Media Coalition – dwkcommentaries

State Criminal Trial for Thao and Kueng Postponed to January 2023

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

The Reasons for Changing the Trial Date

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

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

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

The Reasons for Denial of Change of Venue

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

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

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

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

The Reasons for Denial of Audio/Video Coverage

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

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

Another Consideration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specified information about any expert witnesses not previously disclosed shall be submitted by May 1, 2022.
Motions in limine shall be submitted by May 13, 2022, with supporting memoranda by May 20 and responsive memoranda by June 3.
Trial witness lists shall be submitted by May 13, 2022.
Trial exhibit lists and proposed jury instructions shall be submitted by June 10, 2022.
Trial will commence at 9:00 a.m. on June 13, 2022, in Hennepin County Courtroom C-1856.
Limits at trial on the number and conduct of the parties’ attorneys or support staff were specified.
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.
Hearing on motions in limine or administrative matters will be heard on June 13, 2022, and, if necessary, on subsequent days.
Jury selection will begin on June 14, 2022.
Jurors and potential jurors shall be partially sequestered.
Opening statements and presentation of evidence will begin on July 5, 2022.
Witnesses, prior to testifying, shall be sequestered.
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).
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).

Final Preparations for Federal Criminal Trial Over Killing of George Floyd

On January 20 and 21, 2022, U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota’s Judge Paul Magnuson conducted the final hearings before the criminal trial of three former Minneapolis police officers (Thomas Lane, J. Alexander Kueng and Tou Thao) over their allegedly depriving George Floyd of his liberty without due process and failed to provide the medical attention he so obviously needed.

Jury Selection[1]

In the first day, a jury of 12 Minnesota citizens were chosen as jurors along with six others as alternates from a pool of 67. Of the 12 set to decide the case, five are white men, six are white women and one appeared to be an Asian woman. Of the alternates, three are white women, two are white men and one appeared to be an Asian man. The only black man in the jury pool said he could not be fair and was excused.

Among the 12 main jurors, three are from Hennepin County, two each from Ramsey and Washington Counties and one each from Anoka, Blue Earth, Olmstead, Jackson and Scott Counties. Two of the alternates are from Ramsey County while the others come from Anoka, Hennepin, Nicollet and Olmstead Counties.

All of this was accomplished in only one day because Judge Magnuson conducted all of the questioning of the jury candidates and ruled on objections by counsel for the parties. The Judge started with general statements and questions, including whether the prospective jurors could be fair, impartial and believed in the presumption of innocence. He advised them that Chauvin’s convictions had nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the three defendants, saying their actions were “totally separate.” The Judge also advised the potential jurors that community difficulties and “anarchy in the streets” may have an impact, but “fear cannot control in a courtroom” and that the case has “unequivocally nothing to do with race … religion … or national origin.”

Cancelled Hearing on Other Issues[2]

On January 21, the Court had planned a closed hearing on defense objections to some of the prosecution’s proposed evidence, including still images from the videos of the May 25, 2020 killing of Mr. Floyd, side-by-side exhibits that will play two videos at once and dispatch and 911 calls.

But after the prosecution and the Media Coalition objected to the closing of the hearing, the Judge cancelled the hearing.

The Judge also increased the seats in the courtroom for journalists from two to four.

Conclusion [3]

On Monday (January 24), the trial is scheduled to commence with the attorneys’ opening statements.

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

[1] Mannix, Federal Trial for 3 ex-officers in George Floyd death will differ from Derek Chauvin’s state trial, StarTribune (1/20/22); Olson & Xiong, Jury is seated in federal trial for the other officers in George Floyd death, StarTribune (1/20/22); Bailey, Another trial in the killing of George Floyd for other officers at the scene, Wash. Post (1/20/22).

[2] Karnowski & Forliti (AP), Access again an issue at federal trial in Floyd’s killing, StarTribune (1/21/22).

[3] Mannix & DeLong, What you need to know about the federal trial of three ex-Minneapolis police officers in George Floyd’s death, StarTribune (1/21/22). See also posts listed in the “Federal Criminal Cases Against Ex-Minneapolis Policemen Over the Killing of George Floyd and Against Derek Chauvin Over Excess Force Against Teenager” section of List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: George Floyd Killing.

Media Coalition Asks for Open Court Room in Federal Criminal Case Against Ex-Cops Over Killing of George Floyd

On January 14, 2022, the Media Coalition of newspapers and other media filed a letter with the court requesting U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson to invalidate his limitations on public access to the courtroom where on January 20, the court will start the criminal trial of three former Minneapolis policemen (Thomas Lane, J. Alexander Kueng and Tou Thao) over the killing of George Floyd in May 2020.[1]

Those limitations are the following:

Fewer than 100 members of the public will be permitted in the courtroom;
There will be closed-circuit feed from the courtroom to another room in the courthouse, accommodating only 40 members of the public and a similar room for 40 members of the media. The closed-circuit feed from the courtroom will be streamed from four monitors that will not pan or zoom and will not focus on the jury or tables for defense counsel.
During jury selection only two members of the media will be allowed in the courtroom, but not to anyone from the public or the families of the defendants or Mr. Floyd.
During the trial the courtroom will be limited to four members of the media and a sketch artist plus some family members, but not the general public.

These limitations on public access, argued the Media Coalition, amounted to a closed courtroom in violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. “We do not need to explain to this Court the gravity of the trial, the impact Mr. Floyd’s death had on the Twin Cities and the world, or the public’s ongoing and intense concern for how the criminal justice system deals with those accused of killing him.” Moreover, the Coalition asserted that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized, “To work effectively, it is important that society’s criminal process ‘satisfy the appearance of justice,’ and the appearance of justice can best be provided by allowing people to observe it.”

We await any response from the prosecution and the court’s ruling on the request.

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

[1] Olson, Media asks judge to reconsider access to ex officers’ federal trial in George Floyd killing, StarTribune (Jan. 18, 2022). See also Pre-Trial Hearing in Federal Criminal Case Over Killing of George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com, dwkcommentaries.com (Jan. 14, 2022); “Federal Criminal Cases Against Ex-Minneapolis Policemen Over Killing of George Floyd” section of List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: George Floyd Killing.

Judge Orders Release of Jurors Names in Derek Chauvin Trial

On October 25, Hennepin County District Court Judge Peter Cahill ordered the release on November 1 of the names of the 12 jurors who signed the guilty verdict in the trial of Derek Chauvin earlier this year plus (a) the names of the two alternate jurors who were excused before jury deliberations commenced; (b) the names of the other 109 prospective jurors; (c) the questionnaires filled out by all of these individuals; and (d) the original jury verdict form signed by the jury foreperson. [1]

The Order had the following limitations: (a) the addresses and other contact information for the 14 sworn and alternate jurors will not be made public; (b) the Court reserves the right to redact from the completed juror questionnaires certain information, consistent with discussions with some of the jurors during voire dire, from the copy of the questionnaires publicly filed pursuant to this order; and (c) the information and documents being made public will only be available for inspection and copying at the Hennepin County Government Center; no remote access.

The Judge’s 31-page Order and Memorandum, which was soundly reasoned and well written, provided the background and reasons for this order. It set forth with abundant legal citations the Court’s legal conclusion:

“Although there is no absolute right of the press or public to access all records and information contained in court records in criminal cases, judicial records are presumptively public under Minnesota’s applicable court rules and the common law, warranting granting public access to some of the requested juror information sought by the Media Coalition in light of the present facts and circumstances of this case.”

This legal conclusion was based upon the Court’s balancing “on a case-by-case basis . . . [of the following] competing considerations . . . the defendant’s constitutional rights to a public trial before a fair and impartial jury, the public interest in access to open judicial proceedings to monitor the manner in which justice is being administered, the press’ First Amendment rights, and jurors’ privacy interests and rights.”

This Order was prompted by a motion for such disclosure submitted by the Media Coalition of 16 local and national media organizations.

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

[1] Olson, & Xiong. Court order: Chauvin jurors’ names to be released Nov. 1 at courthouse, StarTribune (Oct. 25, 2021); Assoc. Press, Judge in Chauvin trial to release names of Jurors on Nov. 1, StarTribune (Oct. 25, 2021); Order and Memorandum Opinion on Media Coalition Motion To Unseal Juror Names and Associated Juror Information, State v. Chauvin, Henn. County Dist. Ct. File No. 20-12646 (Oct 25, 2021).

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).

George Floyd Cases: Media for Livestream; Chauvin Criticizes State’s Disclosures

In the George Floyd criminal cases, as previously reported, the State has moved for cancelling the livestreaming of the upcoming trial of the four ex-Minneapolis policemen, and Defendant Tou Thao has requested a delay in the trial and sanctions against the State for alleged misconduct in disclosing evidence.[1]

Now Defendant Derek Chauvin adds his voice to criticism of the State’s evidence disclosures and to requesting postponement of the trial. And the Media Coalition along with three of the defendants reiterate their support for the livestreaming of the trial.

Chauvin’s Motion for Continuance[2]

On December 14^th Defendant Derek Chauvin moved for a continuance of the trial from March 8^th to a date to be established by the Court and of the deadline for him to make initial expert witness disclosures and for the Court to enter “any further relief the court deems just.”

These requests stem from the State’s alleged failure to provide timely discovery disclosures and to have done so in a disorganized and confusing manner, including hiding important documents in unimportant and duplicative materials.

These problems have “caused the defense to spend significant time, material and financial resources to simply organize the materials into a coherent case file,” which will be provided to expert witnesses for the defense. This is especially important for Chauvin because “the global profile of this case has also contributed to the delay in retaining experts willing or able to participate.”

This request was similar to the December 11^th motion by Defendant Thao to delay the trial from March 8 to July 5 and for sanctions against the prosecution for its alleged delay in sharing important evidence with the defense.

Media Coalition’s Supports Trial’s Livestreaming[3]

On December 14, the Media Coalition opposed the State’s request for reconsideration of the Court’s previous order allowing audio and video livestreaming of the trial. The Coalition opened this brief with the assertion that “never before, in the history of this country, has there been a criminal trial like the one scheduled in these cases. While there have been big, important cases, few, if any, gave rise to social justice movements the size of what George Floyd inspired. None of them, meanwhile, went to trial at a time when a deadly pandemic had the country in its clutches and when—simultaneously—the country had in its own clutches the technology to livestream a trial around the world.”

According to the Coalition, the Court’s November 4 Order “allowing livestreaming of the trial with certain conditions is a reasonable and appropriate response to these challenging circumstances. Moreover, “Defendants, who have a Sixth Amendment right to a public trial, do not challenge this approach. “

According to the Coalition, the State’s motion for reconsideration of this solution “cites no clash of constitutional principles. . . . Instead, it expresses vague and speculative concerns regarding witnesses’ perceived reluctance to testify if they know cameras are present.” The State relies on Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 4.02, but “in adopting Rule 4.02 as a pilot program in 2015, the Minnesota Supreme Court made clear that ‘[t]he media’s right to be present at public court proceedings as a representative of the public is not at issue here.’” For the George Floyd cases, “strict adherence to that rule would violate the First Amendment, which guarantees not just a theoretical right of access but an actual, meaningful right of access.”

Therefore, says the Media Coalition, the Court should deny the State’s motion for reconsideration. this position was supported by Defendants Derrek Chauvin, J. Alexander Kueng and Tou Thao.

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

[1] See these posts to dwkcommentaries.com: More Details on 9/11/20 Hearing in George Floyd Criminal Cases (Sept. 11. 2020); Court’s Orders Regarding Criminal Trial of Defendants in George Floyd Killing (Nov. 5, 2020); Parties’ Latest Reactions to Issues for Trial in George Floyd Criminal Cases (Nov. 18, 2020); Recent Developments in George Floyd Criminal Cases (Dec. 12, 2020).

[2] Defendant’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Continuance, State v. Chauvin, Court file No. 27-CR-20-12648 (Hennepin County District Court Dec. 14, 2020); Affidavit of Eric J. Nelson, State v. Chauvin, Court file No. 27-CR-20-12648 (Hennepin County District Court Dec. 14, 2020); Xiong, Defense attorney in George Floyd case says prosecutors shared disorganized, duplicate evidence, StarTribune (Dec. 14, 2020); Bailey, Former Minneapolis Police Officers in George Floyd killing seek trial delay, Wash. Post (Dec. 14, 2020).

[3] Xiong, Media coalition pushes back on George Floyd prosecution, asks to livestream trial, StarTribune Dec. 14, 2020); Media Coalition’s Opposition to State’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Allowing Audio and Video Coverage of Trial, State v. Chauvin, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12648 (Hennepin County District Court Dec. 14, 2020); Defendant’s Memorandum of Law Opposing the State’s Motion for Reconsideration, State v. Chauvin, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12648 (Hennepin County District Court Dec. 14, 2020); Defendant’s Reply to the State’s Motion To Reconsider Cameras in the Courtroom, State v. Kueng, Court File No.: 27-CR-20-12953 (Hennepin County District Court Dec. 14, 2020); Defense Objection to State’s Motion for Reconsideration, State v. Thao, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12949 Hennepin County District Court Dec. 14, 2020).

Court Denies Prosecution’s Motion for Temporary Protective Order in George Floyd Criminal Cases

On October 15, as anticipated, the Media Coalition filed its opposition to the Prosecution’s Motion for a Temporary Protective Order in the George Floyd Criminal Cases. Later that same day, the Court held a hearing on that motion.

Media Coalition’s Opposition[1]

The Media Coalition’s 12-page brief “respectfully requests that the Court, consistent with its obligations under the common law, its own rules of access, the First Amendment—and, indeed, consistent . . . with its own August 7 Order and August 11 Memorandum Opinion—immediately make the motion papers that Defendant Thomas K. Lane filed on October 12, 2020, including all video exhibits, available to the press and public and that it deny the State’s motion requesting their continued sealing. The Coalition further requests that the Court deny the State’s Motion for Order Temporarily Restricting Public Access to Motions and Exhibits.”

Hearing on the Motion[2]

At a 25-minute hearing, Judge Peter Cahill denied the Prosecution’s motion, but added he would not allow audio, video or photographs to be attached to future filings by the parties. He said the video of George Floyd’s 2019 arrest in Minneapolis “shows what basically everybody already knows: Floyd was arrested on a previous occasion.” Moreover, the Judge noted that this arrest video was potentially helpful to the prosecution and that previously he had banned evidence of Floyd’s involvement in an armed robbery in Texas before he had moved to Minneapolis.

Subsequent Developments [3]

Immediately after the hearing, Jonathan Mason, an activist with 10K Foundation, interrupted attorney Earl Gray’s interview by a reporter, to protest alleged behavior by Chauvin and to accuse the attorney of “protecting a killer.” (This Foundation’s website says, “We are helping communities preserve their freedom, justice and access to the American dream.”)

Later that same afternoon, a group of about eight protesters walked around the skyway level of the Government Center. Some were yelling, “[Expletive] Derek Chauvin.” One of them, Thomas W. Moseley, a 29-year-old from Blaine, yelled. “Kill Derek Chauvin,” and he was handcuffed, searched and taken away after deputies found a black handgun and several knives on him; he was charged with possession of a dangerous weapon, a felony.

Similar heated protests directed at the defendants and their attorneys (and damage of an attorney’s vehicle). occurred after the September 11^th hearing. Thereafter these protestors’ actions were cited by one of the defendants as an additional reason (protecting the safety of the defendants and their attorneys) for transferring the case out of Hennepin County. [4]

These incidents provided additional grounds for defendants’ motions to change the venue of the cases—move them from Hennepin County District Court to another state court in a different county.

Therefore, this blog must reiterate that persons who are interested in justice for George Floyd and want the murder and manslaughter trial(s) to be held in Hennepin County, where the killing occurred, must change their tactics. Such protests merely provide evidence to the defendants’ motions to have the cases transferred to another county court in the state.

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

[1] Important Prosecution’s Filings in George Floyd Criminal Cases dwkcommentaries.com (Oct. 14, 2020); Media Coalition’s Opposition to State’s Motion to Restrict Access to Defendant Lane’s October 12 Filings and State’s Motion for a “Temporary” Protective Order (Oct. 15, 2020).

[2] Olson, Judge denies prosecution’s request to seal all filings in Floyd case for at least 48 hours, StarTribune (Oct. 15, 2020).

[3] Olson, n.2; Xiong, Defense Attorney in George floyd case renews call to move ex-cops’ trial after armed protester’s arrest, StarTribune (Oct. 16, 2020).

[4] See these posts and comment to dwkcommentaries.com: Results of 9/11/20 Hearing in George Floyd Criminal Cases (Sept. 12, 2020); Additional Developments in George Floyd Criminal Cases (Oct. 4, 2020); Comment: Woman Charged for Damaging Car of Defendant’s Lawyer in George Floyd Criminal Cases (Oct. 13, 2020).

Important Prosecution Filings in George Floyd Criminal Cases

On October 12, the prosecution (the State of Minnesota) filed two important documents in the George Floyd criminal cases against four ex-Minneapolis policemen—Derek Chauvin, Thomas Lane, J. Alexander Kueng and Tou Thao. The first is a motion to have all motions and exhibits in the case remain under seal for two business days “to permit the parties to review . . . [them] before they are made available to the public and, if necessary, to notify the Court within two business days of their intent to oppose public disclosure.” The second is the prosecution’s memorandum in support of other evidence the State intends to offer at trial. Here is a summary of those documents.

Motion To Limit Public Access to Case Materials[1]

The prosecution’s motion to limit public access to case materials was precipitated by an October 12^th motion by Earl Gray, the attorney for Defendant Thomas Lane, to include in trial evidence a video from an incident on May 6, 2019, when three other police officers were attempting to have George Floyd show his hands, stop moving around and spit out something he had put in his mouth and when Floyd cried out for his “Mama” and “Don’t shoot me, man.”

Gray in his motion for admission of this evidence apparently argued that the 2019 arrest is relevant to his client’s defense because prosecutors have presented a ‘false narrative’ by portraying Floyd as a ‘law-abiding citizen that was afraid for his life.’ Instead, Gray said, “Floyd’s behavior in the earlier arrest is ‘almost an exact replica’ of how he behaved during his fatal encounter with police a year later outside Cup Foods in south Minneapolis. . . . Floyd cried, mumbled and yelled throughout his interview with the police ,” and Gray argued that‘s how Floyd behaves under ‘the influence of a pill.’”

In response to this motion by Mr. Gray, the prosecution immediately filed the motion to have all motions and exhibits in the case remain under seal for two business days “to permit the parties to review . . . [them] before they are made available to the public and, if necessary, to notify the Court within two business days of their intent to oppose public disclosure.” If any of the parties “oppose public disclosure, the court may then request briefing and set a briefing schedule on a motion opposing public disclosure.” In support of this motion, the prosecution cited U.S. and Minnesota Supreme Court decisions supporting such a restriction, especially where there is a risk of prejudicial pretrial publicity.

This prosecution motion is opposed by the Media Coalition, which includes the StarTribune.

On October 15, Hennepin County District Court Judge, Peter Cahill, will hold a hearing on the prosecution’s motion

Arguments for Additional Evidence[2]

On October 12^th the State filed a 44-page memorandum in support of additional evidence it plans to offer at the criminal trials of Derek Chauvin, Thomas Lane, J. Alexander Kueng and Tou Thau.

After a short Introduction, this memorandum sets forth in 12 pages a detailed “Statement of Facts” with evidentiary citations regarding “The Events of May 25, 2020” (the day that Floyd was killed). This included the following regarding the physical restraint of Floyd on the pavement:

At 8:11 p.m., Kueng “and Lane handcuffed Floyd’s arms behind his back. . . From this moment on, and for all of the remaining minutes of his life, Floyd’s hands remained handcuffed.” (P.3.)
“At 8:19:14-45 p.m., Chauvin, Kueng, and Lane pinned Floyd to the pavement face-down.” (p. 7.)
At 8:23:58—8:24:00 p.m., “Floyd then said what would be his final words: ‘I can’t breathe.’ . . .He soon fell silent and lost consciousness.” (P. 9.)
“But even after Floyd went limp, Chauvin continued to restrain Floyd’s neck and restraining Floyd’s left hand. Kueng and Lane continued to restrain Floyd’s back and legs.” (P. 9.)
At 8:25:20-31 p.m., the “body camera videos appear to show that Floyd’s shallow breaths stopped.” (P. 10.)
At 8:25:40-8:26:00 p.m., the “officers maintained their positions—Chauvin on Floyd’s neck, Kueng on his back, Lane on his legs, and Thao standing guard.” (P. 11)
At 8:26:12-18 p.m., after Kueng reported he could not find a Floyd pulse and after Floyd did not respond to Chauvin’s squeezing Floyd’s fingers, “Chauvin continued to kneel on Floyd’s neck.” (P. 11.)
At 8:27:36-38 p.m., Chauvin “continued to press his knee into the back of Floyd’s neck.” (P. 12.)
At 8:27:43-50 p.m., “while emergency personnel leaned down and attempted to check Floyd’s neck for a pulse, Chauvin did not remove his knee from Floyd’s neck.” (P. 12.)
At 8:28:45 p.m., “when the stretcher was ready, Chauvin finally removed his knee from Floyd’s neck.” (P. 12.)
“All told, Floyd was pinned to the ground—with Chauvin’s knee pressing into his neck, Kueng and Lane atop his back and legs, and Thao standing watch nearby—for approximately nine minutes.” (Pp. 12-13.)

The bulk of this memorandum was the 28 pages of the “Argument” setting forth why the State’s “evidence of 18 prior incidents involving Defendants Chauvin, Kueng, and Thao” Is admissible. (Pp. 15-43.)

Conclusion

EsarlWe now wait to see what happens at the October 15^th hearing and how Judge Cahill resolves these motions. (By the way, another October 12^th filing by the prosecution was a supplemental argument for enhanced sentences of these defendants.[3)

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

[1] State’s Motion for Order Temporarily Restricting Public Access to Motions and Exhibits, State v. Chauvin, Court file No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Hennepin County District Court Oct. 12, 2000); Olson, Prosecutors seek privacy order to keep details of George Floyd’s 2019 arrest from public view, StarTribune (Oct. 13, 2020) Gray’s motion is not available on the public website of filings in the Lane case, but the StarTribune obtained a copy since it is a member of the Media Coalition and thus a party in an ongoing dispute over what documents are public in the case. (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).)

[2] State’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Other Evidence, State v. Chauvin, Court file No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Hennepin County District Court Oct. 12, 2020); Mannix, Prosecutor: Ex-officers pinned George Floyd for 9 &1/2 minutes, including after they could not find a pulse, StarTribune (Oct. 14, 2020). See also Revised Length of Time for Minneapolis Police Restraint of George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (June 18, 2020).

[3] Prosecution’s Supplemental Argument for Enhanced Sentences for Defendants in George Floyd Criminal Cases, dwkcommentaries.com (Oct. 13, 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 7^th 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 9^th 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).