Court’s Questionnaire for Prospective Jurors in George Floyd Criminal Cases

On December 22, the Hennepin County District Court published its 14-page Special Juror Questionnaire for the joint trial of the four former Minneapolis policemen involved in the George Floyd killing on May 25th.[1]

The Questionnaire starts with an instruction to “answer all of the questions as completely and honestly as you can” and if “some of your past experiences would be particularly sensitive, traumatic, or embarrassing” mark them PRIVATE , and the judge will consider them “as privately as possible.”

“PART I. KNOWLEDGE OF THE CASE”

The first question is, “What do you know about this case from media reports?” That is followed by eight more questions about the Floyd case and Floyd demonstrations. Questions 2 and 3 ask about “general impressions of the defendants” and Floyd with six options (“Very negative, Somewhat negative, Neutral, Somewhat positive, Very positive, Other”). Each of these two questions is followed by “Why do you feel that way?”

Question 4 asks “Do you, or someone close to you, have any direct or indirect connections with these events?” and “If yes, please explain.”

Question 5 asks “Have you ever watched video of George Floyd’s death on the news or the internet?” And “If yes,” provide more details.

Question 6 asks “Have you ever talked about George Floyd’s death with your family, friends, co-workers, or discussed it online, for example, on social media? If yes, what opinions have you expressed?”

Question 7 asks “Did you, or someone close to you, participate in any of the demonstrations or marches against police brutality that took place in Minneapolis after George Floyd’s death?” If Yes, “explain how much you were involved,” and “ if you participated, did you carry a sign? And “What did it say?”

Question 8 asks “Did you or someone you know get injured or suffer any property damage during the protests that took place after George Floyd’s death?”

Question 9 asks “Do you believe your community has been negatively or positively affected by any of the protests that have taken place in the Twin Cities area since George Floyd’s death?”

Question 10 asks whether “you can put aside [whatever you have heard about the case or your prior opinions} and decide this case only on the evidence you receive in court, follow the law, and decide the case in a fair and impartial manner?”

“Part II. MEDIT HABITS”

This Part asks eight questions about the prospective juror’s sources of news.

“Part III. POLICE CONTACTS”

This Part asks 14 questions regarding the prospective juror’s contacts with the police and whether the individual “supported or advocated in favor of or against police reform” (Q 3); the individual’s “honest opinion” on various issues about the police (Q. 9); whether the individual “had . .. ever been trained on how to restrain someone or use a chokehold” (Q. 10); whether the individual had “any martial arts training or experience” (Q. 11); whether the individual “or anyone close to you, participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality (Q. 12); “How favorable or unfavorable you are about Black Lives Matter” and explain your response (Q. 13); “How favorable or unfavorable are you about Blue Lives Matter?” and explain your response (Q. 14).

“PART V. PERSONAL BACKGROUND”

This Part has 18 questions, the first 11 of which are fairly basic.

Question 12 asks whether the individual or anyone close to you, has “any training or experience (work or volunteer}” in the following areas: Law; Law enforcement; Criminal justice or criminology; Forensic science; Medicine or health care; Counseling, Psychology or Mental Health; and “Civil Rights or Social Justice Issues.”

Question 13 asks whether the individual or anyone close to you has had any of these experiences: “Victim of Crime, Accused of a Crime, Struggle with Drug Addiction” and Question 14 asks whether any of such experiences would “make it difficult for you to be fair and impartial” and “Why.”

Question 15 asks the individual whether you have had any of these court experiences: “served on a jury in a criminal case, served on a jury in a civil case, testified as a witness in a court case, served on a grand jury, worked for the judicial branch.” Question 16 asks whether any of such experiences would “make it difficult for you to be fair and impartial“ in this case?” And if so, “why?”

Question 17 asks for a list of “any hobbies or special interests you have.”

Question 18 asks for identification of all “organizations you have belonged to or in which you participate as an active volunteer or financial supporter.”

“PART V. OPINIONS REGARDING JUSTICE SYSTEM”

1. “Do you believe that the jury system in this country is a fair system? Why or why not?”

2. “Do your believe that our criminal justice system works? Why or why not?”

3. “Would you have any difficulty following this principle of law, under our system of justice?”

• “defendants are presumed innocent of the criminal charges against them.” (Para. 3.)
• “the prosecution has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Para. 4.)
• “defendants have the right to remain silent, and if they exercise this right, their silence is not to be used against them.” (Para. 5)
• “the potential consequences of your verdict, including potential penalty or punishment, must not in any way affect the jury’s decision as to whether or not the prosecution has proven the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Para. 6.)
• “the jury must decide the case solely on the evidence produced in court and the law that the judge instructs, and not because of bias, passion, prejudice, or sympathy.” (Para. 7.)

“PART VI. TRIAL LENGTH AND ABILITY TO SERVE”

1. “The best prediction is that jury selection will last from March 8, 2021 to March 26, 2021. You will have to appear at the Hennepin County Government Center for 1-2 days in that timeframe . . . If you are selected for the jury in this case, you will have to appear every weekday starting March 29, 2021 until trial and deliberations are finished (estimated to be three to four weeks). Is there any significant hardship or reason why you cannot serve during this time period.”
2. “During jury deliberation (And possible for part of the trial), the jury will be sequestered. That means the jury will work into the evenings and taken to a hotel to stay overnight. Is there any reason why you cannot be sequestered overnight?”
3. “Secure parking will be provided for jurors, free of charge. Are you able to drive yourself, or have someone drop you off each day?”
4. “How difficult do you think it will be for you to evaluate graphic photographs or video, including photos and video of a person who has died?”
5. “The jury is told not to read, watch, or listen to news accounts of a trial they are involved in until it is over, and not to talk to anyone,about the case, not even to one another, and to not post anything on social media or elsewhere, including through jury deliberations. Would you find it difficult to follow these instructions for any reasons?”
6. “Is there any reason why you would not be able to give your complete attention to a trial during your time as a juror?
7. “Do you have any religious or philosophical beliefs, which would make it difficult for you to be a juror?”
8. “Do you have any medical, visual, hearing, physical, or other impairment that may affect your ability to serve as a juror on this case?”
9. “Is there any other reason that you could not be a fair and impartial juror in this case? If yes, Please explain.”
10. “Is there anything else the judge and attorneys should know about you in relation to serving on this jury?”
11. “Do you want to serve as a juror in this case? {Yes. No. Not sure.]”
12. “Why do you feel that way about serving as a juror in this case?”

Prior Court Comments About Jury Issues

At the September 11th hearing, the Judge said, “it would be almost cruel to keep . . . [jurors] in on weeks at a time. Instead, he suggested they be “semi-sequestered.” Jurors [will] drive to court each day for deputies to escort them from their vehicles to a secure elevator, have their lunches brought in to the jury room and then have them escorted back to their vehicles. The Judge also said he anticipates jury selection will take two weeks with each prospective juror to take the witness stand for questioning by the attorneys.

At the November5th hearing, the Judge issued the Court’s Order for Juror Anonymity and Sequestration and said there are “strong reasons to believe that threats to jurors’ safety and impartiality exist“ in these cases and that “all reasonable means should be taken to insulate the jury from such ex parte contacts.” Therefore, the Court ordered the “jurors’ names, addresses and other identifying information . .. [to] . . .be kept confidential by the Court and all parties throughout the trial and deliberation” After the conclusion of the trial, any information about the jurors shall be disclosed only after a “subsequent written Order” by the Court.

The Judge added that the jurors will be partially sequestered during trial with possible full sequestration if the partial plan “proves ineffective in keeping jurors free from outside influence.” In addition, during jury deliberations at the end of the trial, there shall be full sequestration

Conclusion

Although the Court did not specially call for comments on this Questionnaire by the attorneys in this case, they clearly have the right to object to any of these proposed instructions or to suggest other instructions. However, this set appears to cover all of the points.

Nor did the Judge indicate when this Questionnaire would be sent to prospective jurors or when their responses would have to be sumitted to the Court.(The listing of this item on the Court’s website, however, states it was “mailed to prospective jurors summonsed.”)

It is interesting that the Judge expects that the trial of the four consolidated cases will start on the previously established date of March 8, 2021 (only 87 days after today, including Christmas and New Year’s Day holidays), that jury selection will take three weeks (March 8-26) and that the trial will take three to four weeks (March 29 to April 16 or 23). Those appear to be optimistic to this bystander.

How would you like to be a prospective or actual juror in this case?

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

[1] Special Juror Questionnaire [blank],State v. Chauvin, Dist. Ct. File 27-CR-20-12646 (Dec. 22, 2020),
https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/JurorQuestionnaire12222020.pdf;

Bailey, Potential Jurors in George Floyd Case asked if they support defunding the police, amid concerns about ‘fair and safe’ trial, Wash. Post (Dec. 22, 2020),https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/george-floyd-trial-jury-selection/2020/12/22/a49ae422-44a6-11eb-a277-49a6d1f9dff1_story.html.

[2] Results of 9/11/20 Hearing in George Floyd Criminal Cases, dwkcommentaries.com (Sept. 12, 2020), https://dwkcommentaries.com/2020/09/12/results-of-9-11-20-hearing-in-george-floyd-criminal-cases;

Court’s Orders Regarding Criminal Trial of Defendants in George Floyd Killing, dwkcommentaries.com (Nov. 5, 2020), https://dwkcommentaries.com/2020/11/05/courts-orders-regarding-criminal-trial-of-defendants-in-george-floyd-killing;

Order for Juror Anonymity and Sequestration, State V. Chauvin, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12646, Hennepin County District Court (Nov. 5, 2020).

Court Affirms Livestreaming of George Floyd Criminal Trial  

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

Court Issues Order on Expert Disclosures in George Floyd Criminal Cases     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chauvin’s Motion for Continuance[2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Recent Developments in George Floyd Criminal Cases

Since the filing of criminal charges against four former Minneapolis police officers over the May 25th death of George Floyd there have been many submissions to the court, pretrial hearings and court orders that have been summarized in previous posts.[1]  Now we look at the developments in the cases since November 18.

Kueng’s Supplemental Offer of Proof Regarding Floyd’s 5/6/19 Incident [2]

On November 23, Defendant Kueng submitted records of his attorney’s interviews of four other police officers involved in the May 6, 2019 Minneapolis arrest of Mr. Floyd as an offer of proof to admit evidence of that arrest at trial.

State’s Disclosure of Expert Witnesses [3]

 On November 24, the State of Minnesota disclosed the following potential expert witnesses and reports:

  • Michael Berkow;
  • John J. Ryan,
  • William Louis Manion, M.D.
  • Glenn G. Hardin, MPH, DABFT
  • William Louis Manion, M.D.,
  • S. Charles Schulz, II,
  • Michael M. Baden, M.D.,
  • Theodore C. Chan, M.D.,
  • Sellman Charles Schulz, II, M.D.,
  • Lawson F. Bernstein, Jr., M.D.,
  • Joshua O. Zimmerman,
  • Andrew M. Baker, M.D.,
  • Theodore Chan,
  • Michael M. Baden, M.D.

State’s Arguments Against Livestreaming of Trial [4]

On November 25, the State moved for reconsideration of the order for audio and video coverage of the trial. It made the following points:

  • “The Minnesota General Rules of Practice . . . permit audio or visual recordings of criminal trials, but only if the State and Defendants have consented ‘in writing” or “on the record prior’ to trial.” But at least the State had not so consented.
  • “Moreover, even when the parties consent, the Rules prohibit video and audio recordings of ‘any witness who objects thereto in writing or on the record before testifying.’”
  • Neither the U.S. nor the Minnesota Constitution “requires such recordings.” And the “Sixth Amendment’s core purpose—transparency—can readily be achieved with overflow rooms and closed-circuit cameras. “
  • “[R]ecording and publicly broadcasting witness testimony without consent will cause witnesses to lose their privacy and suffer possible threats of intimidation, and may make it less likely that some witnesses will come forward and testify at trial. “

Defendant Thao Asks for Trial Delay & Sanctions on Prosecution [5]

 On December 11, Defendant Tou Thao’s attorney filed a motion to delay the trial from March 8 to July 5 and for sanctions against the prosecution for its alleged delay in sharing important evidence with the defense.

The motion asserted that the Court’s order of June 30 required the prosecution to share all evidence by August 14, but the prosecution has delayed sharing more than 15,000 pages of evidence over eight separate instances. Most significant was the prosecution’s not providing until October 28 an account of a July 8 interview of Hennepin County Chief Medical Examiner Andrew Baker.. The defense attorney also asked the Court to order the State to pay for the defense attorney’s fees and costs caused by the delays and postpone the defense’s deadline to disclose their expert witnesses.

Dr. Andrew Baker in that July 8 interview described “the mechanism of death as Floyd’s heart and lungs stopping due to the combined effects of his health problems as well as the exertion and restraint involved in Floyd’s interaction with police prior to being on the ground.”  (Emphasis in the brief.)

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

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

[2]  Defendant’s Supplemental Offer of Proof in Support of Motion To Admit Floyd’s May 6, 2019 Incident, State v. Kueng, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12933 (Hennepin County District Court Nov. 23, 2020).

[3] Supplemental Prosecution Disclosure Pursuant to Rule 9.01, Subd. 1, State v. Chauvin, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Nov. 24. 2020).

[4] State’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Allowing Audio and Video Coverage of Trial, State v. Chauvin, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Hennepin County District Court Nov. 25, 2020);  Xiong, Prosecutors challenge judge’s order allowing livestreamng of George Floyd trial, arguing it could harm testimony, StarTribune (Nov. 30, 3030).

[5] Motion for Sanctions and Hearing Regarding Discovery Violations by the State, State v. Thao, Court File No 27-CR-20-12949 (Hennepin County District Court Dec. 11, 2020); Exhibit 1 to said motion (FBI Memo of Interview of Andrew Baker, MD (09/01/20)); Exhibit 2 to said Motion (Letter, Aug. 7, 2020, Office of Hennepin County Attorney to Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Paulsen); Defense attorney: Prosecutors in George Floyd case should be sanctioned for delaying sharing evidence, StarTribune (Dec. 11, 2020).

Court’s Orders Regarding Criminal Trial of Defendants in George Floyd Killing

On November 5, Hennepin County District Court Judge Peter Cahill issued five significant orders relating to the trial in the criminal cases against the four former Minneapolis policemen involved in the killing of George Floyd: Derek Chauvin, Thomas Lane, J. Alexander Kueng and Tou Thao. [1]

These orders (1) granted the State’s motion for a joint trial of the four defendants; 2) preliminarily denied the defendants’ motions for change of venue; (3) provided for  juror anonymity and sequestration; (4) allowed audio and video coverage of the trial; and (5) narrowed its previous order regarding four members of the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office’s participation in the cases.

These five orders will be reviewed below.

                  Joint Trial of the Four Defendants[2]

The 51-page Order and Memorandum Opinion sets forth the Factual Background and then Discussion of the four-factor test for joinder established by the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure and Minnesota case law. The following is the Court’s Summary of that detailed discussion (pp. 4-5).

“The first factor weighs strongly in favor of joinder because of the similarity of the charges and evidence against all four Defendants.” Indeed, “the critical evidence at trial”—body-cam videos of three of the defendants and cell-phone video of a bystander; Minneapolis Police Department Policies and Procedures and Training Manuals; autopsy reports and medical and forensic testimony about the circumstances and causes of Floyd’s death; and eyewitness testimony—”will be the same for all four Defendants.”

“The second factor slightly favors joinder in view of the impact of conducting four separate trials . . . would have on eyewitnesses if . .. [they] were forced to relive the events of May 25, 2020, by testifying to the same events at multiple trials,” especially since one of these witnesses is a minor.

“The third factor also strongly favors joinder because there is no indication at this stage of the proceedings that any of the Defendants is likely to be prejudiced by joinder because their defenses are not antagonistic but instead are mutually supportive.”

The “fourth factor also strongly favors joinder because conducting four separate trials arising from the same underlying incident and involving the same evidence and the same witnesses would result in unwarranted delay and impose unnecessary burdens on the State, the court, and the witnesses. Moreover, in wake of the unprecedented . . . scope of the publicity [about these cases] . . . if trials were to proceed separately for each Defendant, trial-related publicity surrounding the first trial (and succeeding trials) could potentially compound the difficulty of selecting a fair and impartial jury in all subsequent trials. Thus, the interests of justice also warrant joinder.”

Preliminary Denial of Change of Venue[3]

 The Court considered two factors in preliminarily deny the Defendants’ motions to change venue and transfer the case from Hennepin County to another district court in Minnesota: prejudicial publicity and safety concerns of the defendants and their attorneys.

With respect to the first factor, the Court took “judicial notice that the death of George Floyd has generated thousands of articles, reports and commentary in Minnesota, the entire United States, and internationally.” (n. 10.) As a result, “no corner of the State of Minnesota has been shielded from pretrial publicity regarding the death of George Floyd. Because of that pervasive media coverage, a change of venue is unlikely to cure the taint of potentially prejudicial pretrial publicity. Nevertheless, this is only a preliminary ruling and the parties are free to present the evidence from public opinion surveys they are presently conducting. In addition, this Court is planning to issue jury summons earlier than usual and to require summoned jurors to fill out questionnaires well before trial to gauge their knowledge of the case and any potential bias.”

The second factor—safety concerns—calls for “better safety planning,” which is currently being conducted by the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office and the Court. The safety concerns regarding the 9/11/20 hearing at the smaller Hennepin County Family Justice Center with limited entrances and exits suggests it is more difficult to enhance security at such facilities, which would be true if the cases were transferred to a smaller county. Having the trial at the Hennepin county Government Center would facilitate tighter control of floor access and movement. In short, the “Court believes that safety issues can be mitigated to the point that a fair and safe trial may be had in Hennepin County and a jury can be insulated from outside influence and remain impartial.”

Juror Anonymity and Sequestration[4]

After reviewing the extensive publicity about the death of Mr. Floyd and these cases and related protest and unsolicited ex parte communications to the Court and counsel, there are “strong reasons to believe that threats to jurors’ safety and impartiality exist“ in these cases and that “all reasonable means should be taken to insulate the jury from such ex parte contacts.

Therefore, the Court ordered the “jurors’ names, addresses and other identifying information . .. [to] . . .be kept confidential  by the Court and all parties throughout the trial and deliberation” After the conclusion of the trial, any information about the jurors shall be disclosed only after a “subsequent written Order” by the Court.

Each Defendant shall have five preemptory challenges of prospective jurors, and the State twelve such challenges. There will be four alternate jurors.

The jurors will be partially sequestered during trial with possible full sequestration if the partial plan “proves ineffective in keeping jurors free from outside influence.” In addition, during jury deliberations at the end of the trial, there shall be full sequestration.

Audio and Video Coverage of the Trial [5]

 The trial shall commence on March 8, 2021, and “may be recorded, broadcast, and livestreamed in audio and video subject to the conditions” contained in the order.

Order Regarding Hennepin County Attorneys[6]

The Court’s oral order removing four members of the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office from these cases is vacated although they may not “appear as advocates in the trials and may not sign any motions or pleadings in these cases.

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

[1] Olson, Ex-officers charged in George Floyd case to be tried together in Hennepin County, cameras allowed in courtroom, StarTribune (Oct. 5, 2020).

[2] Order and Memorandum Opinion Granting State’s Motion for Trial Joinder, State v. Chauvin, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12646, Hennepin County District Court (Nov. 5, 2020).

[3] Preliminary Order Regarding Change of Venue, State v. Chauvin, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12646, Hennepin County District Court (Nov. 5, 2020).

[4] Order for Juror Anonymity and Sequestration, State v. Chauvin, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12646, Hennepin County District Court (Nov. 5, 2020).

[5] Order Allowing Audio and Video Coverage of Trial, State v. Chauvin, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12646, Hennepin County District Court (Nov. 5, 2020).

[6] Order, State v. Chauvin, Court File No. 27-CR-20-12646, Hennepin County District Court (Nov. 5, 2020).

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

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

Media Coalition’s Opposition[1]

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

Hearing on the Motion[2]

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

Subsequent Developments [3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Important Prosecution Filings in George Floyd Criminal Cases

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

Motion To Limit Public Access to Case Materials[1]

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

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

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

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

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

Arguments for Additional Evidence[2]

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

[1] State’s Motion for Order Temporarily Restricting Public Access to Motions and Exhibits, State v. Chauvin, Court file No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Hennepin County District Court Oct. 12, 2000); Olson, Prosecutors seek privacy order to keep details of George Floyd’s 2019 arrest from public view, StarTribune (Oct. 13, 2020)  Gray’s motion is not available on the public website of filings in the Lane case, but the StarTribune obtained a copy since it is a member of the Media Coalition and thus a party in an ongoing dispute over what documents are public in the case. (See Gag Order in George Floyd Murder Cases, dwkcommentaries.com (July 9, 2020); Media Coalition Asks Court To Release BodyCam Footage of George Floyd Killing, dwkcommentaries.com (July 14, 2020).)

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

[3] Prosecution’s Supplemental Argument for Enhanced Sentences for Defendants in George Floyd Criminal Cases, dwkcommentaries.com (Oct. 13, 2020).

Developments in George Floyd Criminal Cases

As previously discussed, the September 11 hearing in the four George Floyd criminal cases had many arguments and disclosures by the parties and judge’s decisions. [1]  Here is a summary of filings in the cases since that hearing.

State’s Response to Chauvin Dismissal Motion [2]

On September 18 the State responded to Derek Chauvin’s motion to dismiss the criminal complaint for alleged lack of probable cause. The State’s 42-page brief had a detailed statement of facts regarding the May 25th police encounter with Mr. Floyd and discussion of the relevant law. Here is its summary of the State’s position:

  • “There is probable cause for each charged offense in the complaint. On May 25, 2020, Chauvin, Kueng, and Lane pinned Floyd to the ground face-down after he was suspected of using a counterfeit $20 bill to purchase a pack of cigarettes. Chauvin pressed his knee into Floyd’s neck and held Floyd’s handcuffed left hand behind his back. Kueng knelt on Floyd’s back and likewise pinned Floyd’s handcuffed arms behind his back. Lane restrained Floyd’s legs with his hands and knees. And Thao—who saw what the other officers were doing and heard Floyd’s cries for help—encouraged the others to continue pinning Floyd down, pushed back a group of concerned bystanders, and prevented them from intervening.”
  • “In the first five minutes Floyd was on the ground, he told the officers at least twenty times that he could not breathe. He told them nearly ten times that he was dying. And then he fell silent. He stopped moving. He stopped breathing. And the officers could not find a pulse. As Floyd lost consciousness, a crowd of bystanders pleaded with the officers. They told the officers they were killing Floyd. They screamed that Floyd had stopped moving. They alerted the officers that Floyd had stopped breathing. And they begged the officers to take Floyd’s pulse. Nonetheless, the officers continued to pin him to the ground—with Chauvin kneeling on Floyd’s neck, Kueng on Floyd’s back, Lane on Floyd’s legs, and Thao standing watch to prevent the bystanders on the sidewalk from approaching the other officers and Floyd.”
  • “All told, the officers held Floyd in that position for approximately nine minutes—about five times longer than the national anthem, and four times longer than President Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. During that time, Chauvin continued to kneel on Floyd’s neck for about four minutes after Lane told the other officers that Floyd was “passing out,” and for two and a half minutes after Kueng said Floyd did not have a pulse. Indeed, he continued to press his knee into Floyd’s neck for a full minute after emergency medical personnel arrived on the scene, and even while emergency personnel tried to check Floyd’s pulse.”

“Probable cause is manifest. The facts here “would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to hold an honest and strong suspicion” that Chauvin committed second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter. State v. Ortiz, 626 N.W.2d 445, 449 (Minn. App. 2001). The evidence is more than sufficient to establish probable cause for each offense. This Court should therefore deny Chauvin’s motion to dismiss.”

State’s Motion for Reconsideration of  Disqualification of Hennepin County Attorneys [3]

On September 14, the State asserted that “there is no rule which requires the inclusion of a non-attorney witness when [an attorney is] speaking to an experienced and routine government witness, and ABA guidance specifically contemplates a prosecutor meeting with such a witness one-on-one, and undoubtedly four-on-one, without triggering ethical or practical concerns. . . . [T]he meeting [of] these four[HCAO] prosecutors was not any sort of “sloppy” act or unethical shortcutting. Rather, it was a reasoned decision made by conscientious public servants.”

Moreover, “the State does not plan for any of these attorneys to be a trial advocate in this case, and defense counsel has not actually identified a credible scenario under which any of them would be disqualified from serving as such, e.g. by becoming a “necessary witness” at trial, which is the defense’s burden. With that in mind, it is unwarranted to further restrict the State still more: by prohibiting the State from even consulting with these experienced prosecutors (and thus preventing Mr. Freeman and Mr. LeFevour from supervising these matters). Such a broad removal of Mr. Freeman, Mr. LeFevour, Ms. Sweasy, and Mr. Lofton unduly prejudices the State.” In addition, two of the four attorneys have “recused themselves from the case and have had no further involvement in the case.”

In addition to its citation of relevant rules and cases, the State submitted an affidavit of William J. Wernz, who is described by the Minnesota State Bar Association as the author of Minnesota Legal Ethics: A Treatise and as “one of the nation’s foremost authorities on legal ethics.”  After reviewing the relevant materials, Mr. Wernz stated under oath, “in my opinion the interviews of the Hennepin County Medical Examiner by the HCAO did not furnish any basis for conclusion that they violated Rule 3.7, nor that any of them who acted as advocate at trial would violate Rule 3.7 by so doing.”

State’s Additional Discovery Disclosures [4]

On September 16, the State disclosed that it had provided defense counsel with the body worn camera video of Mr. Floyd’s May 6, 2019 incident with the Minneapolis police. On the same date, the State disclosed its having provided other materials.

Kueng’s Request for Preemptory Challenges [5]

On September 15, Defendant J. Alexander Kueng requested that if the four cases are consolidated for trial, each of the defendants should be granted 10 preemptory challenges (but at least five such challenges) of potential jurors.

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

[1] See the following posts and comments in dwk commentaries: Agenda for the 9/11/20 Hearing in the George Floyd Criminal Cases (Sept. 2, 2020); Preview of 9/11/20 Hearing in George Floyd Criminal Cases (Sept. 10, 2020); Comment: Rule 404 Evidence Motions: More Details  (Sept. 10, 2020); More Details on 9/11/20 Hearing in George Floyd Criminal Cases (Sept. 11, 2020);Results of 9/11/20 Hearing in George Floyd Criminal Cases (Sept. 12, 2020).

[2] Chauvin Moves To Dismiss Criminal Complaint, dwkcommentaries (Aug. 28, 2020); State’s Response Opposing Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Probable Cause, State v. Chauvin, Civil Case No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Sept.18, 2020); State’s Exhibits for Opposition to Chauvin’s Dismissal Motion ,State v. Chauvin, Civil Case No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Sept.18, 2020).

[3] State’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Reconsideration of Order Prohibiting Participation of Michael O. Freeman and Others, State v. Chauvin, Civil Case No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Sept.14, 2020); Affidavit of William J. Wernz, State v. Chauvin, Civil Case No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Sept.14, 2020).

[4] Letter, Matthew Frank to Judge Cahill, State v. Chauvin, Civil Case No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Sept.16, 2020); Supplemental Prosecution Disclosures Pursuant to Rule 9.01, Subd. 1, State v. Chauvin, Civil Case No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Sept. 16, 2020).

[5] Defendant’s Position on Peremptory Challenges, State v. Kueng, File No. 27-CR-20-12953 (Sept. 15, 2020).

 

 

 

 

Status of Civil Litigation Over George Floyd Killing

On July 15, attorneys for the family of George Floyd (by their trustee Kaarin Nelson Schaffer, a Minnesota attorney and resident of Hennepin County) sued the City of Minneapolis and the four ex-police officers involved in Floyd’s death—Derek Chauvin, Tou Thao, Thomas Lane and J. Alexander Kueng. The 40-page Complaint has three counts. “Count I—42 U.S.C. §1983—Fourth Amendment Violations” is asserted against the four ex-policemen while counts II and III are against the City of Minneapolis: “Count II– 42 U.S.C. §1983—Monell Liability” and “Count III–42 U.S.C. §1983—Canton Liability.” [1]

The only development so far in the case is the August 18 filing of a Stipulation for 60-Day Stay of Litigation between the plaintiff and the City of Minneapolis. Such a stay until October 17 was requested “so that the parties may continue to discuss the possibility of a longer stay which would continue until the criminal proceedings against the individual Defendants are completed.”[2]

The next day, two Minneapolis attorneys—Gregory M. Erickson and Erick G. Kaardal–entered their appearances for defendant Derek Chauvin.

Background of U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson[3]

Judge Susan Richard Nelson, who is presiding over this civil case, had 23  years of experience as an attorney in Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Minnesota, the last 16 as a skillful attorney in high stakes civil litigation for an eminent Minneapolis law firm. Then in 2000 the judges of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota appointed her to the position of U.S. Magistrate Judge, who handles various pretrial matters and settlement conferences.

Most relevant for the current civil case over George Floyd from Nelson’s experience as a Magistrate Judge was her supervising settlement discussions over a racial discrimination suit by five high-ranking Black Minneapolis police officers—including current Chief Medaria Arrandondo. In July 2008, “the parties were on the of a $2 million settlement that also included the addition of a new deputy police chief position focused on documenting and responding to reports of discrimination both within the department and in the community. The tentative agreement included data collection about racially based policing and publication of that data; the Police Department’s adherence to terms of a previously proposed federal consent decree; and ongoing court oversight to ensure the settlement agreement’s terms were implemented and followed.”

One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, Robert Muller, recently said Nelson “artfully encouraged the parties to work towards a potential resolution that included provisions beyond simply monetary relief. Her encouragement prompted the parties to be creative, dig in, and come up with what could have been very meaningful [police] reform.”

However, the Minneapolis City Council failed to approve this settlement. A year later the case was settled, but without the previously agreed upon policy changes.

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

[1] See these posts to dwkcommentaries.com: George Floyd’s Family Sues City of Minneapolis and Four Ex-Officers Involved in His Death (July 16, 2020); George Floyd’s Family’s Complaint Against the Four Ex-Police Officers Over His Death (July 17, 2020); George Floyd Family’s Complaint Against the City of Minneapolis Over His Death: Count II (July 18, 2020); George Floyd Family’s Complaint Against the City of Minneapolis Over His Death: Count III (July 19, 2020).

[2] Stipulation for 60-Day Stay of Litigation, Schaeffer v. Chauvin, Civil No. 20-1577 (Aug. 18, 2020, U.S. Dist. Ct., D. Minn.).

[3] Montemayor, Judge overseeing Floyd family’s federal suit no stranger to high stakes litigation, StarTribune (Sept. 6, 2020); Susan Richard Nelson, Wikipedia.