, State’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Joinder, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Aug. 12, 2020); State v. Chauvin, Affidavit of Matthew Frank, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Aug. 12, 2020); State v. Chauvin, Exhibits Attached to Affidavit of Matthew Frank, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Aug. 12, 2020)(Exhibits 4 and 5 were copies of the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension interviews of former officers Lane and Thao on flash drive, which were not available online); State v. Chauvin, State’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Joinder, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Aug. 12, 2020); State v. Chauvin, Scheduling Order, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Aug. 13, 2020).

[2]  The bodycam video of defendant Thao has not previously been reported. According to the Associated Press, it shows for the first time “the growing horror of nearly a dozen onlookers who repeatedly pleaded with the officers to get off Floyd. One of the bystanders, a black man wearing a Northside Boxing Club sweatshirt yells at Chauvin to ‘”get off his (expletive) neck, Bro” and asks Thao “You gonna keep him like that? “You gonna let him kill that man in front of you, Bro? Bro, he’s not even (expletive) moving right now, Bro.” When a woman who identifies herself as a Minneapolis firefighter arrives, Thao yells at her, ‘Back off!” She, however, persists and asks if the officers have checked the man’s pulse.(Assoc. Press, Ex-Cop’s Video Captures Crowd’s Horror During Floyd Arrest, N.Y. Times (Aug. 13, 2020); Bailey, Owens, Griffiths & Wolfrom, Live updates: New footage released of George Floyd’s fatal encounter with police, Wash. Post (Aug. 13, 2020).)

 

 

 

Court Orders Public Release of Bodycam Footage of George Floyd Arrest and Killing   

On August 7, Hennepin County District Court Judge Peter Cahill ordered the public release of the bodycam footages of the arrest and killing of George Floyd that were made by criminal defendants and former police officers Thomas Lane and J. Alexander Kueng.[1]

The Judge’s order said, “Members of the Media Coalition, as well as other media and members of the public, may obtain copies” of the footage. The order, however, did not elaborate on the rationale for his ruling, nor on how or when the footage would be released.

On July 13, the so called Media Coalition of local and national media companies had filed with the court a motion for the immediate release of this footage. The Coalition argued that the court’s allowing these videos to be viewed only at the courthouse by appointment violated state laws, court rules and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.[2]

The Media Coalition consists of the StarTribune; American Public Media, which owns Minnesota Public Radio; the Associated Press; CBS Broadcasting Inc.; Dow Jones & Co., publisher of the Wall Street Journal; Hubbard Broadcasting; Hubbard Broadcasting, which owns a Minnesota television broadcaster (KSTP-TV); and the New York Times Co., among others.

S===================================

[1] Simons, Judge orders release of Minneapolis police body camera video from the night George Floyd was killed, StarTribune (Aug. 7, 2020); Judge orders release of body camera video showing Floyd killing, MPRnews (Aug. 7, 2020).

[2] Media Coalition Asks Court To Release BodyCam Footage of George Floyd Killing, dwkcommentaries.com (July 14, 2020).

 

Court Denies Ex-Officer Kueng Motion To Remove County Attorney from George Floyd Criminal Case    

On August 6, Thomas Plunkett,the attorney for former Minneapolis police officer J. Alexander Kueng filed a motion to have Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman removed from the team of prosecuting attorneys.[1]

According to the motion papers, Freeman ‘cannot act to protect Mr. Kueng’s right to a fair trial as they have already proclaimed his guilt in numerous public statements. Mr. Freeman has called the death of Mr. Floyd a ‘senseless death’ and that he is sympathetic to the Floyd family.” In addition, Freeman allegedly “also commented that the video of the incident from a bystander ‘is graphic, and horrific and terrible, and no person should do that.” Therefore, these papers argue, “Mr. Freeman’s comments leave no doubt that justice is not his objective in the Kueng prosecution. Mr. Freeman has fomented public anger and now seeks to taint that anger with hatred through the prosecution of Mr. Kueng. He has abdicated his duties as a prosecutor and must be removed from the case.”

Kueng’s lawyer also asserted that Freeman’s office leaked information about potential plea negotiations, which he knew “would be widely reported and have a significant impact on the local community, potential jurors, and the nation.”

The very next day (August 7) without any response from the County Attorney and without a hearing, Hennepin County District Judge Peter Cahill denied the motion. The Judge said the attorney (Thomas Plunkett) had failed to establish that there was a conflict of interest and “failed to provide legal authority for the removal of a prosecutor by the Court, even if the allegations of improper conduct are true.”[2]

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

[1] Browning, Motion seeks removal of Hennepin County Attorney from case of officer charged in Floyd killing, StarTribune (Aug. 6, 2020); Assoc. Press, Ex-Cop’s Lawyer Wants Prosecutor Dropped From Floyd Case, N.Y. Times (Aug. 6, 2020).

[2]  Assoc. Press, Judge: Mike Freeman will stay on ex-cop’s case in Floyd death, StarTribune (Aug. 7, 2020.

 

British Newspaper Releases Bodycam Footage of George Floyd’s Arrest and Killing 

On August 3, a British newspaper’s website, Daily Mail.com, released about 10 minutes of the bodycam footage of former Minneapolis police officer Thomas Lane and about 18 minutes of ex-officer J. Alexander Kueng’s showing the May 25th encounter and killing of George Floyd.[1]

The Daily Mail’s online article says the footage “was leaked to DailyMail.com” and “is revealed exclusively by” that site. The article includes photos of some segments of the video as well as a button to push “Watch the full video.”  The article also includes the newspaper’s textual descriptions of what is seen on the videos and, in some instances, the newspaper’s interpretations of the encounter:

  • “It is clear from the video that Floyd was not trying to run away. He had plenty of time to leave the scene before police arrived. But instead he decided to sit in his car with two friends, giving the cops the opportunity to approach.”
  • “It shows a rookie officer terrifying Floyd by pointing a handgun at his head.”
  • “’Hey man, I’m sorry,’ Floyd says and apologizes again before Lane gets belligerent. ‘Put your f***ing hands up right now! Let me see your other hand,’ the cop is heard saying.”
  • “Floyd resisted as the cops tried to force him into the back of the car, telling them he suffers from claustrophobia and anxiety.”
  • “The tapes show in minute detail how a very distressed Floyd begs ‘Mr. Officer, please don’t shoot me. Please man,’ before the struggle that ended with his death.”
  • “It also shows how belligerent cops cursed at and manhandled the sobbing suspect, ignoring his pleas for compassion.”
  • “Floyd is even heard predicting his own death. ‘I’ll probably just die this way,’ he says.”
  • It shows an officer “callously picking a pebble from the squad car tire just inches from the dying man and seconds before he draws his last breath.”

The release of the videos was in violation of an order by Hennepin County District Judge Peter Cahill, who had made the videos available by appointment for public viewing at the courthouse on condition they not be recorded or publicly distributed. The court provided laptop computers for watching the videos to the scheduled viewers, who were required to not have their own computers and phones with them.[2]

The Daily Mail’s videos appear to have been recorded by an electronic device when they were shown on one of the court’s computers. The Daily Mail did not say how it had obtained the footages other than they had been “leaked.”

A court spokesman, Spencer Bickett, said the Court was aware of the leak, that an investigation was underway and that “The court will provide no further comment on this matter at this time.”

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison stated that he was not the source of the leak and that his office “will continue to take the strictest precautions to ensure a fair trial.”

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

 

[1] Gould, EXCLUSIVE: Police bodycam footage shows moment-by-moment arrest of George Floyd for the first time-from terror on his face when officer points gun at his head, sobbing before he’s shoved into a squad car and begging to breathe as his life drains away. DailyMaiol.com (Aug. 3,  2020); Wax-Thibodeaux, Bailey & Berman, Protests live updates: Daily Mail publishes ‘leaked’ police body-cam footage of George Floyd arrest, Wash. Post (Aug. 3, 2020); George Floyd Case: Daily Mail Obtains Body Cam Video from 2 Officers in Floyd’s Arrest Death, CBS Minnesota (Aug. 3, 2020); Assoc. Press, British Paper Publishes Police Bodycam Video of Floyd Arrest, N.Y. Times (Aug. 3, 2020); Xiong, Daily Mail publishes leaked bodycam footage of George Floyd arrest, killing, StarTribune (Aug. 3, 2020).

[2] See Gag Order in George Floyd Murder Cases, dwkcommentaries.com (July 9, 2020);  Media Coalition Asks Court To Release BodyCam Footage of George Floyd Killing, dwkcommentaries.com  (July 14, 2020); Journalist’s Report on viewing Two Bodycam Footages of George Floyd Killing, dwkcommentaries.com:  (July 15, 2020); Bodycam video shows officer pulled gun on George Floyd early on, StarTribune (July 16, 2020). See also List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: George Floyd Killing.

 

 

 

 

Derek  Chauvin and Tou Thau Object to Gag Order 

On July 13, that attorney for Derek Chauvin, one of four defendants in the criminal cases over the death of George Floyd, filed an objection to Judge Peter Cahill’s gag order. in addition, the attorney for another defendant, Tou Thau, filed a motion to vacate the gag order.[1]

That order, it is argued, violates Chauvin’s federal and state constitutional rights to free speech and a fair trial. The attorney asserted, “For more than a month, the press, popular figures, high ranking politicians, and the attorney leading this prosecution [Ellison] — as well as his councilman son — have all rendered their verdicts in this case and on the most public stages possible. And they have all deemed the Defendant guilty.” By issuing that order before Chauvin or his attorney had made any public statement, the court effectively has allowed “the repeated and unmitigated condemnation of a criminal defendant by non-party public officials and celebrities.” As a result, the jury pool already allegedly has been tainted.

Chauvin’s attorney also argued that “the judge inappropriately issued the order without citing legal authority or convening a hearing on the matter, depriving Chauvin of his constitutional right to due process.”

Therefore, that attorney requested the court to vacate the order.

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

[1] Xiong, Attorney for Derek Chauvin objects to judge’s gag order in George Floyd death, StarTribune (July 13, 2020); Chauvin’s attorney objects to gag order in George Floyd case, MINNPOST (July 13, 2020), That gag order was issued on July 9. (Gag Order in George Floyd Murder Cases, dwkcommentaries.com (July 9, 2020).)

 

 

The Criminal Complaints Against the Other Three Policeman Involved in George Floyd’s Death 

As is now well known, four Minneapolis policemen were involved in the May 25th death of George Floyd.

On May 29th and June 3rd criminal charges were filed against Derek Chauvin, the one who placed his knee against Floyd’s neck; the later superseding pleading set forth charges of second and third degree murder and second degree manslaughter, all as discussed in a prior post.

Also on June 3rd Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison filed criminal charges against the other three policemen who were involved—Thomas K. Lane, J.A. Kueng and Tou Thao: aiding and abetting second degree murder and second degree manslaughter.[1]

In announcing these new charges and the additional charge against Chauvin, Ellison said the cases were still under investigation and encouraged anyone with additional evidence to come forward and cooperate. “We are following the path of all evidence, wherever it leads. We are investigating as quickly as we can, because speed is important. We are also investigating as thoroughly as we can, because thoroughness is also important — and thoroughness takes time.”

“[Such] thoroughness is important because every link in the prosecutorial chain needs to be strong. It needs to be strong because trying this case will be hard. Winning a conviction will be hard. I say that not because I doubt our resources or abilities or resolve, but because history shows that trying and winning a case like this one is hard.“[2]

At their initial hearing in June bail for each of the three officers was set at $1 million (without conditions) and $750,000 (with conditions), and on June 10 Lane posted bail of $750,000 and was released from jail.[3]

Here we will examine and analyze the specific allegations of these charges against the other three policemen.

Criminal Charges Against the Other Officers

All three face the same two Counts:

Count I. Aiding and Abetting Second Degree Murder (Unintentional While Committing a Felony)(Minn. Stat. 609.19.2(1) with reference to 609.05.1. “That on or about May 25, 2020, in Hennepin County, Minnesota, [Lane/Kueng/Thao]  intentionally aided, advised, hired, counseled, or conspired with or otherwise procured the other to commit the crime, namely causing the death of a human being, George Floyd, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting, namely assault in the third degree.”

Count II. Aiding and Abetting Second Degree Manslaughter (Culpable Negligence Creating Unreasonable Risk) (Minn. Stata. 609.205(1) with reference to 609.05.01. “That on or about May 25, 2020, in Hennepin County, [Lane/Kueng/Thao] intentionally aided, advised, hired, counseled, or conspired with or otherwise procured the other to commit the crime, namely caused the death of another, George Floyd, by his culpable negligence, creating an unreasonable risk and consciously took the chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another, George Floyd.”

The three complaints also contained the following essentially identical Statement of Probable Cause (except where indicated, Lane, Kueng and Thao had unique passages). These three Statements of Probable Cause also are the same, in many respects, as the Statement of Probable Cause in the Chauvin complaints):

  • “On May 25, 2020, someone called 911 and reported that a man bought merchandise from  a Cup Foods at 3759 Chicago Avenue in Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota with counterfeit $20 bill. At 8:08 p.m. Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) Officers Thomas Lane . . . and J.A. Kueng . . . arrived  with their bodyworn cameras (BWCs) activated and running. The officers learned from store personnel that the man who passed the counterfeit $20 was parked in a car around the corner  from the store on 38th Street.”
  • “BWC video obtained by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension shows that the Officers approached the car, Lane on the driver’s side and Kueng on the passenger  side. Three people were in the car; George Floyd was in the driver’s seat, a known adult male was in the passenger seat and a known adult female in the backseat. As [Lane] began speaking with Mr. Floyd, [Lane] pulled his gun out and pointed it at Mr. Floyd’s open window and directed Mr. Floyd to show his hands. When Mr. Floyd put his hands on the steering wheel, [Lane] put his gun back in its holster.”
  • “While [Kueng] was speaking with the front seat passenger, [Lane] ordered Mr. Floyd out of the car, put his hands on Mr. Floyd and pulled him out of the car. [Lane] handcuffed Mr. Floyd.”
  • “Once handcuffed, Mr. Floyd  walked with [Lane] to the sidewalk and sat on the ground at [Lane’s] direction. When Mr. Floyd sat down he said, “thank you man” and was calm. In a conversation that lasted just under two minutes, [Lane] asked Mr. Floyd for his name and identification. [Lane] asked Mr. Floyd if he was “on anything” and noted there was foam at the edges of his mouth. [Lane] explained that he was arresting Mr. Floyd for passing counterfeit currency.”
  • “At 8:14 p.m., . . . [Kueng] and [Lane] stood Mr. Floyd up and attempted to walk Mr. Floyd to their squad car. As the officers tried to put Mr. Floyd in their squad car, Mr. Floyd stiffened up and fell to the ground. Mr. Floyd told the officers he was not resisting but he did not want to get in the back seat and was claustrophobic.”
  • “MPD Officers Derek Chauvin and Tou Thao then arrived in a separate squad car.”
  • “[Lane] together with the other officers made several attempts to get Mr. Floyd in the backseat of their squad car by pushing him from the driver’s side. As the officers were trying to force Mr. Floyd in the backseat, Mr. Floyd repeatedly said that he could not breathe. Mr. Floyd did not voluntarily sit in the backseat and the officers physically struggled to try to get him in the backseat.”
  • “Officer Chauvin went to the passenger side and tried to get  Mr. Floyd into the car from that side and [Lane] and [Kueng] assisted.”
  • “Officer Chauvin pulled Mr. Floyd out of the passenger side of the squad car at 8:19:38 p.m. and Mr. Floyd went to the ground face down and still handcuffed. [Kueng] held Mr. Floyd’s back and [Lane] held his legs. Officer Chauvin placed his left knee in the area of Mr. Floyd’s head and neck. Mr. Floyd said, ‘I can’t breathe’ multiple times and repeatedly said ‘Mama’ and ‘please,’ as well. At one point, Mr. Floyd said ‘I’m about to die.’ Officer Chauvin and the other two officers stayed in their positions.”
  • [Only in Thao Complaint: “[Thao] initially obtained a hobble restraint from the squad car to restrain Mr. Floyd in that manner, but the officers chose not to use it and maintained their positions. During this time [Thao] looked directly at how Chauvin was restraining Mr. Floyd with Chauvin’s knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck area, and observed that the three officers had Mr. Floyd subdued in this manner. [Thao] then became concerned about a number of citizens who had gathered and were watching the officers subdue Mr. Floyd, and potential traffic concerns, and so {Thao] stood between those citizens and the three officers restraining Mr. Floyd. When one citizen stepped off the curb, imploring Chauvin to get off of Mr. Floyd, [Thao] put his hands on the citizen to keep him back.”
  • “One of the officers said, ‘You are talking fine’ to Mr. Floyd as he continued to move back and forth. [Lane] asked, ‘should we roll him on his side?’ and Officer Chauvin said, ‘No, staying put where we got him.’ [Lane] said, ‘I am worried about excited delirium or whatever.’ Officer Chauvin said, ‘That’s why we have him on his stomach.’ Officer Chauvin and Kueng held Mr. Floyd’s right hand up.”[Only in Lane Complaint: “Despite his comments, [Lane] took no actions to assist Mr. Floyd, to change his position, or to reduce the force the officers were using against Mr. Floyd.”] [Only in Kueng Complaint: “[Kueng] was in between Chauvin and Lane and in a position to hear their comments.”] Officer Chauvin and [Keung] held Mr. Floyd’s right hand up. None of the three officers moved from their positions.”
  • “While Mr. Floyd showed slight movements, his movements and sounds decreased until at 8:24:24, Mr. Floyd stopped moving. At 8:25:31 the video appears to show Mr. Floyd ceasing to breathe or speak. [Lane] said, ‘want to roll him on his side.’ [Keung] checked Mr. Floyd’s right wrist for a pulse and said, ‘I couldn’t find one.’ None of the officers moved from their positions.”
  • “At 8:27:24, Officer Chauvin removed his knee from Mr. Floyd’s neck. An  ambulance and emergency medical personnel arrived, the officers placed Mr. Floyd on a gurney, and the ambulance left the scene. Mr. Floyd was pronounced dead at Hennepin County Medical Center.”
  • “The Hennepin County Medical Examiner (ME) conducted Mr. Floyd’s autopsy on May 26, 2020. While the ME did not observe physical findings supportive of mechanical asphyxia, the ME opines that Mr. Floyd died from cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained by law enforcement officers. The autopsy revealed that Mr. Floyd had arteriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease, and toxicology testing revealed the presence of fentanyl and evidence of recent methamphetamine use. The ME opined that the effects of the officers’ restraint of Mr. Floyd, his underlying health conditions, and the presence of the drugs contributed to his death. The ME listed the cause of death as ‘ [c]ardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdural, restraint, and neck compression,’ and concluded the manner of death was homicide.”[4]
  • Officer Chauvin, [Lane and Kueng] subdued Mr. Floyd prone to the ground in this manner for nearly 9 minutes. During this time, Mr. Floyd repeatedly stated he could not breathe and his physical condition continued to deteriorate such that force was no longer necessary to control him. Officer Chauvin had his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds in total. Two minutes and 53 seconds of this was after Mr. Floyd was non-responsive. Police are trained that this type of restraint with a subject in a prone position is inherently dangerous. Officer Chauvin’s restraint of Mr. Floyd in this manner for a prolonged period was a substantial causal factor in Mr. Floyd’s losing consciousness, constituting substantial bodily harm, and Mr. Floyd’s death as well.”

 Analysis of the Complaints Against the Other Three Officers

 The predicate for all counts against the other three officers is a finding of Chauvin’s being guilty of second degree murder and/or second degree manslaughter that were analyzed in a prior post.

Under that scenario, the most direct statutory provision for the other policemen is the following: “A person is criminally liable for a crime committed by another if the person intentionally aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with or otherwise procures the other to commit the crime.” (Minn. Stat. section 609.05, subd. 1.)(emphasis added).)

Here, there can be no claim that any of these three officers advised, hired, counseled or conspired with or otherwise procured Chauvin to use his knee to restrain Mr. Floyd on the ground for such a long period of time. Thus, the issue for these three officers is whether each of them aided Chauvin in some way to do so.

Since Lane and Kueng physically helped Chauvin in pinning Mr. Floyd to the pavement, they were clearly ‘intentionally aiding” Chauvin in pinning Mr. Floyd.

In addition, the two of them along with Thao failed to intervene to stop Chauvin from his pinning of Mr. Floyd. This raises the issue of  whether the word “aids” includes failure to intervene to stop the commission of the crime of second degree murder or second degree manslaughter. Legal research should examine that issue under cases in Minnesota and other states.

This statutory provision about aiding and abetting is buttressed by the Minneapolis Police Department’s Manual, which under the heading “Duty To Intervene” states: “ Sworn employees have an obligation to protect the public and other employees.” (Manual sec. 5-303.01(A).) And “It shall be the duty of every sworn employee present at any scene where physical force is being applied to either stop or attempt to stop another sworn employee when force is being inappropriately applied or is no longer required.” (Manual sec. 5-303.01(B).)

The Statement of Probable Cause clearly states that these three officers were in close proximity to Chauvin’s pressing his knee against Floyd’s neck, observed that action and Floyd’s reactions, heard Floyd’s saying he could not breathe and had the opportunity to intervene and stop the pressing of Floyd’s neck, but failed to do so.. Indeed, after Floyd stopped moving, they had three more minutes to intervene and stop the pressing of the neck before Chauvin did so himself, but none of the three intervened to stop that action. And after Floyd stopped breathing, they all had nearly two minutes (113 seconds) to intervene, but again did not do so. Lane came closest to doing so when he twice suggested that Floyd be turned over, but then he and the others did nothing further after Chauvin rejected the suggestion. And Officer Kueng could not find a pulse, but then he and the others did not intervene to stop Chauvin’s action in the following near two minutes (113 seconds) of that conduct.

Conclusion

These criminal charges against the other three policemen, according to Christy E. Lopez,  a professor at Georgetown Law School and a former attorney in the U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, are “appropriate, but difficult.”  It would be good for the public . . . [and] in the best interest of police.” However, “Social science tells us that intervening to prevent wrongdoing in the middle of a tense incident is far more difficult than we recognize. Notwithstanding the legal duty, there are inhibitors to intervention that most officers will be unable to overcome in the moment unless they have been prepared in advance.”[5]

Lopez adds, “Progressive police agencies and reform advocates have long recognized the importance of officer intervention. Indeed, police have a legal “duty to intervene,” and the Minneapolis Police Department changed its force policy in 2016 to require officers to intervene if they witness another officer using excessive force. The Minnesota attorney general’s Working Group Report on Police-Involved Deadly Force Encounters, released this year, similarly recommended that all law enforcement officers in Minnesota be required to intervene to prevent unreasonable force.”

Such a change, she says, requires training of the police. But “creating a police culture of peer intervention requires more than training. It requires agency reinforcement at every level, and accountability for officers who fail to intervene when they clearly should have — as, again, the video of Floyd’s death depicts.”

The difficulties of one policeman’s intervening to stop another’s abuse are illustrated by a Buffalo New York female officer’s 2016 intervention to stop a white officer’s choking a handcuffed black  protester. The white officer then accused her of jimping on him as he struggled for control and prevailed in an arbitration that led to her being fired. Since then she has been pursuing a lawsuit for reinstatement and passage of a new state law for protection of those who intervene.[6]

At the initial hearing for these three officers, the attorneys for Lane and Keung argued how could new cops like their clients tell or order Chauvin, a policeman with at least 19 years of experience, to stop pressing his knee against Floyd’s neck. Moreover, their lawyers did not mention what may well be true, that there is a culture of policemen backing up each other, and if you intervene and develop a reputation within the police force of being someone who cannot be trusted, then you will not be able to get timely backup when you need it.[7]

This conflict has emerged in other ways.

Immediately after the killing and before the firing of the four police officers involved in this case, Minneapolis Police Federation President Lt. Bob Kroll  stated, ““Now is not the time to rush to judgment and immediately condemn our officers. We ask that the community remain calm and the investigation be completed in full.” And on June 1, Kroll said he was working with the union’s attorneys to help the four fired officers get their jobs back because they were “terminated without due process” while devoting most of his comments to criticizing the city’s handling of resulting riots and making policemen “scapegoats” for the violence.[8]

In addition, the bringing of these criminal charges and the associated protests against the Minneapolis police have caused seven of those officers to resign while another half dozen are in the process of leaving. “Morale has sunk to new lows in recent weeks, say department insiders, as officers reported feeling misunderstood and squeezed by all sides: by the state probe; by protesters, who hurled bricks and epithets their way; by city leaders, who surrendered a police station that later burned on national television, and by the media. Numerous officers and protesters were injured the rioting.”9]

Others at the Police Department have responded differently.[10]

The Minneapolis Police Chief, Medaria Arrandondo, immediately “condemned and fired the four officers involved. He visited the location where Floyd was killed. He spoke directly to Floyd’s family members on national television. He pledged to cooperate with the state’s probe into his department’s practices and make ‘substantive policy changes.’”

On June 11, 14 Minneapolis police officers wrote an open letter to Minneapolis citizens and everyone else. Claiming to speak on behalf of “the vast majority” of their colleagues, the letter’s signatories– Cmdr. Charlie Adams, who now runs its community engagement efforts; Lt. Mark Klukow, who now works in the First Precinct in downtown Minneapolis; Lt. Rick Zimmerman, who runs the homicide unit; Sgt. Darcy Klund, who commands the First Precinct community response team; John Delmonico, the former head of the police union; and others–  said the following:

  • “We wholeheartedly condemn Derek Chauvin. We Are With You in the denouncement of Derek Chauvin’s actions on Memorial Day, 2020. Like us, Derek Chauvin took an oath to hold the sanctity of life most precious. Derek Chauvin failed as a human and stripped George Floyd of his dignity and life. This is not who we are.”
  • “We Are With You and want to communicate a sentiment that is broad within our ranks. We ask that our voices be heard. We are leaders, formal and informal, and from all ranks within the Minneapolis Police Department. We’re not the union or the administration. We are officers who represent the voices of hundreds of other Minneapolis Police Officers. Hundreds. We acknowledge that Chief Arradondo needs each of us to dutifully follow him while he shows us the way. We stand ready to listen and embrace the calls for change, reform and rebuilding.”
  • “We Are With You moving forward. We want to work with you and for you to regain your trust.”

The next event in this important legal proceeding will be hearing in all four criminal cases in Hennepin County District Court on June 29.

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

[1] Press Release, Attorney General Ellison charges Derek Chauvin with 2nd-degree murder of George Floy, three former officers with aiding and abetting 2nd degree murder. (June 3, 2020); Complaint, State v.Tou Thao, Prosecutor File No. 33.EC55.0227, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12949 (Dist. Ct., 4th Judicial Dist. June 3, 2020); Complaint, State v. Thomas Kiernan Lane, Prosecutor File No. 33.EC56.0227, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12951 (Dist. Ct., 4th Judicial Dist. June 3, 2020); Complaint, State v. J. Alexander Kueng, Prosecutor File No. 33.EC57.0227, Court File No. 27-CR-20-???? (Dist. Ct., 4th Judicial Dist. June 3, 2020); Shammas, Beilware & Dennis, Murder charges filed against all four officers in George Floyd’s death as protests against biased policing continue, Wash. Post (June 3, 2020); Kornfield, Guarino, Beachum, Thebault, Mettier, Knowles, Chiu, Shepard & Armus, 3 more officers charged in Floyd’s death as protesters gather for 9th night, Wash. Post (June 4, 2020); Montemayor & Xiong, Four fired Minneapolis officers charged, booked in killing of George Floyd, StarTribune (June 4, 2020).

[2] Press Release, Attorney General Ellison charges Derek Chauvin with 2nd-degree murder of George Floyd, three former officers with aiding and abetting 2nd degree murder. (June 3, 2020).

[3]  Initial Hearings in Criminal Cases for Killing of George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (June 10, 2020); Karnowski, Judge: $750K bail for 3 ex-officers accused in Floyd death, StarTribune (June 4, 2020); Xiong, Bail set at $1 million for three ex-Minneapolis police officers charged in Floyd case, StarTribune (June 4, 2020); Walsh, Fired Minneapolis police officer Thomas Lane, one of 4 charged in George Floyd’s death, posts bail and leaves jail, StarTribune (June 11, 2020).

[4]  Complaint, State v. Chauvin, #  27-CR-20-12646 (Henn. Cty. Dist. Ct. (June 3, 2020).

[5]  Lopez, George Floyd’s death could have been prevented if we had a police culture of intervention, Wash. Post (May 29, 2020).

[6] Sondel & Knowles, George Floyd died after officers didn’t step in. These police say they did—and paid a price, Wash. Post (June 12, 2020).

[7] Condon & Richmond, Duty to intervene: Floyd cops spoke up but didn’t step in, StarTribune (June 7, 2020).

[8] Navratil & Jany, As Mayor Frey calls for officer’s arrest, violence intensifies in Minneapolis, StarTribune (May 28, 2020); Jany & Navratil, Kroll, Minneapolis union head, blasts city’s riot response in letter to officers, StarTribune (June 1, 2020).

[9] Jany & Sawyer, Seven Minneapolis police officers resign after George Floyd protests, citing lack of support from city leaders, StarTribune (June 13, 2020).

[10] Jany & Evans, After George Floyd’s death, Minneapolis police chief is caught in force’s racial legacy, StarTribune (June 8, 2020); Olson, Minneapolis police officers issue open letter condemning colleague in George Floyd’s death, pledging to work toward trust, StarTribune (June 12, 2020).