Thomas Lane – Page 6 – dwkcommentaries

Chauvin Moves To Dismiss Criminal Complaint

On August 28, former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin filed a motion to dismiss the criminal complaints against him.[1] Here is a summary of this motion.

Dismissal of Count I–Second Degree Unintentional Murder

Count I of the Amended Complaint alleges Chauvin is guilty of Second Degree Unintentional Murder by reason of his allegedly committing a Third Degree Assault. But it does not even “allege that Mr. Chauvin possessed the intent to inflict bodily harm upon Mr. Floyd.” And “the State has offered no evidence to support the intent element of third-degree assault.” (Chauvin Memo at 9.)

Instead, the evidence shows that Floyd “was struggling in and around the squad [car] at a busy Minneapolis intersection. He was handcuffed and acting erratically. Continued struggle posed a risk of injury to Mr. Floyd and, potentially, to officers. The decision to use MRT allowed officers to restrain Mr. Floyd without injury until EMS arrived on scene. Mr. Chauvin, who arrived at the scene as officers were already struggling with Mr. Floyd, checked to ensure that EMS had been called.” (Id. at 9-10.)

“The Medical Examiner found no bruising on Mr. Floyd’s neck or on any neck muscles or any injury to neck structures. There was no bruising on Mr. Floyd’s back or evidence of blunt trauma to his back. If Mr. Chauvin had intended to inflict harm to Mr. Floyd’s back and neck with his knee, surely there would be evidence of bruising. But clearly, Mr. Chauvin was cautious about the amount of pressure he used to restrain Mr. Floyd—cautious enough to prevent bruising. Video evidence shows Mr. Chauvin was calm and professional throughout the application of MRT” or Maximal Restraint Technique that was a technique approved by the Minneapolis Police Department. (Id. at 10.)

Dismissal of Count II–Third-Degree, Depraved Mind Murder

“Count II of the Amended Complaint charges Mr. Chauvin with Third Degree Murder— Perpetrating Eminently Dangerous Act and Evincing Depraved Mind, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.195(a). Under Minnesota law, however, ‘[d]epraved mind murder cannot occur where the defendant’s actions were focused on a specific person.’ State v. Barnes, 713 N.W.2d 325, 331 (Minn. 2006) (citing State v. Wahlberg, 296 N.W.2d 408, 417 (Minn. 1980)).” (Id. at 11.)

“As the Minnesota Supreme Court has explained, ‘We have made clear that the statute covers only acts committed without special regard to the effect on any particular person or persons.’ State v. Zumberge, 888 N.W.2d 688, 698 (Minn. 2017). ‘[T]he act must be committed without a special design upon the particular person or persons with whose murder the accused is charged.’ Id. (appellant’s claims that he shot “toward” not “at” the decedent precludes a third degree murder instruction) (citation omitted). Third degree murder is reserved to cover cases where the act was ‘reckless or wanton,’ such as firing a gun into a bus or driving a vehicle into a crowd. Wahlberg, 296 N.W.2d at 417. That is simply not the case here.” (Id. at 11.)

Dismissal of Count III—Culpable Negligence Manslaughter

This charge requires proof of the actor’s “objective gross negligence” and “subjective recklessness.” (Id. at 12.)

Under Minnesota cases, “objective gross negligence” is an act that was “a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation.” Here, Chauvin as a police officer in an emergency situation under Minnesota case law had ‘significant independent judgment and discretion’ . . . ‘precisely because a more stringent standard could inhibit action.’ (Id. at 12-13.)

Chauvin’s attorney then argues, “Such discretion often comes into play when an officer must gauge how much force to use in order to effect an arrest. The amount of force authorized is dependent on the subject being arrested, the circumstances of the arrest, and the ever-developing fact pattern of any arrest scenario.” (Id. at 13.)

Here, “Chauvin was acting within his duties to execute a legitimate legal process—assisting other officers with effecting their arrest of George Floyd,” who was actively resisting arrest when Chauvin arrived on the scene. Quoting Minnesota cases, in such cases, an ‘officer may use all necessary and lawful means to make the arrest’ and is authorized “to escalate their use of force, short of deadly force, as necessary.” Here, under MDP policy, the use of MRT was authorized because Floyd was ‘handcuffed, . . .combative and still pose a threat to themselves, officers or others, or could cause significant damage to property if not properly restrained.” (Id. at 14-19.)

Moreover, the evidence shows Chauvin performed the MRT in accordance with MPD training materials and manuals and did not actually and consciously disregard the risks associated with MRT. And the Hennepin County Medical Examiner found no bruising on Floyd’s neck or muscles or neck structures or on his back. (Id. at 14-20.)

Dismissal of All Counts—Chauvin Did Not Cause Floyd’s Death

According to the relevant Minnesota statutes and cases, conviction for homicide requires that ‘the act of the defendant [was] the proximate cause of death of [the victim] without the intervention of an efficient independent force in which the defendant did not participate or which he could not reasonably have foreseen” or that “the defendant’s conduct was a ‘substantial causal factor’ in bringing about the victim’s death.” (Id. at 21.)

Chauvin’s attorney then asserts, “Mr. Chauvin was not the proximate cause of Mr. Floyd’s death, because an ‘independent force’ . . . in which Mr. Chauvin ‘did not participate’ and which ‘he could not reasonably have foreseen’ intervened: Fentanyl.” (Id.)

“It is clear from the evidence that Mr. Floyd was under the influence of narcotics when he encountered the officers and that he most likely died from an opioid overdose. . . . His body contained a lethal dose of fentanyl—[1ng/ml—as well as methamphetamine, at the time of his death.” Indeed, Chauvin quotes the Hennepin County Medical Examiner, Dr. Andrew Baker, telling the prosecutors on June 1, ‘If he were found dead at home alone & no other apparent causes, this could be acceptable to call an OD [overdose].’ [2] But Chauvin’s attorney does not quote the next note: “Baker. I am not saying this killed him.” (Emphasis added.)

Moreover, Chauvin’s attorney does not quote Dr. Baker’s actual autopsy report (5/26/20) that was titled “Cardiopulmonary Arrest complicating Law Enforcement Subdual, Restraint, and Neck Compression” or the County Medical Examiner’s Press Release (05/26/20) with the same statement for “Cause of Death” plus ‘How injury occurred: Decedent experienced a cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained by law enforcement officer(s)’ and ‘Manner of death: Homicide.’[3]

Also not quoted by Chauvin’s attorney were the June 10 report by the Defense Health Agency concurring with the ‘autopsy findings and the cause of death certificate’ by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner. Or the findings of Dr. Michael Baden and Dr. Allecia Wilson, who were retained by the attorneys for the Floyd family, that found that Floyd ’died of traumatic asphyxia due to the compression of his neck and back during restraint by police’ and ‘Manner of Death’ was ‘homicide.’ State v. Chauvin, Court file No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Hennepin County District Court Aug. 28, 2020).[4]

Chauvin’s attorney admits in this brief that Floyd “told officers that he had suffered from COVID-19.” Moreover, Chauvin arrived at the scene with fellow ex-officer Thao, who testified during an interview by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) and FBI, that when he and Chauvin were driving to join Lane and Keung at the scene they were told on the phone that someone who had appeared to be intoxicated had passed a fake bill at Cup Foods and after arrival Thao had heard Floyd say he had had COVID-19 while he was in the back seat of a squad car before he went to the pavement outside the car and Thao had been worried that Floyd was on drugs.

Chauvin’s attorney boldly states that even though Lane and Keung may have observed signs of Floyd’s overdose and medical trauma, “none of this information was shared with Mr. Chauvin. Therefore, “Chauvin was unaware of the potential dangers of using MRT on Mr. Floyd.” (Chauvin Memo at 25-26 (emphasis in original).) This appears to be an unfounded overstatement of the record.

Conclusion

Given the recent filing of this Chauvin motion, as of noon on September 9, the State had not yet responded to this motion, but clearly it will oppose same before the court considers and rules on the four dismissal motions on the briefs and record.

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

[1] Defendant’s Notice of Motions and Motions To Dismiss, State v. Chauvin, Court file No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Hennepin County District Court Aug. 28, 2020); Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss, State v. Chauvin, Court file No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Hennepin County District Court Aug. 28, 2020); Defendant’s Exhibit List in Support of Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Probable Cause, State v. Chauvin, Court file No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Hennepin County District Court Aug. 28, 2020); Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s autopsy report (5/26/20) (Ex. 20), State v. Chauvin, Court file No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Hennepin County District Court Aug. 28, 2020); Hennepin County Attorney’s Office memos of interviews of Dr. Andrew Baker (Hennepin County Medical Examiner) on 5/26/20, 5/27/20 & 5/31/20, (Ex.6), State v. Chauvin, Court file No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Hennepin County District Court Aug. 28, 2020); Notes from Hennepin County Attorney’s [6/1/20] interview with Dr. Andrew Baker{Hennepin County Medical Examiner], (Ex.6), State v. Chauvin, Court file No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Hennepin County District Court Aug. 28, 2020); Hennepin County Attorney’s Office summary of communications with Chief Tim Longo, University of Virginia Police Department (5/26/20-6/3/20) (Ex.6), State v. Chauvin, Court file No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Hennepin County District Court Aug. 28, 2020); Defense Health Agency autopsy summary report (6/10/20) (Ex. 19), State v. Chauvin, Court file No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Hennepin County District Court Aug. 28, 2020); Summary of autopsies of Floyd by Drs. Baden and Wilson on behalf of Floyd Family (7/2/20) (Ex.6), State v. Chauvin, Court file No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Hennepin County District Court Aug. 28, 2020). See also Raice & Ailworth, George Floyd’s Death Likely Caused by Drug Overdose, Argue Derek Chauvin’s Lawyers, W.S.J. (Aug. 28, 2020); Bailey, In new filing, Derek Chauvin previews his defense, but also seeks dismissal of charges, Wash. Post (Aug. 29, 2020); Olson, Chauvin lawyer: Restraint didn’t kill Floyd, ill health and drug abuse did, StarTribune (Aug. 29, 2020).

[2] Chauvin Memo at 22; Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, Notes from Notes from [6/1/20] interview with Dr. Andrew Baker{Hennepin County Medical Examiner], (Ex.6), State v. Chauvin, Court file No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Hennepin County District Court Aug. 28, 2020).

[3] Affidavit of Matthew Frank Exs. 4 & 5 (Aug 10, 2020), State v. Lane, Court file No. 27-CR-20-12951 (Hennepin County District Court Aug. 10, 2020).

[4] Summary of Dr. Michael Baden and Dr. Allecia Wilson’s findings (7/2/20), (Ex.6), State v. Chauvin, Court file No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Hennepin County District Court Aug. 28, 2020) (Exs. 6, 19)

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

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

State’s Motions

Motion for Joint Trial
Motion to Submit Aggravating Factors to Jury (Blakely)
Motion for Expert Witness Disclosure

Defendants’ Motions

Motions for Change of Venue
Jury Sequestration Motion
Anonymous Jury Motion
Motion to Disqualify HCAO [Hennepin County Attorney’s Office]
Rule 404 Evidence Motions
Discovery Motions

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

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

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

Reactions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prosecution Opposes Defendant Thao’s Dismissal Motion for George Floyd Killing

Defendant Tou Thao has been charged with the crimes of aiding and abetting the murder and manslaughter of George Floyd, and on July 29, his attorney moved for dismissal of these charges.[1] On August 24, the prosecution responded to this motion.[2]

A prior post discussed Thao’s arguments for dismissal.[3] Now we look at the prosecution’s counter arguments.

Probable Cause That Thao Aided and Abetted Chauvin’s Committing Second-Degree Unintentional Murder[4]

“Minnesota law provides that a person is guilty of second-degree unintentional murder if he ‘causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting.’ Minn. Stat. § 609.19, subd. 2(1). “ (Prosecution Brief at 19.)

Here the other felony offense is third degree assault, which is “(i) an assault, defined as ‘the intentional infliction of or attempt to inflict bodily harm’ upon the victim; and (ii) the infliction of ‘substantial bodily harm’ upon the victim, defined as ‘bodily injury which involves a temporary but substantial disfigurement, or which causes a temporary but substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ, or which causes a fracture of any bodily member.’” (Id. at 19-20.)

There is probable cause that Chauvin committed this crime: George Floyd died, per the Hennepin County Medical Examiner, as a result of “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression.” “Chauvin’s actions—pressing his knee into Floyd’s neck for approximately nine minutes”—inflicted “substantial bodily harm” on Floyd, was done intentionally and was a ‘substantial causal factor’ in the death. (Id. at 21-22.)

For “aiding and abetting” criminal liability for this crime, the defendant must be one who ‘intentionally aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with or otherwise procures the other to commit the crime.’ (Minn. Stat. sec. 609.05 , subd. 1.” This requires the defendant to know that the other persons “were going to [commit] or were committing a crime” although such knowledge can arise “at the time of the acts or presence amounting to aid . . .[while the other persons are] in the process of committing the offense.” (Id. at 20-22.)

Here there is probable cause that Thao knew Chauvin was intentionally committing an assault on Floyd by hearing Floyd’s repeated “I can’t breathe” messages, Chauvin’s dismissive acknowledgements that he had heard those pleas, and the desperate similar comments from bystanders and later by Thao’s learning that Floyd had lost consciousness and by Thao’s understanding that Chauvin’s restraints were contrary to MPD policy. (Id. at 23-26.)

There also is probable cause that Thao aided Chauvin’s restraint of Floyd. Thao suggested that the other officers should continue to pin Floyd to the pavement when they rejected the idea of using a Hobble device to restrain Floyd. Thao prevented bystanders from intervening to assist Floyd, and the Minnesota Supreme Court in State v. Parker, 164 N.W.2d 633, 644 (Minn. Sup. Ct. 1969) recognized that the “lookout—” someone who stands watch nearby and helps to prevent others from interfering with the crime—is “classic example” of an aider and abettor. Thao also opposed the idea of using a Hobble device because it would be less convenient for all of the officers. (Prosecution Brief at 26-29.)

Probable Cause That Thao Aided and Abetted Chauvin’s Second-Degree Manslaughter[5]

A person guilty of second-degree manslaughter under Minnesota law is a “person who causes the death of another . . . by the person’s culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another.” (Minn. State. 609.205(1).) (Id. at 33.) The previously cited grounds for Chauvin’s second-degree murder charge also establish his second-degree manslaughter charge. (Prosecution Brief at 32-36.)

Those same previously cited factual allegations also support that Thao meets the standards for aiding and abetting.

Conclusion

This blogger is perplexed that both the prosecution’s oppositions to the dismissal motions of Thao and Thomas Lane fail to mention that the MPD Policy and Procedure Manual in effect on May 25^th has an express duty to intervene provision that states: “A. Sworn employees have an obligation to protect the public and other employees. B. It shall be the duty of every sworn employee present at any scene where physical force is being applied to either stop or attempt to stop another sworn employee when force is being inappropriately applied or is no longer required.”[6]

Now we wait to see whether Thao will submit a reply to the prosecution’s opposition to his dismissal motion and the September 11 court hearing on this and other matters.

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

[1] Ex-Officer Thao Moves for Dismissal of Criminal Charges for George Floyd Killing, dwkcommentaries.com (July 30, 2020); Notice of Motion and Motion To Dismiss, State v. Thao, Court file No. 27-CR-20-1249 (Hennepin County District Court July 29, 2020); Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss, State v. Thao, Court file No. 27-CR-20-1249 (Hennepin County District Court Aug. 5, 2020).

[2] Xiong, Former officer who held back crowd at George Floyd death should face trial, prosecutors argue, StarTribune (Aug. 24, 2020); Assoc. Press, Prosecutors Depict Ex-Officer as Complicit in Floyd’s Death, N.Y. Times (Aug. 25, 2020); State’s Response Opposing Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Probable Cause, State v. Thao, Court file No. 27-CR-20-1249 (Hennepin County District Court Aug. 24, 2020); Affidavit of Matthew Frank, State v. Thao, Court file No. 27-CR-20-1249 (Hennepin County District Court Aug. 24, 2020).

[3] Defendant Thao’s Dismissal Motion, dwkcommentaries.com (Aug. 25, 2020).

[4] Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss (n. 1), at 9-12.

[5] Id. at 5-6.

[6] Ex. 1 (Minneapolis Police Department’s Policy and Procedure Manual, sec. 5-303.01) in Attachments to Frank Affidavit (8/24/20), State v. Thao, Court file No. 27-CR-20-1249 (Hennepin County District Court Aug. 24, 2020).

Defendant Thao’s Dismissal Motion

This post will discuss Thao’s arguments for dismissal, and a subsequent post will look at the prosecution’s counter arguments.

No Probable Cause That Chauvin Committed a Crime[3]

Under Minn. Stat. sec. 609.06, subd. 1, a police officer is immune when using reasonable force to effect a lawful arrest. Here, “Floyd became agitated and resisted [arrest] in both active and passive manners.” Therefore, Chauvin used “reasonable force” to effect a lawful arrest by administering a non-deadly MPD-approved neck restraint, either a “Conscious Neck Restraint” or an “Unconscious Neck Restraint.”

Therefore, Thao cannot be held criminally liable for aiding and abetting a non-crime.

No Probable Cause That Thao Had the Mens Rea for Aiding and Abetting[4]

The prosecution has failed to show probable cause that “Thao (1) knew Chauvin and others [Lane and Kueng] were going to commit a crime and (2) intended his presence to further the commission of that crime.” On the contrary, Thao saw the other three officers using force authorized by MPD policy.

No Probable Cause That Thao Aided The Others’ Committing a Crime[5]

The prosecution failed even to allege what Thao did that amounted to aiding and abetting his fellow officers in committing a crime. Moreover, “mere presence at the crime scene alone is not sufficient” . . .[for this purpose] because inaction, knowledge or passive acquiescence does not rise to the level of criminal culpability.” (State v. Pendleton, 759 N.W.2d 900 (Minn. Sup. Ct. 2009); State v. Huber, 877 N.W.2d 519, 525 (Minn. Sup. Ct. 2016); State v. Ostrem, 535 N.W.2d 916, 924 (Minn. Sup. Ct. 1995); State v. Ulvinen, 313 N.W.2d 425 (Minn. Sup. Ct. 1981).)

Here, “Thao spent the time during the arrest of Mr. Floyd focused on keeping the civilian bystanders out of the scene to allow the other three officers to effectuate the legal arrest and to turn Mr. Floyd over to responding medical personnel. Officer Thao did nothing to aid in the commission of a crime.”

Conclusion

On August 24, Thao’s attorney submitted a motion to compel disclosure of (1) the complete Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Office file; (2) the reports and autopsies performed by Dr. Michael Baden; (3) the reports and autopsy performed by Dr. Allecia Wilson; and (4) the Office of the Armed Forces Medical examiner entire file.” Thao also moved to “continue the issue of causation of death from the September 11, 2020 Omnibus hearing date to a date to be scheduled.” [6]

The next post we will examine the prosecution’s responses to this motions for dismissal and disclosure. Then we wait to see if Thao will submit a reply to the prosecution’s arguments and the September 11 court hearing on this and other matters.

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

[1] Ex-Officer Thao Moves for Dismissal of Criminal Charges for George Floyd Killing, dwkcommentaries.com (July 30, 2020), Notice of Motion and Motion To Dismiss, State v. Thao, Court file No. 27-CR-20-1249 (Hennepin County District Court July 29, 2020); Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss, State v. Thao, Court file No. 27-CR-20-1249 (Hennepin County District Court Aug. 5, 2020).

[3] Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss (n. 1), at 9-12.

[4] Id. at 5-6.

[5] Id. at 6-9.

[6] [Thao’s] Motion To Compel Disclosure, State v. Thao, Court File No. 27-CR-20-1249 (Hennepin County District Court Aug. 24, 2020).

Lane’s Reply to Prosecution’s Opposition to Dismissal of Criminal Complaint

On July 7, the attorney for defendant Thomas Lane filed a motion to dismiss the criminal complaint against him.[1] On August 10 the prosecution filed its papers opposing that motion.[2] On August 17, Lane’s attorney submitted his reply to the State’s Response.[3]

As noted ,the first two sets of papers have been covered in prior posts. This post will review Mr. Lane’s reply papers.

Legal Standard for Aiding and Abetting Criminal Liability

Both sides necessarily are agreed that the standard for aiding and abetting criminal liability starts with the Minnesota statute on the subject—Minn. Stat. sec. 609.05 (Liability for Crimes of Another), which is derived from legislation adopted in 1963, 1986 and 1991. Its Subdivision 1 states as follows:

“A person is criminally liable for a crime committed by another if the person intentionally aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with or otherwise procures the other to commit the crime.”

According to Mr. Lane’s attorney, the “seminal” Minnesota Supreme Court case on this provision is State v. Ulvinen, 313 N.W.2d 425 (1981)(en banc), which reversed a conviction of a mother for aiding and abetting her son’s first degree murder of his wife.

According to the Supreme Court, the son told the police that on the morning of the murder he told his mother, “I’m going to have to choke. . . [his wife] tonight and I’ll have to dispose of her body so that it will never be found.” In response his mother weeped and said, “it will be for the best.” Later that same day, the son told his mother, “Mom, tonight’s got to be the night.” She replied, as she had on other similar occasions, “Oh, you’re just kidding me. I’m not certain, that it would be the best for the kids.”

The mother was asleep when the son committed the murder and she did not participate in his dismemberment of the body. Afterwards that same night she “came upstairs to intercept the children, should they awake, and prevent them from going into the bathroom. She cooperated with her son by cleaning some items from the bathroom and corroborating David’s story to prevent anyone from finding out about the murder.”

Said the en banc Supreme Court, “ these subsequent actions do not succeed in transforming her behavior prior to the crime to active instigation and encouragement. Minn.Stat. § 609.05, subd. 1 (1980) implies a high level of activity on the part of an aider and abettor in the form of conduct that encourages another to act. Use of terms such as ‘aids,’ ‘advises,’ and ‘conspires’ requires something more of a person than mere inaction to impose liability as a principal.” (Lane’s Reply at 13; emphasis added.)

In addition, said the Court, the above statute “imposes liability for actions which affect the principal, encouraging him to take a course of action which he might not otherwise have taken. The state has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was guilty of anything but passive approval. However morally reprehensible it may be to fail to warn someone of their impending death, our statutes do not make such an omission a criminal offense.” In so concluding, the Court said the mother “did not offer advice on how to kill his wife, nor offer to help him. She did not plan when to accomplish the act or tell her son what to do to avoid being caught. She was told by her son that he intended to kill his wife that night and responded in a way which, while not discouraging him, did not aid, advise, or counsel him to act as he did.”

Lane’s attorney also asserted that the above holding of Ulvinin was followed by at least the following subsequent Minnesota Supreme Court cases: (1) State v, Mahkuk, 367 N.W.2d 675, 683 (Minn. Sup. Ct. 2007)(reversal of conviction for aiding and abetting two murder counts because trial court’s jury instruction did not require the jury to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant knew that a crime was going to be committed and intended his presence to encourage or further the crimes); (2) State v. Milton, 821 N.W.2d 789, 804 (Minn. Sup Ct. 2012) (affirmance of conviction of first-degree felony murder and attempted first degree felony murder; defendant failed to show that his substantial rights were affected by the trial court’s plain error in failing to instruct the jury that “intentionally aiding” was required for accomplice liability); (3) State v. Bahtuoh, 840 N.W.2d 804, 812-13 (Minn. Sup Ct. 2013) (affirmance of conviction for accomplice liability for first degree felony murder; the “intentionally aids” requirement has ‘two and necessary principles: . . .that the defendant knew that his alleged accomplices are going to commit a crime’ and . . . that the defendant ‘intended his presence or actions to further the commission of that crime;’”[4] State v. McCallister, 862 N.W.2d 49 (Minn. Sup. Ct. 2015)(affirmance of conviction for aiding and abetting first degree murder and first degree felony murder); (5) State v. Huber, 877 N.W.2d 519, 524 (Minn. Sup. Ct. 2016))(reversal and remand of conviction for intentionally aiding another in committing second degree murder and second degree felony murder on the ground that the instructions on accomplice liability were plainly erroneous; such an instruction “must explain that to be criminally liable for the crimes of another, the State must prove that the defendant ‘knew his alleged accomplice was going to commit a crime and the defendant intended his presence or actions to further the commission of that crime.’”

Lane’s reply also cites a number of decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which includes Minnesota., but since it is unlikely that any of them concern the Minnesota statute for accessory liability, it should not be necessary to analyze these cases.

Additional Factual Allegations about George Floyd

Lane’s reply contains nine-plus pages reciting additional “facts” about Mr. Floyd that his attorney recently has discovered. Since these “facts” were not known at the police’s May 25^th fatal encounter with Mr. Floyd, it is difficult to see how they relate to the complaint for alleged aiding and abetting and if admissible at trial would go to the jury’s weighing all of the evidence.

Conclusion

The Prosecution’s papers opposing the dismissal motion, for this retired attorney without criminal law experience, seem weak on this key requirement for the aiding and abetting charges against Lane.

This blogger invites anyone who has a more thorough analysis of the issues on Lane’s dismissal motion to add them in comments to this post.

Now we await the September 11 hearing on this motion and other matters in the four criminal cases over the killing of George Floyd.

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

[1] Ex-Officer Lane Moves for Dismissal of Criminal Charges for George Floyd Killing, dwkcommentareis.com July 9, 2020); Notice of Motion and Motion To Dismiss, State v. Lane, Court file No. 27-CR-20-12951 (Hennepin County District Court July 7, 2020); Memorandum Supporting Motion To Dismiss, State v. Lane, Court file No. 27-CR-20-12951 (Hennepin County District Court July 7, 2020).

[2] State’s Response Opposing Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Probable Cause, State v. Lane, Court file No. 27-CR-20-12951 (Hennepin County District Court Aug. 10, 2020); Affidavit of Matthew Frank, State v. Lane, Court file No. 27-CR-20-12951 (Hennepin County District Court Aug. 10, 2020).

[3] Defendant’s Reply to the State’s Response to His Motion To Dismiss, State v. Lane, Court file No. 27-CR-20-12951 (Hennepin County District Court Aug. 17, 2020); Browning & Xiong, Lawyer for former officer charged as accomplice in killing of George Floyd says he ‘did nothing wrong,’ StarTribune (Aug. 18, 2020); Xiong, Audio of investigators questioning officer [Lane] in George Floyd killing released, StarTribune (Aug. 18, 2020); Read, Attorney for Minneapolis police officer says he’ll argue George Floyd died of an overdose and a heart condition, Los Angeles Times (Aug. 20, 2020).

[4] The Prosecution says that Bahtuoh suggests that Ulvinen’s requirement for a “high level of activity” by an alleged accomplice” is no longer the law. In the opinion of this blogger, however, this is a misreading of Bahtuoh, which merely states,”A jury may infer the requisite state of mind [of an accessory] from a variety of facts, including presence at the scene of the crime, a close association with the principal offender before and after the crime, a lack of objection or surprise under the circumstances, and flight from the scene of the crime with the principal offender.” (Prosecution’s Opposition at n.16, p. 25; emphasis added.)

Prosecution Opposes Lane’s Motion To Dismiss Criminal Complaint

As noted in a prior post, on July 7, the attorney for defendant Thomas Lane filed a motion to dismiss the criminal complaint against him.[1] On August 10 the prosecution filed its papers opposing that motion.[2] On August 17, Lane’s attorney submitted his reply to the State’s Response.[3]

The court hearing on this motion and other matters in the four criminal cases about the arrest and killing of George Floyd will be held on September 11.

Here is a summary of the prosecution’s legal and factual arguments opposing the dismissal motion that are set forth in the documents listed in the second footnote. Lane’s arguments for the motion are set forth in the papers listed in the first footnote, and a subsequent post will review Lane’s reply thereto.

The Evidence for the Dismissal Motion

Evidence regarding Lane and Defendant J. Alexander Kueng: Transcript of Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) Interview of Lane (Lane Ex. 1); Transcript of Lane body worn camera (BWC) (Lane Ex. 2); Lane’s BWC footage (Lane Ex. 3); Transcript of Kueng BWC footage (Lane Ex. 4; Keung’s BWC footage (Lane Ex. 5).[4]

Evidence regarding Defendant Tou Tao: Tao’s BWC video (State Ex. 1); Recording of BCA interview of Tao (State Ex. 2).

Other evidence: Pictures of money in Floyd vehicle (Lane Ex. 6); Minneapolis Police Department training materials (Lane Ex. 7); MPD Policy and Procedure Manual (pertinent portion in effect at time of Floyd’s death) (State Ex. 3); Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Office’s Autopsy Report (State Ex. 4); Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Press Release Report (State Ex. 5). and Armed Forces Medical Examiner’s Autopsy Report (State Ex. 6).

Legal Standard for Dismissal Motions[5]

Citing State v. Florence, 239 NW2d 892 (Mn Sup. Ct. 1976) and other Minnesota cases, the Prosecution states, “Probable cause exists if ‘the facts would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to hold an honest and strong suspicion that the person under consideration is guilty of a crime.’” “So long as the evidence ‘brings the charge against the prisoner within reasonable probability,’ the motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause must be denied.”

Moreover, for dismissal motions, “’[i]t is not necessary for the state to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’ . . . This rule reflects the strong public interest in having adjudications of guilt and innocence take place before a jury, drawn from the community, after the extensive adversarial testing of a criminal trial.” In evaluating such a dismissal motion, “the court must examine the ‘entire record, including reliable hearsay, . . . the complaint, police reports, the statements of witnesses and the representations of the prosecutor, who is an officer of the court.’” Moreover, “the court must ‘view the evidence and all of the resulting inferences in favor of the State’ and then determine ‘whether the evidence is sufficient to present a fact question for the jury’s determination.’”

The Charge of Lane’s Aiding and Abetting Second-Degree Unintentional Murder

The Legal Standards for Aiding and Abetting Second-Degree Murder[6]

There are three elements of this crime in this case. First, Chauvin must have caused “the death of a human being [George Floyd] without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense [with certain irrelevant exceptions] on that person. Second, the other felony offense here is “third-degree assault,” which is Chauvin’s alleged “intentional infliction of or attempt to inflict substantial bodily harm” upon another person [George Floyd] and “the infliction of ‘substantial bodily harm” upon that other person. Third, Lane allegedly intended “his presence or actions to further the commission of that crime,” which includes “acquiring that knowledge while the accomplice is in the process of committing the offense” and that knowledge may be established by “circumstantial evidence.”

Probable Cause for Lane’s Alleged Aiding and Abetting Second-Degree Murder?[7]

The State must establish that Chauvin committed second-degree unintentional murder of Floyd by intentionally committing or attempting to commit a felonious assault on Floyd and that Lane intentionally aided that assault. These requirements are satisfied here because Lane acquired the requisite knowledge while Chauvin was in in the process of committing the assault and Lane intended his actions to further the commission of that crime.

Without challenge from Lane, the evidence establishes that Floyd died, that Chauvin’s conduct was “a substantial causal factor’ in his death, that Chauvin intentionally inflicted bodily harm on Floyd and that Chauvin’s actions inflicted “substantial bodily harm” on Floyd.

In addition, there is evidence that Lane knew Chauvin was intentionally inflicting substantial bodily harm on Floyd by hearing him say “I can’t breathe” at least 20 times and he feared he would die at least 10 times. This conclusion was emphasized when Floyd lost consciousness. Indeed, Lane’s twice suggesting that Floyd be turned on his side demonstrates his knowledge of this bodily harm. Then Lane later told the medics that Floyd was “not responsive.”

Lane’s police training reinforces his knowledge that Chauvin was applying unlawful force with his neck restraint.

Lane obviously intended to assist Chauvin by using his hands and knees to help pin down Floyd’s legs during the restraint. Lane’s actions also show that he was hearing bystanders’ comments about Floyd’s condition.

The “’severity of the crime at issue’—a nonviolent property crime”– would justify a jury’s concluding that the physical restraint of Floyd from its inception was not reasonably justified. Moreover, the length of the restraint would also justify a jury’s concluding that even if the restraint initially was justified, it later became unjustified. In addition, the nature of Floyd’s alleged resistance did not support the officers application of a neck restraint.

Lane’s having been on his “fourth day on the job “is not a legal excuse for what he did do and not do that day. Minneapolis Police Department policy states. “It shall be the duty of every sworn employee [that includes Lane] present at any scene where physical force is being applied to either stop or attempt to stop another sworn employee when force is being inappropriately applied or is no longer required.” And Lane was not an untrained rookie. He “was hired 15 months before the incident and then spent five months receiving skills training at a technical college, four months in the Minneapolis Police Academy, and four and a half months doing field training with other officers.”

Under Minn. Stat. sec. 609.05, subd. 3, Lane could escape aiding and abetting liability if he “abandon[ed] the crime or made a “reasonable effort” to prevent it before it happened, but there is no evidence to support such a defense.

At least “one autopsy report found evidence of asphyxiation while another concluded that “law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression” was a cause of Floyd’s death.

At best, Lane’s arguments raise fact questions for resolution by the jury.

The Charge of Lane’s Aiding and Abetting Second-Degree Manslaughter[8]

The legal standard for aiding and abetting liability already have been discussed and why there at least is a jury question as to whether Lane meets that standard.

Manslaughter in the Second Degree is defined in Minn. Stat. sec. 609.205(1): “A person who causes the death of another . . . by the person’s culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another.” “Great bodily harm,” in turn, is defined as “bodily injury which creates a high probability of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss of impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.” Thus, this crime “requires proof of (i) ‘objective gross negligence on the part of the actor’; and (ii) “subjective ‘recklessness in the form of an actual conscious disregard of the risk created by the conduct.’”

Here, in accordance with Minnesota cases, evidence supports a finding that “Lane knew that Chauvin’s conduct was a ‘gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable’ officer would observe in that situation” and that “Lane knew that Chauvin was consciously disregarding the risk of death created by his conduct.”

Conclusion

Further details of the prosecution’s opposition to Lane’s dismissal motion can be found in the 36 pages of the State’s Response Opposing Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Probable Cause cited in note 2.

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

[4] Summaries of the transcripts of the Lane and Kueng BWC footage and the BCA interview of Lane are contained in Ex-Officer Lane Moves for Dismissal of Criminal Charges for George Floyd Killing, dwkcommentareis.com July 9, 2020).

[5] State’s Response at 16-17.

[6] Id. at 18-20.

[7] Id. at 21-30.

[8] Id. at 31-35.

Thao’s Body Worn Camera Video Has More Damning Evidence

Defendant Tou Thao’s BWC (body-worn camera) video of the George Floyd arrest and killing is now part of the public file in his criminal case. [1]

Previous Evidence of the Floyd Arrest and Killing [2]

We know from previous reports in this case, including descriptions of the BWC of defendants Thomas Lane and J. Alexander Kueng, that Lane and Kueng first arrived at the Cup Foods corner and approached the car outside with George Floyd in the driver’s seat, removed him from the car and first took him to the adjacent sidewalk and had him sit comfortably with his back against the wall. Floyd was upset by the apparent arrest, but there was no mistreatment of him. Then Lane and Kueng walked Floyd across the street and over Floyd’s objections, forced him into the back seat of their squad car with Floyd immediately managing to leave that seat and fall on the nearby pavement.

At about that time, fellow officers Derek Chauvin and Tou Thau arrive at the scene in their squad car. Almost immediately Chauvin and one of the officers handcuff Floyd behind his back and force him to lie on the pavement with Chauvin’s left knee on or near his neck while Lane and Kueng also sit on Floyd’s back. They remain in those positions for seven minutes and 48 seconds while Floyd cries, “Mama” and “I can’t breathe” and “Don’t kill me” and finally “I am dying.”

Thao, on the other hand, is not participating in the physical restraint of Floyd, but is standing several feet away near the sidewalk as an increasing number of bystanders approach the squad car, observe Floyd being restrained on the pavement and making his pleas for life while the bystanders voice their demands for the officers to stop the restraint of this man. Later an ambulance arrives and Floyd is put on a gurney and placed in the ambulance with Lane going along to help. Later at the hospital Floyd is pronounced dead.

Thao’s BWC[3]

Thao was holding back nearly a dozen bystanders, many taping the scene with their cell phones, while Chauvin, Lane and Kueng were physically restraining Floyd, who was lying prone on his face on the pavement near a police squad car.

A Black man wearing a Northside Boxing Club sweatshirt yells at Chauvin to “get off his (expletive) neck, Bro” and asks Thao “you gonna keep him like that?” while motioning at Floyd. The bystander continues, “You gonna let him kill that man right in front of you, Bro? Bro, he’s not even moving right now, Bro.”

Another Black man in a black hoodie and shorts tells the officers he has been trained at the police academy and asks Thao if Chauvin is using a “jiu-jitsu move.” Thao responds, “He’s talking, so he’s fine.” A few minutes later this man steps into the street and says, “He’s f***ing dead, bro.” Thao shoves him back toward the sidewalk and says, “Don’t touch me again” prompting other bystanders to shout that the Black man had never touched Thao.

Thao orders the crowd onto the sidewalk. At one point, he tells the onlookers, apparently a 17-year-old girl taping the scene on her phone with a 9-year-old girl beside her, “This is why you don’t do drugs, kids.” Thao also said the officers had spent 10 minutes trying to get Floyd into the back seat of the squad car; the actual time was about 4.5 seconds.

A White woman out of uniform identifies herself as a Minneapolis firefighter and asks if the officers have checked Floyd’s pulse. Thao yells at her, “Back off!”

The man in the Boxing Club sweatshirt then says, “Check his pulse. You bogus, Bro. You call what he’s doing OK?”

A young woman yells, “What the (expletive) are you doing? He’s dying.”

When a man approaches Thao with a phone, Thao shoves him back toward the sidewalk, yelling, “Get out of the street!”

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

[1] Xiong, Third body camera video in George Floyd killing shows officer pushing bystanders, StarTribune (Aug. 13, 2020); Griffiths, Wolfson, Owens & Bailey, New footage released of George Floyd’s fatal encounter with police, Wash. Post (Aug. 13, 2020); Baenen (Assoc. Press), Ex-cop’s video captures crowd’s horror during Floyd arrest, StarTribune (Aug. 14, 2020); Booker, Body Camera Video Of George Floyd And Police Offers New Details of Deadly Encounter, mpr.org (Aug. 14, 2020); Exhibits Attached to Affidavit of Matthew Frank, State v. Thao, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12949 (Hennepin County District Court Aug. 12, 2020) (Ex. 3 (Thao BWC video on flash drive).

[2] Journalist’s Report on Viewing Two Bodycam Footages of George Floyd Killing, dwkcommentareies.com (July 15, 2020); British Newspaper Releases bodycam Footage of George Floyd’s Arrest and Killing, dwkcommentaries.com (Aug. 5, 2020). See generally List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: George Floyd Killing.

[3] See n.1.

Defendant Thao Interviewed About George Floyd by Bureau of Criminal Apprehension

According to the StarTribune, on or about June 2 (“eight days after George Floyd’s killing on May 25^th”), then Minneapolis police officer Tou Thao, before he had been criminally charged, was interviewed for about 100 minutes regarding the George Floyd arrest and killing, by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The video of that interview is now part of the public file of his criminal case. [1]

Again according to the StarTribune,Thao in this interview first was “questioned about his professional history before spending about 12 uninterrupted minutes summarizing his encounter with George Floyd on that fateful day. Then Thao was questioned by a BCA special agent.

Here we will review details of that BCA interview.

Thao’s Own Summary

In his own summary, Thao said he and officer Derek Chauvin responded to a call for backup near Cup Foods. The call sounded urgent and their squad car was the ony one available. About half-way there, the dispatch was ended, but the two of them decided to go anyway because of their experience that Cup Foods was often a gang hang-out hostile to the police and because the officers already there (Thomas Lane and J. Alexander Kueng) were “rookies.”

When they arrived, the rear driver-side door of the other squad car was open. Kueng told them that the suspect had refused to sit in the rear seat of the squad car and had gotten himself out of the car. The suspect was not calm and appeared to be “high” on something.

A crowd was gathering, and Thao called to change the call for an ambulance from “Code 4” (Situation under control) to “Code 3” (“EMERGENCY SITUATION – To be answered immediately, but in a manner enabling the responding units to reach the scene as quickly and safely as possible. MS 169.03 and 169.17 require the use of red lights and siren for emergency”). Thao hoped the medics could provide a better assessment and restraint of the suspect.

Thao and the three other policemen decided not to “hobble” the suspect, i.e. use a Hobble Restraint device with nylon webbing, heavy-duty metal swivel hook and self-locking jawed alligator clip.

Thao focused on traffic and a “loud and hostile” crowd by putting himself between the crowd and the other three officers and suspect in order to prevent the crowd from attacking the other three officers. “As the crowd is starting to grow and become loud and hostile toward us, I decided to forgo [monitoring] traffic and put myself in between the crowd and the officers … and just spend the majority of my attention looking at the crowd — make sure they don’t charge us or bull rush us as the officers on the ground are defenseless,” Thao said, adding that he was a “human traffic cone.”

Eventually the ambulance arrived and Lane left with the suspect in the ambulance.

As the StarTribune noted, during his own summary, Thao did not mention anything about what the other three officers were doing or what the suspect was saying.

BCA’s Questioning of Thao

When Thao and Chauvin were driving to Cup Foods, they were told someone who had appeared to be intoxicated had passed a “fake bill.” No recall of any mention of weapons or violence.

When they arrived, the suspect already was handcuffed. Thao did not think of any alternative way of restraining the suspect. He was just backup. He did not suggest just talk with the suspect, whom he never touched.

Thao had had Crisis Intervention Training (CIT), and he had used it before, But he did not suggest doing that because he did not know what already had happened.

Nor did Thao check on the suspect at any point. “No, because my job is scene security. I would trust [the other officers] . . . God gave me only one body and two hands and two legs. I can’t be in two places at once.”

He hoped the paramedics would know what to do. They could restrain the suspect better. Just hold him down without handcuffs.

Thao did not hear Lane say anything about “excited delirium.” From his training, Thao believed “excited delirium” was a mental health or drug-related condition when someone acts erratically with no apparent self-awareness and potentially is explosive or violent.[2]

Thao did hear the suspect say he couldn’t breathe, but he was talking, which meant he was breathing.

Thao saw Chauvin struggling with the suspect. At some point he saw Chauvin’s left knee on the suspect’s neck. There is a specific technique for use of a knee that was taught in training. Thao has never used that technique and had never seen Chauvin use it before.

Most of the time Thao was focused on traffic and the crowd, which at some point said the suspect was not moving. Thao assumed the other officers would take appropriate action.

After Floyd and Lane left the scene in the ambulance, Kueng recommended that they lock up the vehicle Floyd had been driving and leave it parked on the street. Thao thought Kueng did not recognize the potential gravity of the situation so Thao responded, “We’re not going to leave the scene” and took steps to secure the car and the scene as evidence.

Later when he was told that the suspect [Mr. Floyd] had died, Thao said, “I didn’t want anyone to die. It was kind of a somber moment, especially for me. My heart kind of sank.”

At the very end of the interview, Thao was asked, “Do you think you could have done something differently to intervene?” His response: “I’m under the belief that you can always do something differently on every single call… I guess I would be more observant toward Floyd.”

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

[1] Xiong, Officer charged in George Floyd’s killing tells investigators his job wasn’t to check on Floyd, video shows, StarTribune (Aug. 15, 2020); Raiche, Former MPD officer Tou Thao reveals to investigators what he could’ve done differently in Floyd case, KSTP.com (Aug. 14, 2020); Shen, Minneapolis cop Tou Thao told investigators he feared George Floyd ‘would have superhuman strength if he was on drugs’ and admits ‘his heart sank’ when he died on the sidewalk, dailymail.com (Aug. 15, 2020); Assoc. Press. Officer minimized role in Floyd’s death during questioning, StarTribune (Aug. 15, 2020); BCA interview with Tou Thao after George Floyd killing is released, StarTribune (Aug. 15, 2020) (video); Exhibits Attached to Affidavit of Matthew Frank, State v. Thao, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12949 (Hennepin County District Court Aug. 12, 2020) (Ex. 4 (Thao BCA Interview on flash drive)).

[2] Three distinguished medical scientists have said that “excited delirium” is “pseudoscience.” (See Concept of “Excited Delirium” Is Junk Science, dwkcommentaries.com (July 21, 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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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