Minnesota Court of Appeals – dwkcommentaries

Derek Chauvin’s Motions for New Trial for Killing George Floyd

Derek Chauvin was the senior police officer leading three other Minneapolis policemen in the May 2020 killing of George Floyd on a Minneapolis street.

This resulted in criminal cases against Chauvin and the other three policemen in both Minnesota state and federal courts. The state court cases, after trials (and a guilty plea by Thomas Lane), are now completed with convictions of all four policemen and they are now serving their sentences (concurrently) in federal prisons. The same is true for the federal criminal cases against the four policemen [1]

However, the federal criminal case against Derek Chauvin is still being litigated, which is discussed below.

Initial Proceedings in Federal Criminal Case Against Chauvin

On May 7, 2021, the U.S. District Court filed criminal charges against Chauvin and the other three policemen over the killing of George Floyd.

On December 15, 2021, in federal court Chauvin pleaded guilty to two counts of depriving Mr. Floyd of his federally-protected civil rights and ultimately causing his death and to charges for Chauvin’s 2017 misconduct with John Pope (in an unrelated matter) and under a negotiated and detailed Plea Agreement the prosecution and Chauvin agreed that the court could impose imprisonment of 20 to 25 years for these crimes.

On May 4, 2022, U.S. District Court Judge Magnuson approved the guilty plea agreement and said the federal sentence would be in accordance with the plea agreement.

On July 7, 2022, Judge Magnuson sentenced Chauvin to 245 months (20.4 years) in federal prison for (a) his depriving George Floyd of his federal civil rights by pinning his knee against Floyd’s neck and ultimately causing his death; and (b) Chauvin’s holding down with his knee John Pope, then a 14-year old boy in 2007, and failing to provide medical care to the boy and thereby causing non-fatal injuries.

Chauvin’s Pending Challenge to His Federal Court Conviction and Sentencing and, Therefore, for a New Trial

On November 13, 2023, Chauvin (without legal counsel) filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to vacate his conviction and sentencing by that court. The asserted basis for this new motion was the opinion of a pathologist, Dr. William Schaetzel, who had never examined the Floyd corpse and never testified in any of the criminal cases, but who said based on review of certain papers that Floyd did not die from asphyxia from Chauvin’s actions, but from complications of a rare tumor called paragangliona that can cause a fatal surge of adrenaline.

On January 12, 2024, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Minnesota and the U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division submitted their opposition to this Chauvin motion with the following major points:

Chauvin in his guilty plea agreement “waive[d] the right to petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 except based upon a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.”
Chauvin “failed to show . . .that counsel’s performance was deficient . . . because ‘counsel is strongly presumed to have rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment’. . . and [because Chauvin failed to show that] such “acts or omissions . . . [fell] “outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance.”
Chauvin also failed to show that “there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s error, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial” and that the opinion of William Schaetzel “likely would have changed the outcome of the trial.” Thus, Chauvin failed to show that he suffered prejudice.
The ”files and records of this case—including the exhibits cited by Defendant in his motion—conclusively show that Defendant is not entitled to relief, and a hearing is not necessary.”

On July 31, 2024, Chauvin, now represented by counsel, filed his Reply Brief in the proceeding on his habeas corpus motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The asserted basis for this new brief was the alleged ineffective assistance of his trial counsel by failing to advise Chauvin of the previously mentioned opinion of Dr.Schaetzel and counsel’s failure to ask for tests of Mr. Floyd for catecholamines and their metabolites.

On August 14, 2024, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota and the Assistant U.S. Attorney General filed the Government’s Surreply in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion To Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. sec. 25255. It asserted the following points:

Under his guilty plea of December 15, 2021, Chauvin waived the right to petition under section 25255 except based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Any convicted person’s claim of ineffective-counsel must establish (1) that his “counsel’s performance was so deficient it actually prejudiced the defense.and “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and (2) counsel’s deficient performance actually prejudiced the defendant’s defense.
Even if counsel did not inform Chauvin of the opinion of Dr. Schaetzel, it was a tactical decision by his counsel not to explore an untested (and in any event cumulative) opinion by someone who claimed to be an expert. Such a decision is a “paradigmatic example” of an attorney’s strategic choice, which, when made after a reasonable investigation, is “virtually unchallengeable” in effectiveness claims.”
Chauvin’s self-serving statement that had he known of the unsolicited medical opinion, he would have exercised his right to trial is an example of “post hoc assertions” that are insufficient to establish the necessary prejudice.
Chauvin’s expert witness at trial, who was selected by Chauvin’s attorney, provided testimony that was not meaningfully different, factually or legally, from that of Dr. Schaetzel.

Conclusion

Chauvin’s pending motion appears to be barred by the prosecution’s arguments. The motion also appears to be barred by Chauvin’s guilty plea under oath, where Chauvin admitted in writing that “certain facts were true . . .[and] established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt].” The following are some of those Chauvin admissions:

Chauvin, ‘while acting under color of law . . . willfully deprived George Floyd of . . . the right to be free from an unreasonable seizure, which includes the right to be free from the use of unreasonable force by a police officer. [Chauvin] . . . held his left knee across Mr. Floyd’s neck, back, and shoulder, and his right knee on Mr. Floyd’s back and arm. As Mr. Floyd lay on the ground, handcuffed and unresisting, [Chauvin] . . . kept his knees on Floyd’s neck and body, even after Mr. Floyd became unresponsive. This offense resulted in bodily injury to, and the death of, George Floyd.”
Chauvin “admits that in using this unreasonable and excessive force, he acted willfully and in callous and wanton disregard of the consequences to Mr. Floyd’s life. [Chauvin] . . . knew that what he was doing was wrong, in part, because it was contrary to his training as an MPD officer.. .”
Chauvin “also knew there was no legal justification to continue his use of force because he was aware that Mr. Floyd not only stopped resisting, but also stopped talking, stopped moving, stopped breathing, and lost consciousness and a pulse.’ [Chauvin] . . .chose to continue applying force even though he knew Mr. Floyd’s condition progressively worsened. . . . [Chauvin] also heard Mr. Floyd repeatedly explain that he could not breathe, was in pain, and wanted help.”
Chauvin “knew that what he was doing was wrong—that continued force was no longer appropriate and that it posed significant risks to Mr. Floyd’s life—based on what he observed and heard about Mr. Floyd.”
Chauvin “admits that he failed to render medical aid to Mr. Floyd, as he was capable of doing, and trained and required to do.”

Therefore, Chauvin’s motion should be denied and he needs to remain in prison for the balance of his sentence of 245 months (20.4 years).

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

[1] Since the horrible killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis in May of 2020, this blogger has written many posts about that crime and the subsequent criminal litigation in Minnesota state and federal courts. (See List of Posts to dwkcommentaries: Topical: George Floyd Killing; List of Post–Chronological (2020); List of Posts–Chronological (2021); List of Posts–Chronological (2022); List of Posts– Chronological (2023); List of Posts–Chronological (2024).

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Derek Chauvin’s Petition to Review His State Court Conviction for Murder and Manslaughter of George Floyd

On November 20, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court without opinion denied Derek Chauvin’s petition for review of his state court conviction for the murder and manslaughter of George Floyd in May 2020.[1] It thus appeared that this state court criminal case was over as was Chauvin’s federal guilty plea, criminal conviction and sentencing for the killing of George Floyd. However, as discussed below, a recent development in the federal case raises the question of whether one or both of those cases could be reopened.

Prior State Court Proceedings[2]

Chauvin’s state court conviction resulted from an April 2021 Hennepin County jury verdict that he was guilty of second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. The following June Hennepin County District Judge Peter Cahill sentenced him to 22 ½ years in prison for those crimes.

Chauvin’s appeal of that conviction was rejected by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in April 2023 with a 50-page opinion and the Minnesota Supreme Court in July 2023 denied his appeal from same without opinion.

That Minnesota Supreme Court decision was then challenged by Chauvin’s petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, which just denied that petition.

Derek Chauvin’s Federal Court Proceedings[3]

In May 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota filed a criminal complaint against Chauvin and the other three Minneapolis ex-policeman over the killing of George Floyd.

Without a trial Chauvin pled guilty in December 2021 to these charges. In that guilty pleaChauvin admitted in writing that certain facts were true . . .[and] established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt].” [3] Those admissions included the following:

Chauvin, ‘while acting under color of law . . . willfully deprived George Floyd of . . . the right to be free from an unreasonable seizure, which includes the right to be free from the use of unreasonable force by a police officer. [Chauvin] . . . held his left knee across Mr. Floyd’s neck, back, and shoulder, and his right knee on Mr. Floyd’s back and arm. As Mr. Floyd lay on the ground, handcuffed and unresisting, [Chauvin] . . . kept his knees on Floyd’s neck and body, even after Mr. Floyd became unresponsive. This offense resulted in bodily injury to, and the death of, George Floyd.”
Chauvin “admits that in using this unreasonable and excessive force, he acted willfully and in callous and wanton disregard of the consequences to Mr. Floyd’s life. [Chauvin] . . . knew that what he was doing was wrong, in part, because it was contrary to his training as an MPD officer.. .”
Chauvin “also knew there was no legal justification to continue his use of force because he was aware that Mr. Floyd not only stopped resisting, but also stopped talking, stopped moving, stopped breathing, and lost consciousness and a pulse.’ [Chauvin] . . .chose to continue applying force even though he knew Mr. Floyd’s condition progressively worsened. . . . [Chauvin] also heard Mr. Floyd repeatedly explain that he could not breathe, was in pain, and wanted help.”

Chauvin “knew that what he was doing was wrong—that continued force was no longer appropriate and that it posed significant risks to Mr. Floyd’s life—based on what he observed and heard about Mr. Floyd.”

Chauvin “admits that he failed to render medical aid to Mr. Floyd, as he was capable of doing, and trained and required to do.”

In July 2022 U.S. District Judge Magnuson sentenced Chauvin to 245 Months for Depriving George Floyd and John Pope [a teenager in a different case] of Their Federal Civil Rights.

It thus appeared that this federal case was over while Chauvin concurrently served his federal and state sentences in a federal prison in Colorado.

Recent Chauvin Challenge to Federal Conviction and Sentencing[4]

However, on November 13, 2023, Derek Chauvin (without legal counsel) filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to vacate his conviction and sentencing by that court, based on his guilty plea, for the murder and manslaughter of George Floyd in Minneapolis in May 2020.

The asserted basis for this motion was the opinion of a pathologist, Dr. William Schaetzel, who had never examined the Floyd corpse and never testified in any of the criminal cases, but said based on review of certain papers that Floyd did not die from asphyxia from Chauvin’s actions, but from complications of a rare tumor called paragangliona that can cause a fatal surge of adrenaline.

This development will be explored in a subsequent post.

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

[1] Hyatt, U.S. Supreme Court rejects review of Derek Chauvin’s latest appeal attempt, Star Tribune Nov. 20, 2023) Supreme Court rejects appeal of former Minneapolis police officer convicted of killing George Floyd, APNews (Nov. 20, 2023)

[2] 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);Derek Chauvin’s Appeal of State Conviction and Sentencing for Killing George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (Jan. 23, 2023); Minnesota Court of Appeals Affirms State Court Conviction of Derek Chauvin for Killing George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (April 19, 2023); Derek Chauvin Asks Minnesota Supreme Court To Review His Conviction for Killing of George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (May 18, 2023); Derek Chauvin Will Ask U.S. Supreme Court To Review His State Court Conviction for Murder and Manslaughter of George Floyd , dwkcommentaries.com(July 21, 2023); Derek Chauvin Files Petition for U.S. Supreme Court Review of His State Court Conviction for Murder and Manslaughter of George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (Oct. 25, 2023).

[3] Federal Criminal Charges Against Ex-Policemen Over George Floyd’s Killing, dwkcommentaries,com (May 7, 2021); Derek Chauvin Pleads Guilty to Federal Charges Over George Floyd Killing and Excess Force Against Teenager ,dwkcommentaries.com (December 16, 2021); Federal Court Sentences Derek Chauvin to 245 months (20.4 Years) for Depriving George Floyd and John Pope of Their Federal Civil Rights, dwkcommentaries.com (July 8, 2022); Comment: Federal Court’s Criminal Judgment for Derek Chauvin, dwkcommentaries.com (July 9, 2022).

[4] Karnowski (AP), Ex-officer Derek Chauvin makes another bid to overturn federal conviction in murder of George Floyd, StarTribune. com (Nov. 14, 2023) Krauss, Derek Chauvin files motion attempting to overturn federal conviction, StarTribune (Nov. 15, 2023) Price, Derek Chauvin claims new evidence shows he didn’t cause George Floyd’s death, attempts to overthrow conviction, Fox News (Nov. 15, 2023) Naham, Convicted murderer Derek Chauvin’s prison emails revealed as he cites pathologist’s alternate theory George Floyd ‘literally scared’ to death, Law & Crime (Nov. 15, 2023) Motion To Vacate Conviction and Sentence under 28 U.S.C. SECTION 2255, U.S. v. Chauvin, Case No. 21-CR-108-PAM, U.S. Dist. Ct. MN (Nov. 13, 2023).

State Court Imposes Sentence of 57 Months Imprisonment on Tou Thao for Aiding Manslaughter of George Floyd

When George Floyd was killed on May 25, 2020, Tou Thao was a Minneapolis police officer who was in charge of monitoring and restraining the large nearby crowd of bystanders while observing fellow officers Derek Chauvin, Thomas Lane and Alexander Kueng physically restraining and killing George Floyd on the nearby pavement. On August 7, 2023, Thao was sentenced in state court to 57 months imprisonment for aiding and abetting second-degree manslaughter. The following is a summary of Minnesota state courts’ proceedings, convictions and sentencings of these four ex-Minneapolis police officers.

Prior State Court Proceedings[1]

The State of Minnesota charged Thao and the other three officers with various crimes for the killing of Mr. Floyd. The officer in charge, Derek Chauvin, was the first officer to go on trial in the Hennepin County District Court and a jury found him guilty of second- and third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter and the court sentenced him to 22.5 years imprisonment.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals then denied Chauvin’s appeal and the Minnesota Supreme Court declined to hear his further appeal. According to his attorney, Chauvin will petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review his case.

In Hennepin County District Court in May 2022, Officer Lane pleaded guilty to a charge of aiding and abetting second-degree manslaughter and was sentenced to 2.5 years imprisonment.

In October 2022, also in Hennepin County District Court, Kueng pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting manslaughter and was sentenced to three years imprisonment.

Thao, however, rejected a proposed guilty plea and instead chose to have Judge Cahill try him on stipulated evidence.

District Court’s Conviction of Thao[2]

On May 1, 2023, District Court Judge Peter Cahill issued the Court’s 177-page Verdict, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Memorandum Opinion. In finding Thao guilty of aiding and abetting second-degree manslaughter of George Floyd, the Verdict stated:

“Thao actively encouraged his three colleagues’ dangerous prone restraint of Floyd while holding back a crowd of concerned bystanders begging the officers to render medical aid. Thao knew, as the minutes passed and the restraint continue unimpeded, that Floyd had stopped talking and fallen silent, had stopped moving altogether, and
had become totally unresponsive. In fact, by about six minutes into the restraint, Floyd stopped breathing, lost consciousness, and became pulseless.”
That night Thao “was an experienced Minneapolis police officer with almost a decade’s experience. He knew that the officers’ prone restraint could kill. Like the other officers, Thao had been trained specifically to turn an individual onto his side to avoid positional asphyxia, the very thing that several eminent medical specialists who testified at trial concluded caused Floyd’s death. Like the bystanders, Thao could see Floyd’s life slowly ebbing away as the restraint continued. Yet Thao made a conscious decision to actively participate in Floyd’s death: he held back the concerned bystanders and even prevented an off-duty Minneapolis firefighter from rendering the medical aid Floyd so desperately needed.”
““Thao also directly insisted upon continuing the restraint that took Floyd’s death that night. Soon after Floyd had been subdued prone on the street, Thao retrieved a device called a ‘hobble’ from Lane’s and Kueng’s squad. If properly employed, that hobble would have saved Floyd’s life. But Thao encouraged the other officers not to use the hobble and instead to ‘hold on’ and continue the physical restraint by which his three fellow officers were bearing down on Floyd, forcing him into the unyielding concrete of the street, drastically inhibiting his ability to breathe effectively. Thao’s stated reason? ‘If we hobble him, the sergeant is going to have to come out’ to complete the paper work for a ‘use of force review’ mandated by MPD policy whenever the hobble is employed. The short of it: Tou Thao did not want to follow the proper protocol and the work it would entail. George Floyd died as a result.”

District Court’s Sentencing of Thao[3]

On August 3, 2023, Minnesota Assistant Attorney General Erin Eldridge submitted a three-page letter to the Court noting that the presumptive sentence for this crime for Thao was 48 months with a guideline range of 41 to 57 months and that the State requested the imposition of a 51 month sentence for the following reasons:

“Thao’s conduct was calculated, deliberate, and directly facilitated and perpetuated the restraint that led to Floyd’s death. Throughout the encounter, Thao was aware of Floyd’s distress and the dangerousness of the ongoing prone restraint. Thao discouraged the officers from using a hobble—a device that, if properly utilized, would have saved Floyd’s life. . . . Instead, Thao actively encouraged his fellow officers to continue to restrain Floyd prone on the ground. . . . . . Thao also ‘expressly refused to allow’ ‘a trained Minneapolis firefighter’ ‘to tend to Floyd, . . . despite Floyd’s obvious distress. . . . In short, Thao bears personal responsibility for what happened that day. This Court should impose a punishment that reflects Thao’s culpability.”
“Thao’s conduct was even more egregious in light of his extensive experience and training. Thao completed the police academy in 2009, and became a full-time officer in 2012, serving in that capacity for 8 years. …. Over the course of his multi-year career, Thao completed 1,014 hours of MPD training, including medical training, defensive tactics training, procedural justice training, and crisis intervention training. . . . .Above all, Thao had been trained about the importance of placing individuals in the side recovery position to alleviate the risk of positional asphyxia. . . . Yet despite his extensive on-the-job experience and copious training, Thao intentionally encouraged the use of a dangerous prone restraint, discouraged the use of a hobble, and prevented an off-duty firefighter from rendering aid. In short, Thao knew better, but did not do better.”
“Thao acted callously and cruelly. Thao mocked Floyd, telling the concerned bystanders: ‘This is why you don’t do drugs, kids.’ . . . . Thao dismissed Floyd’s pleas: ‘He’s talking, so he’s fine.’ . . . And Thao encouraged the dangerous behavior for selfish reasons: In Thao’s words, if the officers used a hobble, ‘a sergeant’s going to have to come [to the scene].’ ….This Court put it best: ‘Tou Thao did not want to follow the proper protocol and the work it would entail. George Floyd died as a result.’ . . . . “
“[A] a significant term of incarceration would serve as a deterrent for similar misconduct. Police officers enforce the law; they are not above the law. A 51-month prison sentence will discourage other public servants from engaging in similar criminal behavior or abuses of authority.”
“Thao has neither accepted responsibility nor shown any remorse for his actions”

At the August 7 sentencing hearing, Mr. Eldridge said, “George Floyd’s last words were heard around the world, but more importantly they were heard by Tou Thao and we cannot forget them now three years later.”

Mr. Thao’s attorney, Robert Paule, said at the hearing, “The death of Mr. Floyd is a tragedy, but the court is a place of justice, not retribution. Mr. Thao went out that day with the purest intentions. My client is a good and decent man with a family.” Paule then requested a sentence of 47 months, which was 10 months less than the maximum of the sentencing guidelines.

Mr. Thao then spoke for about 23 minutes to say, “Hold on to the truth that I did not commit these crimes; my conscience is clear. I will not be a Judas nor join a mob in self-preservation or betray my God. I did not intend on hurting anyone that day. I did the best I thought I could. Obviously the outcome didn’t come out the way I wanted it. I’ll leave it at that” without any apology. He then quoted Biblical passages and preached of repentance, fear of God and forgiveness. “Today if you feel the love of God pulling at your heart. . . . Let it be your day of salvation. Do not harden your heart in rebellion, for God desired mercy and relationship with you.”

Thao then directly asked Judge Cahill if he was a brother in Christ and apologized if he had offended the Judge by refusing to take a guilty plea deal and having said, “it would be a lie and a sin for me to accept a plea deal.” The Judge then said no offense was taken.

Thao closed by saying that he is praying for everyone in the room, including the Judge, and that if anyone needs him for prayer, “you know where to find me. Thank you judge. God bless you.”

Judge Cahill then said, “After three years of reflection, I was hoping for a little more remorse, regret, acknowledgement of some responsibility and less preaching.” The Judge added that he would not rehash the facts of the case, but that Thao’s “culpability is less than Mr. Chauvin, but well above Mr. Kueng and Mr. Lane as an experienced senior officer who was in the best position to save George Floyd.” Therefore, a sentence of 57 months was appropriate.

This sentence will be served in Minnesota state prison, to which he will be transferred from federal prison where he already is serving his federal sentence of 42 months for violations of Floyd’s civil rights with the balance of that federal sentence to be served concurrently with the state sentence. [4]

Conclusion

After the hearing, Thao’s attorney said he would appeal the guilty verdict and the sentence.

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

[1] See, e.g., List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: George Floyd Killing.

[2] Tou Thao, ex-MPD Officer, Convicted for Aiding and Abetting Second-Degree Manslaughter of George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (May 3, 2023); Briefs in Tou Thao’s State Court Criminal Case Over Killing of George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (Feb. 2, 2023);

[3] Hyatt, Ex-Minneapolis cop Tou Thao sentenced to nearly 5 years for aiding George Floyd’s killing, StarTribune (Aug. 7, 2023); Karnowski, Ex-Minneapolis officer unrepentant as he gets nearly 5 years in George Floyd killing, AP News (Aug. 7, 2023); Betts, Former Officer Gets More than 4 Years in Final Sentencing for Police Killing of George Floyd, N.Y. Times (Aug. 7, 2023). Bailey, Ex-Minneapolis officer gets second sentence in George Floyd’s death, Wash. Post (Aug. 7, 2023); Helmore, Ex-officer sentenced to nearly five years for role in George Floyd’s murder, Guardian (Aug. 7, 2023); Letter, Minnesota Assistant Attorney General Erin R. Eldridge to Judge Peter Cahill (Aug. 3, 2023).

[4] Tou and the other three ex-MPD officers were also sued in federal court for alleged violations of Mr. Floyd’s civil rights. All four of them were convicted and sentenced to federal imprisonment. (E.g., U.S. Court of Appeals Affirms Federal Conviction of Tou Thao for Violating the Civil Rights of George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (Aug. 5, 2023).) https://www.startribune.com/tou-thao-sentenced-nearly-5-years-aiding-george-floyds-killing/600295391/?refresh=true

Derek Chauvin Asks Minnesota Supreme Court To Review His Conviction for Killing of George Floyd

As previously reported, in April 2021, a jury in Hennepin County District Court returned a verdict that Derek Chauvin was guilty on all three counts (second degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter) of George Floyd in May 2020. In June 2021 that court imposed a sentence of 22.5 years imprisonment on Mr. Chauvin for these crimes.[1]

On April 17, 2023, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed that conviction.[2]

On May 17, 2023, Chauvin appealed that decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court, stating that the legal issues to be reviewed were the following:

“Whether the district court’s failure to either transfer venue, delay the trial or sequester the jury deprived Petitioner of state rights and constitutional due process to a fair trial because (i) the district court failed to presume juror prejudice due to pervasive adverse publicity and violence in the community or (ii) the district court abused its discretion.”
“Whether (i) police officers acting to effect lawful arrests can be convicted of second- degree felony murder when the predicate felony required only intent to contact, with no subjective intent to use what is later adjudicated as objectively unreasonable force or (ii) Minnesota should abrogate felony murder where the predicate felony is assault.”
“Whether the jury instruction on ‘reasonableness’ police use-of-force was material error.”
“Whether upward sentence departures are misapplied when defendant’s conduct was without subjective intent.”
Whether denying a Schwartz hearing after defendant presented prima facie evidence of juror misconduct deprives defendants of the constitutional right to trial by impartial jury.”[3]

The Minnesota Supreme Court could decline to review the Court of Appeals decision or decide to conduct such a review after the parties submit detailed briefs and present arguments at a hearing and thereafter submit the Supreme Court’s decision.

This blogger thinks that the Supreme Court probably will decline to grant review. In the meantime, Chauvin is serving concurrent state and federal convictions for Floyd’s killing in a federal prison.

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

[1] 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).

[2] Minnesota Court of Appeals Affirms Chauvin’s State Court Conviction for Killing of George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (April 19, 2023).

[3] Karnowski (AP), Chauvin appeals conviction in George Floyd’s murder to the Minnesota Supreme Court, StarTribune (May 17, 2023); Petition for Review, Chauvin v.State, Minn. Sup. Ct. # A21-1228 (May 17, 2023).

Minnesota Court of Appeals Affirms Chauvin’s State Court Conviction for Killing of George Floyd

On April 17, 2023, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed Derek Chauvin’s state court conviction, after a jury trial, for second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter in the May 2020 death of George Floyd.[1]

This blog already has provided extensive information about the actual killing of Mr. Floyd,[2] and Chauvin’s criminal trial,[3]

Minnesota Appellate Court’s Opinion[4]

The appellate decision was set forth in an unanimous 50-page decision authored by Presiding Judge Peter M. Reyes, Jr. that was joined by Appellate Judge Elise L. Larson and Senior Appellate Judge Roger M. Klaphake (serving by appointment as a Senior Judge of that court).

After the first 48 pages providing great details about the law and facts of this case, the court sets forth the following “DECISION:”

“Police officers undoubtedly have a challenging, difficult, and sometimes dangerous job. However, no one is above the law. When they commit a crime, they must be held accountable just as those individuals that they lawfully apprehend. The law only permits police officers to use reasonable force when effecting a lawful arrest. Chauvin crossed that line here when he used unreasonable force on Floyd.”
“We hold that, when a criminal defendant moves to change venue, continue trial, or sequester the jury alleging that publicity surrounding the trial created either actual or presumed juror prejudice, a district court does not abuse its discretion by denying the motions if it takes sufficient mitigating steps and verifies that the jurors can set aside their impressions or opinions and deliver a fair and impartial verdict. We also hold that a police officer can be convicted of second-degree unintentional felony murder for causing the death of another by using unreasonable force constituting third-degree assault to effect a lawful arrest. “
“In addition, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by (1) denying Chauvin’s request for a Schwartz hearing; (2) its jury instructions; (3) allowing the state to present seven witnesses on the use-of-force issue; (4) excluding from admission a presentation slide from MPD training materials; (5) denying Chauvin’s new-trial motion based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct; (6) excluding an unavailable witness’s out-ofcourt statement; and (7) departing upward from the presumptive range under the sentencing guidelines. We further conclude that Chauvin is not entitled to a new trial based upon the district court’s failure to ensure that sidebar conferences were transcribed and that any alleged cumulative error did not deny Chauvin a fair trial. Finally, we decline to address Chauvin’s challenge to his third-degree-murder conviction because the district court did not convict Chauvin of or sentence for this offense.”
“AFFIRMED.”

Conclusion

Chauvin has the right to petition the Minnesota Supreme Court to review this decision, but the Supreme Court may deny the petition without hearing arguments, and this blogger believes that such a petition should be denied.

In addition,as previously argued in this blog, Chauvin’s guilty plea to related charges in federal court should be another ground for rejecting any Chauvin appeals, but this argument was not mentioned by the Court of Appeals. [5]

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

[1] Hyatt, Minnesota Court of Appeals rejects Derek Chauvin’s request for new trial in George Floyd killing, StarTribune (April 17, 2023); Bailey, Minnesota appeals court rejects Chauvin’s request for new trial in Floyd killing, Wash. Post (April 17, 2023).

[2] See posts listed in “The Killing of George Floyd (May 25, 2020)“ section of List of Posts to dwkcommentaries Topical: George Floyd Killing.

[3] See posts listed in the “Derek Chauvin State Criminal Trial” section of List of Posts to dwkcommentaries Topical: George Floyd Killing.

[4] Minnesota Court of Appeals, Opinion, State v. Chauvin, No. A21-1228 (April 17, 2023);

[5] Derek Chauvin’s Appeal of State Conviction and Sentencing for Killing George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (Jan. 23, 2023).

Derek Chauvin’s Appeal of State Conviction and Sentencing for Killing of George Floyd

In April 2021, a jury in Hennepin County District Court returned a verdict that Derek Chauvin was guilty on all three counts (second degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter) of George Floyd. Then in June 2021 the court imposed a sentence of 22.5 years imprisonment on Mr. Chauvin for these crimes.[1]

After Chauvin found a new law firm that was willing to take an appeal in this state case, the Minnesota Court of Appeals on January 18, 2023, heard oral arguments in that appeal. A summary of that argument follows. [2]

Arguments to Minnesota Court of Appeals

Chauvin’s attorney asserted that Chauvin allegedly failed to get a fair trial in light of the extensive pretrial publicity about the killing of George Floyd and the trial’s being conducted in a courthouse “that’s surrounded by concrete block, barbed wire, two armored personnel carriers and a squad of National Guard troops all . . . there for one purpose: in the event the jury acquits the defendant.” As a result, the court abused its discretion in denying a change of venue.

Chauvin’s attorney also argued that during jury selection one juror allegedly lied about never participating in a protest in Minneapolis. But one of the appellate judges said he did not think this juror lied because he attended a Martin L. King, Jr. rally in Washington, D.C. while admitting he supported Black Lives Matter and seven times said he could be a fair juror. After all of that, Chauvin’s attorney chose not to strike him as a juror.

Chauvin’s attorney also argued that the prosecutors failed to prove sufficient probable cause.

On behalf of the prosecution, Neal Katyal from Washington, D.C. said Chauvin got “one of the most transparent and thorough trials in our nation’s history. Chauvin’s many arguments . . . do not come close to justifying reversal. Judge Cahill managed this trial with enormous care and even if Chauvin could identify some minor fault, any error is harmless. The evidence of Chauvin’s guilt was captured on video for the world to see.

Katyal also said the juror in question accurately answered the questions and repeatedly insisted he could render an impartial verdict. And the defense did not use any of its three preemptory strikes to remove him, which indicated defense satisfaction with the juror.

Conclusion

The Chauvin appeal and arguments in the state case seem a waste of effort and money in light of Chauvin’s guilty plea in the federal case when he admitted in writing that certain facts were true . . .[and] established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt].”[3] Those admissions included the following:

Chauvin, ‘while acting under color of law . . . willfully deprived George Floyd of . . . the right to be free from an unreasonable seizure, which includes the right to be free from the use of unreasonable force by a police officer. [Chauvin] . . . held his left knee across Mr. Floyd’s neck, back, and shoulder, and his right knee on Mr. Floyd’s back and arm. As Mr. Floyd lay on the ground, handcuffed and unresisting, [Chauvin] . . . kept his knees on Floyd’s neck and body, even after Mr. Floyd became unresponsive. This offense resulted in bodily injury to, and the death of, George Floyd.”
Chauvin “admits that in using this unreasonable and excessive force, he acted willfully and in callous and wanton disregard of the consequences to Mr. Floyd’s life. [Chauvin] . . . knew that what he was doing was wrong, in part, because it was contrary to his training as an MPD officer..”
Chauvin “also knew there was no legal justification to continue his use of force because he was aware that Mr. Floyd not only stopped resisting, but also stopped talking, stopped moving, stopped breathing, and lost consciousness and a pulse.’ [Chauvin] . . .chose to continue applying force even though he knew Mr. Floyd’s condition progressively worsened. . . . [Chauvin] also heard Mr. Floyd repeatedly explain that he could not breathe, was in pain, and wanted help.”
Chauvin “knew that what he was doing was wrong—that continued force was no longer appropriate and that it posed significant risks to Mr. Floyd’s life—based on what he observed and heard about Mr. Floyd.”
Chauvin “admits that he failed to render medical aid to Mr. Floyd, as he was capable of doing, and trained and required to do.”

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

[1] 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).

[2] Hyatt, Derek Chauvin’s attorney asks Minnesota Court of Appeals for a new trial, StarTribune (Jan. 18, 2023); Karnowski, Court asked to void verdict against ex-cop in Floyd’s murder, AP News (Jan. 18, 2023).

[3] Derek Chauvin Pleads Guilty to Federal Criminal Charges Over Killing of George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 16, 2021). Comment: Federal Court Accepts Chauvin’s Plea Agreement, dwkcommentaries.com (July 7, 2022); Plea Agreement and Sentencing Stipulations, U.S. v. Chauvin, U.S. Dist. Ct., Dist. MN, # 21-CR-108 (Dec. 15, 2001).

Chauvin Appellate Brief Regarding State Court Conviction for Murder of George Floyd

On April 25, 2022, attorneys for Derek Chauvin submitted a brief in support of his appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals from his conviction and sentencing by the state District Court for his involvement in the death of George Floyd.

Chauvin’s Brief for the Appeal[1]

Here are the principal points of Chauvin’s brief:

The pervasive prejudicial publicity, jurors’ concerns for their safety if they did not convict Chauvin and physical threats to the courthouse required the court to change venue, continue the trial, or fully sequester the jury and its failure to do so violated Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 25.02 and the U.S. Constitution’s 6^th and 14^th
More specifically, the pretrial publicity surrounding the case, which was pervasive and overwhelmingly hostile to Chauvin and law enforcement in general, combined with the riots, the threat of violence from a possible acquittal, the City of Minneapolis’ announcement of its $27 million settlement of claims by the Floyd family in the middle of jury voir dire, jurors’ express concerns for their own personal safety and at least two jurors expressing negative views of the Minneapolis Police Department, the media’s spying on the attorneys and disclosing courthouse security measures required the court to change venue, continue the trial or fully sequester the jury, and its failure to do so violated Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 25.02 and the U.S. Constitution’s 6^th and 14^th Amendments.
The third-degree murder charge against Chauvin, for which he was convicted, must be dismissed because his actions were directed only against one person—George Floyd—and because the Minnesota Supreme Court has decided that such a charge requires actions against more than one person.
The second-degree felony-murder charge against Chauvin was invalid because as a police officer he was authorized to “touch” or “assault” Floyd as he resisted arrest and because the court did not instruct the jury that the reasonable use of force by a police officer must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.
The trial court also erred by allowing cumulative evidence by seven expert witnesses on their opinions on the reasonable use of force by Chauvin.
The court improperly excluded evidence of MPD training materials showing a police officer placing his or her knees on a suspect’s back.
The court erroneously excluded testimony by Morries Hall, a passenger in Floyd’s car, on Floyd’s ingestion of fentanyl and being in a state of excited delirium.
The court erroneously failed to take actions to correct prosecutorial misconduct regarding failure to timely disclose certain evidence.
The court erroneously failed to make a record of defense counsel’s “sidebar” arguments.
The court erroneously used Chauvin’s alleged abuse of a position of authority as an aggravating sentencing factor to justify an upward departure from the presumptive sentencing range.

We now await the prosecution’s responses to these arguments.

Chauvin’s Guilty Plea to Federal Criminal Charges Over Floyd’s Death[2]

Presumably the prosecution will find counter arguments in Chauvin’s December 15, 2001, guilty plea in federal court to two counts of depriving Mr. Floyd of his federally-protected civil rights by pinning his knee against Mr. Floyd’s neck and by failing to provide medical care for him on May 25, 2020, ultimately causing his death.

In the Plea Agreement and Sentencing Stipulations in that federal case, which Chauvin signed and stipulated that he “fully understands the nature and elements of the crimes with which he has been charged [in that federal case]” and “admits that the following facts are true, and that those facts establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt [to those charges].”

Chauvin “held his left knee across Mr. Floyd’s neck, back, and shoulder, and his right knee on Mr. Floyd’s back and arm. As Mr. Floyd lay on the ground, handcuffed and unresisting, [Chauvin] kept his knees on Floyd’s neck and body, even after Mr. Floyd became unresponsive. This offense resulted in bodily injury to, and the death of, George Floyd.”
“On May 25, 2020, [Chauvin] was on duty and acting under color of law as a patrol officer for the [MPD]. Through his experience as an MPD patrol officer, [Chauvin] was familiar with MPD policies and training regarding the authorized use of force, including the requirement that an officer use force only in proportion to a subject’s resistance and the requirement that an officer stop using force when a subject is not resisting. . . . [Chauvin] was also aware of MPD policy and training that once an arrestee is in custody, the arrestee is the officer’s responsibility to protect, and accordingly, officers are required to provide emergency medical aid to an arrestee who needs it, including CPR immediately if there is not pulse and other basic first aid, even while awaiting Emergency Medical Services (EMSA). Finally, [Chauvin] was trained that if an arrestee is in the prone position, that position may make it more difficult to breathe, and thus, officers should move that arrestee to a side recovery or seated position.”
“After an attempt to seat Mr. Floyd in a squad car, [Chauvin] and Officers Kueng and Lane maneuvered Mr. Floyd, who was handcuffed and requesting to be placed on the ground, out of the vehicle and face-down on the street. Mr. Floyd remained restrained, prone and handcuffed on the ground for approximately ten minutes. During this entire period, [Chauvin] held his left knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck, back, and shoulder area and his right knee on Mr. Floyd’s left arm and upper back.”
“After the initial restraint, Mr. Floyd stopped resisting officers. [Chauvin] admits that no later than the time the officers decided not to apply the hobble to Mr. Floyd, [Chauvin’s] continued use of force became objectively unreasonable and excessive based on a totality of the circumstances. After that point, [Chauvin] continued his unreasonable restraint of Mr. Floyd until after the paramedics arrived.”
“[Chauvin] admits that in using this unreasonable and excessive force, he acted willfully and in callous and wanton disregard of the consequences to Mr. Floyd’s life. [Chauvin] knew that what he was doing was wrong, in part, because it was contrary to his training as an MPD officer. [Chauvin] chose to continue his use of force even though he knew from MPD policy and training that once Mr. Floyd was compliant, [Chauvin] should have gotten off of him and moved him into a side recovery or seated position.”
“[Chauvin] also knew there was no legal justification to continue his use of force because he was aware that Mr. Floyd not only stopped resisting, but also stopped talking, stopped moving, stopped breathing, and lost consciousness and a pulse. [Chauvin] chose to continue applying force even though he knew Mr. Floyd’s condition progressively worsened. [Chauvin] also heard Mr. Floyd repeatedly explain that he could not breathe, was in pain, and wanted help.”
“[Chauvin] knew that what he was doing was wrong-that continued force was no longer appropriate and that it posed significant risks to Mr. Floyd’s life based on what he observed and heard about Mr. Floyd.”
“[Chauvin] also willfully violated Mr. Floyd’s constitutional right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, which includes an arrestee’s right to be free from a police officer’s deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. [Chauvin] admits that he failed to render medical aid to Mr. Floyd, as he was capable of doing, and trained and required to do.”
“At the time [Chauvin] failed to render medical aid to Mr. Floyd, [he] saw Mr. Floyd lying on the ground, in serious medical need, and eventually unconscious and pulseless, and recognized Mr. Floyd was in clear need of medical aid. At no point during the entire period that Mr. Floyd was on the ground did [Chauvin] or anyone else move Floyd onto his side, start CPR, or provide medical aid of any kind to Mr. Floyd. [Chauvin’s] failure to render medical aid resulted in Mr. Floyd’s bodily injury and death.”
“[Chauvin] agrees that the appropriate base offense level is second-degree murder because he used unreasonable and excessive force that resulted in Mr. Floyd’s death, and he acted willfully and in callous and wanton disregard of the consequences to Mr. Floyd’s life. [Chauvin] admits that his willful use of unreasonable force resulted in Mr. Floyd’s bodily injury and death because his actions impaired Mr. Floyd’s ability to obtain and maintain sufficient oxygen to sustain Mr. Floyd’s life.”

Conclusion

Given these express written admissions by Chauvin, why is it necessary for the Minnesota Court of Appeals, the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office and Chauvin’s attorneys to go through the intensive and costly process of examining the various issues in Chauvin’s appeal of his state court conviction and sentencing?

This blog welcomes comments expressing why such efforts are necessary.

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

[1] Appellant’s Brief, State v. Chauvin, Minn. Ct. Appeals, No. A21-1228 (April 25, 2022); Assoc. Press, Chauvin appeals murder conviction for killing George Floyd, StarTribune (April 28, 2022); Chappell, Derek Chauvin appeals his conviction for George Floyd’s murder, MPRNews (April 27, 2022); Scully, Derek Chauvin asks court to overturn conviction in George Floyd killing, The Hill (April 27, 2022); Wolfe & Rose, Derek Chauvin appeals his murder conviction in death of George Floyd, CNN.con (April 27, 2022).

[2] Derek Chauvin Pleads Guilty to Federal Criminal Charges Over Killing George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 16, 2021); Plea Agreement and Sentencing Guidelines (pp. 2-6), U.S. v. Chauvin, U.S. Dist. Ct., D. MN (Case No. 21-CR-108 (PAM-TNL) (Dec. 15, 2021). The federal court’s Docket Sheet for this case has the following entries, but the referenced documents are currently not available to the public: (a) 4/1/22 entry for erroneous filing of transcript of 12/15/21 Change of Plea Hearing; (b) 4/5/22 entry for filing of corrected version of that transcript; and (c) 4/27/22 entry for Preliminary Presentence Report on Chauvin.

Derek Chauvin Pleads Guilty to Federal Criminal Charges Over Killing of George Floyd

On December 15, 2021, at the Minneapolis’ federal courthouse Derek Chauvin pleaded guilty to two counts of depriving George Floyd of his federally-protected civil rights by pinning his knee against Floyd’s neck and by failing to provide medical care for Floyd on May 25, 2020, ultimately causing his death.[1]

At this hearing, Chauvin also pleaded guilty to separate federal charges for holding down with his knee a 14-year-old boy in 2007 and failing to provide medical care to the boy and thereby causing non-fatal injuries.

His only comments during the hearing were short answers to questions by U.S. District Court Judge Paul Magnuson. These questions and answers undoubtedly followed the Plea Agreement and Sentencing Stipulations in his federal case over the killing of Mr. Floyd and other papers regarding pleading guilty to the 2017 mistreatment of the juvenile.

The federal court subsequently will conduct a sentencing hearing on these charges, but Chauvin and the federal prosecution have agreed that he will serve these sentences in a federal prison concurrently with his state sentence and that the federal prosecutors intends to recommend a sentence of 300 months.

Background[2]

On June 2, 2020, Chauvin in a superseding complaint was charged with these crimes under Minnesota state law regarding the killing of M. Floyd: Second Degree Murder (Unintentional While Committing a Felony), Third Degree Murder (Perpetrating Eminently Dangerous Act and Evidencing Dangerous Mind) and Second Degree Manslaughter (Culpable Negligence Creating Unreasonable Risk).

After the district court had denied his dismissal motion, Chauvin alone went on trial, starting March 8, 2021. On April 20, 2021, the jury convicted him on all three counts: second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter.

On June 25, 2021, the court at a hearing sentenced Chauvin to 22.5 years imprisonment. At that hearing, Chauvin stated to the judge and several members of the Floyd family, “At this time due to some additional legal matters at hand, I’m not able to give a full, formal statement at this time. Briefly though, I do want to give my condolences to the Floyd family. There’s going to be some other information in the future that would be of interest, and I hope things will give you some peace of mind. Thank you.”

Observers immediately speculated, rightly so by Chauvin’s recent change of his plea to guilty, that attorneys for the prosecution and Chauvin were working on details of an agreement for a guilty plea and their negotiation of the terms of such an agreement reached fruition at the December 15^th hearing.

Along the way, Chauvin has clearly indicated his preference for federal over Minnesota prisons. Perhaps that is because in state prison he is more likely to encounter fellow inmates who have had bad experiences with Minneapolis policemen, including Chauvin himself, and who as a result might have incentives to mistreat Chauvin.

Conclusion

The Chauvin guilty plea to the state charges obviously will result in the dismissal of his appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

It also leaves the other three ex-officers with the challenging decision of whether to change their pleas to guilty to the state and federal criminal charges against them and thereby eliminate the necessity of state and federal criminal trials, which might include Chauvin’s testimony against them.

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

Zapotosky & Bailey, Derek Chauvin signals he will plead guilty to violating George Floyd’s civil rights, Wash. Post (12/12/21); Mannix, Derek Chauvin to change plea in federal civil rights case, StarTribune (12/13/21); Plea Agreement and Sentencing Guidelines, U.S. v. Chauvin, U.S. Dist. Ct., D. MN (Case No. 21-CR-108 (PAM-TNL) Dec. 15, 2021); Mannix, Derek Chauvin pleads guilty to civil rights charges in George Floyd’s killing, StarTribune (12/15/21); Bailey, Derek Chauvin pleads guilty to violating George Floyd’s civil rights, Wash. Post (12/15/21);Bogel-Burroughs, Derek Chauvin Pleads Guilty to Violating George Floyd’s Rights, N.Y. Times (12/15/21); Derek Chauvin pleads guilty to civil rights charges in killing of George Floyd, Guardian (12/15/2021);
This blog’s many posts about the state criminal cases over the killing of Mr. Floyd are listed in List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: George Floyd Killing. This post specifically references the following posts: The Criminal Complaint Against Derek Chauvin Over the Death of George Floyd (June 12, 2020); Court of Appeals Reverses District Court’s Refusal To Follow Precedent on Third-Degree Murder Charge Against Derek Chauvin, (Mar. 5, 2021); Derek Chauvin Trial: Week One (Mar. 15, 2021); Derek Chauvin Trial: Conviction (Apr. 21, 2021); Derek Chauvin Trial: Chauvin Sentenced to 22.5 Years Imprisonment (June 28, 2021).

Derek Chauvin Faces Roadblocks in Appealing His Conviction and Sentencing for Second-Degree Murder of George Floyd

Derek Chauvin is facing roadblocks to appealing his conviction and sentencing for second-degree murder of George Floyd that was commenced on September 20 with Chauvin’s notice of appeal, statement of the case, motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IPF) in the Minnesota Court of Appeals and motion to stay this appeal pending the Minnesota Supreme Court’s review of his ineligibility determination for a public defender by the Office of the Minnesota Appellate Public Defender (OMAPD).[1]

The first roadblock occurred on September 24 when the clerk of the appellate courts directed Chauvin within 10 days to (1) pay the $550 filing fee; (2) provide proof of service of the notice of appeal on the district court administrator; and (3) provide proof of service of the appeal papers on the county attorney and attorney general.

The second roadblock was the Minnesota Supreme Court’s October 6^th rejection of Chauvin’s appeal from OMAPD’s determination of his ineligibility for a Public Defender in this appeal. [2] (The Court of Appeals in an October 8^th Order stated his request for the same relief was moot.)

That Court of Appeals’ Order also noted that Chauvin must submit a written request of transcripts within 30 days after the filing of the notice of appeal and that his appellate brief must be submitted within 60 days after the court reporter delivers the transcript.

That Court of Appeals’ Order further noted that because he was not represented by counsel, its rules provided that “the case will be submitted on the briefs and record without oral arguments by any party.” If, however, Chauvin subsequently obtains counsel, he may file a motion requesting oral argument.

These details were incorporated in the Court of Appeals’ Order as follows:

On or before October 15 Chauvin “shall file proof of service of the notice of appeal on the Hennepin County District Court Administrator and proof of service of the notice of appeal and statement of the case on the Minnesota Attorney General.”
Chauvin’s “motion to proceed IFP in this court is denied.”
Chauvin’s “motion to stay this appeal is denied.”
“On or before October 22, 2021, [Chauvin] shall pay the $550 filing fee.”
“On or before October 22, 2021, [Chauvin] shall order a transcript of the district court proceedings from the court reporter and make financial arrangements for the court reporter to file a completed transcript certificate by November 12, 2021.”
Chauvin’s “request for oral argument is denied without prejudice to a subsequent motion for oral argument filed by counsel.”

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

[1] Olson, Appeals Court: Derek Chauvin can’t make oral arguments unless he hires a lawyer, StarTribune (Oct. 8, 2021); Order, State v. Chauvin, Minn. Ct. App. #A21-1228 (Oct. 8, 2021).

[2] Minnesota Supreme Court Denies Chauvin’s Request for Public Defender, dwkcommentaries (Oct. 8, 2021).

Derek Chauvin Appeals His Conviction and Sentencing for Second-Degree Murder of George Floyd

On September 23, 2021, Derek Chauvin initiated his appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals from the Hennepin County District Court ‘s June 25^th Sentencing Order and Memorandum Opinion holding him guilty of second-degree murder of George Floyd and sentencing Chauvin to 22.5 years imprisonment for that crime.[1]

The document initiating this appeal was Chauvin’s Statement of the Case of Appellant.[2] It stated the following issues for the appeal:

“(1) The District Court abused its discretion when it denied Appellant’s motion for change of venue or a new trial;

(2) The District Court abused its discretion when it denied Appellant’s motion for a continuance or a new trial;

(3) The District Court abused its discretion when it denied Appellant’s motions to sequester the jury throughout trial;

(4) The State committed prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct;

(5) The District Court prejudicially erred when it concluded that the testimony of Morries Hall, or in the alternative Mr. Hall’s statements to law enforcement, did not fall under Minn. R. Evid. 804(b)(3) and was not a violation Appellant’s constitutional confrontation rights;

(6) The District Court prejudicially erred when it permitted the State to present cumulative evidence with respect to use of force;

(7) The District Court abused its discretion when it ordered the State to lead witnesses on direct examination;

(8) The District Court abused its discretion when it failed to make an ofﬁcial record of the numerous sidebar conferences that occurred during trials;

(9) The District Court abused its discretion when it failed to allow Appellant to exercise several cause strikes for clearly biased jurors during voir dire;

(10) The District Court abused its discretion when it permitted the State of amend its complaint to add the charge of third-degree murder;

(11) The District Court abused its discretion when it strictly limited and undercut the admissibility of George Floyd’s May 6, 2019 arrest;

(12) The District Court abused its discretion when it submitted instructions to the jury that materially misstated the law;

(13) The District Court abused its discretion when it by denying Appellant’s motion for a Schwartz hearing;

(l4) The District Court abused its discretion when it denied Appellant’s post-verdict motion for a new trial due to juror misconduct.”

These issues will be presented and argued with citations to legal precedents and the trial record in the subsequent briefs and oral arguments of the parties.

However, a practical problem for Chauvin is the inability of his trial counsel, Eric Nelson, to represent him on this appeal because the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, which had paid Nelson’s attorneys’ fees for Chauvin’s pretrial and trial proceedings, does not pay such fees for appeals after conviction and Chauvin does not have the financial ability to pay for appellate counsel. As a result, on September 23, District Judge Peter Cahill entered an Order Granting In Forma Paupereris Application of Mr. Chauvin. Now Chauvin awaits the Minnesota Supreme Court’s action on his application to reverse its earlier decision denying him a public defender to represent him on this appeal.

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

[1] Derek Chauvin Trial: Chauvin Sentenced to 22.5 Years Imprisonment, dwkcommentaries.com (June 28, 2021); Forlitti (AP), Chauvin to appeal conviction, sentence in Floyd’s death, Wash. Post (Sept. 23, 2021); Chhith, Derek Chauvin appeals his conviction in George Floyd’s death, StarTribune (Sept. 23, 2021).

[2] Statement of the Case of Appellant, State v. Chauvin, Minnesota Court of Appeals Case No. A21-1228 (Sept. 23, 2021).