Federal Criminal Trial for George Floyd Killing: Prosecution Witnesses (Part I)

Here is a summary of the testimony of prosecution witnesses on January 24-28, 31 and February 1-2. On February 2 at 10:00 a.m. the trial was recessed until Monday, February 7, 9:30 a.m. because Defendant Thomas Lane has COVID.[1]

Kimberly Meline.

As the first trial witness, Meline established foundation for various videos of the police encounter with George Floyd on May 25, 2020, near Cup Foods in south Minneapolis. This included synchronizing some videos to play side by side.

A 34-minute video showed officers Kueng and Lane walking into Cup Foods and then walking to the car outside where Floyd is at the steering wheel. Lane points his gun at him and asks him to put his hands on the steering wheel. He does not comply and one of the officers says, “When you’re moving around like that, that makes us think way more is going on than we even know.”

This video then shows Lane and Kueng cuff Floyd and take him to a squad car and try to put him inside. Floyd objects, “I’m not that kind of guy. I’m claustrophobic.” He also says “I can’t breathe.” After Floyd is placed on the pavement near a police vehicle, the video captures him saying, “I can’t breathe. Mama, I love you.”

Another video, this from Kueng’ body-worn camera, was fixed on the passenger-side rear tire of a squad car, as bystanders can be heard shouting from the sidewalk and Floyd is unresponsive. A bystander, Donald Williams, says, “You think that’s cool, bro? You’re a bum for that.” This video also shows Thao holding back a group of bystanders on the sidewalk.

Charles McMillian

McMillian, a 71-year -old neighbor, was the first witness on the scene on May 25, 2020, and told Floyd to get in the back of the squad car and make it easy on himself because “You can’t win.” With tears, McMillian said, “I knew something bad was going to happen to Mr. Floyd . . . that he was going to die.”

Jena Scurry

A 911 dispatcher, Scurry testified that the officers asked for a “Code 2” ambulance without lights and sirens for a “mouth injury.” They did not report that Floyd was having trouble breathing. If they had, she could have sent “rescue” medical help from the fire department which could get to the scene faster than from Hennepin County EMS. A few minutes later she “grew concerned” that the officers appeared so long on a city surveillance camera that she called and reported this to a Third Precinct sergeant

Christopher Martin

At 19 years of age, Martin was working the evening shift at Cup Foods in May 2020 and accepted a blue-hued, obviously counterfeit $20 bill from Floyd to pay for a pack of cigarettes. At the instruction of the store manager, Martin went outside to bring Floyd back inside. Floyd, he testified, looked high and did not want to return to the store so the manager had another employee call 911.

A few moments later Martin saw a crowd outside the store and went outside to see a police officer with his knee or his body weight on Floyd’s neck, who appeared “dead . . . not moving.”

Derek Smith

A paramedic for Hennepin Healthcare, Smith testified that he and his partner arrived at the scene on a Code 2 non-emergency call. He immediately noted that Floyd had large pupils, no pulse and a chest not rising and falling and then told his partner “I think he’s dead. I’d like to provide patient care away from the scene” because “I knew I would have to work cardiac arrest, probably taking off his clothes.” They removed the body to the ambulance and started to set up lifesaving equipment while officer Lane attempted CPR. Yes, Lane was helpful to the paramedics.

Genevieve Hansen

An off-duty Minneapolis firefighter, while on a walk, Hansen came upon the scene near Cup Foods on May 25, 2020, and observed the lights of a squad-car,  “a woman was yelling that they were killing him” and “the amount of people that were on top of one person.” She also noticed “there were no medics or fire [department personnel] there, so there was no medical attention available.” The man on the ground wasn’t moving, his face was really swollen and smashed to the ground. She saw fluid coming from his general body and thought he could have emptied his bladder, which” is a sign of death or near death.” (Later, she says she learned the fluid was runoff from vehicle exhaust.) She was “concerned that he needed help.”

Hansen offered to help and urged one of them (Thao) to check the man’s pulse only to be rebuffed and told to get back on the sidewalk. This officer said something like, “If you’re really a Minneapolis firefighter then you should know better than to get involved.” This prompted Hansen to yell and swear at the officers because the man on the ground needed help immediately and he wasn’t not getting it, so I was just trying everything.”

Jeremy Norton

Norton, a Minneapolis fire captain, arrived at the scene to provide EMS and heard someone yell, “You all killed that man,” to the officers. In the Cup Foods store Norton met and talked with Hansen, who said she thought the officers had killed Floyd. Yet Norton said the officers did not seem concerned. In response to a question by Robert Paule, Thao’s attorney, about “excited delirium,” Norton said it was part of firefighters training, but the American Medical Association had concluded that it lacked scientific evidence as a legitimate diagnosis.

At the end of the day on the 26th, Plunkett for the third time called for a mistrial, but the Judge denied the motion while telling the prosecution to be careful with leading questions.

Katie Blackwell

As a Police Department Inspector, Blackwell oversees training, which includes a medical component and scenarios officers may face in the field. MPD core values: trust, accountability and professional service. The Field Training Handbook asserts these values: (1) public safety and justice, not just absence of crime; (2) being truthful; (3) holding each other accountable; and (4) not committing public or private conduct that would sully the department.” Phases of training: (1) being in the field with a field training officer, getting comfortable with the public and computer system; and (2) being in a different precinct with a different field training officer.

MPD Code of Conduct: all employees to obey the code of conduct, rules, ordinances, laws. “The integrity of police service is based on truthfulness.” Other sections talk about being fair, unbiased and professional. “Required to immediately report any violation of rules, including but not limited to unreasonable use of force—regardless of rank.” Use of force starts with police presence and escalates to use of force. Use the lowest level of force necessary to detain someone. Once there is compliance, force stops. “Sanctity of life and protection of the public should be the cornerstones of MPD’s use of force policy.” If a person has stopped resisting, the person is complying. This includes protecting persons suspected of violating the law from police use of unnecessary force. Officers have a duty “to stop or attempt to stop another officer when force is being inappropriately applied or is no longer required.”

The Department’s officers have “a duty to intervene because there is an obligation for sanctity of life to protect the public and fellow employees.” This includes a “duty to “stop or attempt to stop” another officer ”when force is being inappropriately applied or is no longer required.” It also includes “rendering medical aid consistent with training, including CPR, chest seal/tourniquet, administering Narcan, checking breathing. These requirements take into consideration an individual’s medical conditions, mental impairment, developmental disability, physical limitations, language barriers, drug or alcohol use and behavioral crisis.

MPD policy defines neck restraint as “restricting the blood flow” and “chokehold” can be used before shooting someone. Although policy says “neck restraint” can be used with a leg, officers are not trained to do so. “Conscious neck restraint” can be used when someone is actively resisting arrest and usually takes 15 seconds. Hobble is used to prevent someone from kicking and being combative. Prone position sometimes is used to get someone handcuffed, but then turn the person on his or her side so they can breathe easier.

“Sanctity of life and protection of public shall be the cornerstones of the MPD’s use of force policy. No matter what kind of force we’re using, we have to protect people.” “MPD employees shall only use the amount of force ‘objectively reasonable’ in light of circumstances: the amount and type of force that would be considered rational and logical to an objective officer on the scene, supported by facts and circumstances known to an officer at the time the force was used.”  Force can be used for “lawful arrest, execution of legal process, enforcing order of court, legal duties.”

MPD crisis intervention policy requires police to treat vulnerable people with compassion. Must call EMS and “render first aid until EMS gets there.” MPD policy for police to not stop people from videotaping police events.

Blackwell worked with Chauvin at third precinct for many years.

Blackwell reviewed Thao’s 2018 training–“Defensive Tactics In-Service.” It said, “Sanctity of life and protection of public. Based on 4th amendment reasonableness standard. Restraint is a form of force. Proportional force based on what the subject is doing. Need to use lowest level of force and justify any use of higher level.” Use of force: active aggression (being combative or trying to assault), active resistance, passive resistance and flight.

MPD academy tries to get officers comfortable correcting one another. “You will be held responsible for your actions and inactions.”

Blackwell also testified that the first officers on the scene, Lane and Kueng, under MPD policy, were in charge of the scene and should not have deferred to Chauvin, especially when Chauvin violated policy by putting his knee on Floyd’s neck and not removing it as Floyd was gasping for air and ultimately dying.

Initially Floyd showed active resistance and aggression when officers were trying to put him in back seat of squad car, which would have justified the officers using a taser on him.

Chauvin’s actions were inconsistent with policy when he had his knee on Floyd’s neck and pulled on his hand for “pain compliance.”

Three of the four officers who arrested and restrained Floyd did not act in accordance with use-of-force policy. Officers were not really communicating with each other. When Floyd went unconscious they were supposed to move him, but did not do so. Lane held Floyd’s legs. They did not move Floyd on his side as they were supposed to. Lane suggested doing so, but no one did so. When Floyd went unconscious, officers were supposed to render aid, but they did not do so. When Floyd had no pulse, they were supposed to perform medical aid, but they did not do so. MPD policy requires an officer to intervene to stop use of inappropriate force. The three officers failed in their duty to intervene.

There was a crowd of bystanders, but they were on sidewalk following orders and were not posing any threat to the officers.

Plunkett cross-examination: Blackwell disagrees with assertion that senior leadership establishes culture of organization and training. Instead recruits should mirror in field what they learned in training. Policy manual has 537 pages, and officers are supposed to know it. There are annual tests of some parts. DOJ is investigating pattern and practice of MPD, including alleged deficiency in officer training.

Paule cross-examination. The attorney for ex-officer Thao, Robert Paule, got Blackwell to agree that a MPD training slideshow cited a draft report by the city’s civil rights division that found a sharp rise in ketamine injections of detainees and examples of police asking emergency medical services for the sedative by name and joking about its powerful effects along with a footnote dismissing the report as a “reckless use of anecdote” that will “prevent the saving of lives.” Blackwell also testified, “If you’re dealing with somebody who is displaying signs of excited delirium, it can be very dangerous.”

Paule also identified other slides from the MPD course on its “excited delirium” training that had officers pinning down suspects with their knees, similar to the way Chauvin pinned down Floyd.

Dr. Bradford Wankhede Langenfeld

Langenfeld went into stabilization room for most critical patients to await Floyd’s arrival as a cardiac arrest patient. Floyd arrived at 8:55 p.m. Upon arrival, paramedics said no one at scene had started CPR before they arrived, and a minute’s delay in CPR reduces chances of success from cardiac arrest by 10-15%. But paramedics in ambulance tried resuscitation for about 30 minutes before arrival at hospital, but never found a pulse.

At hospital they continued compressions with Lucas device and gained additional IV access for more medications. Replaced windpipe tube with a more secure tube for better venting and arterial line. Dr. Langenfeld believes most likely cause of this cardiac arrest was “mechanical asphyxia” (inability to expand chest wall) and “excited delirium” or “severe agitated state.” There was a mouth injury which made him think the patient had been pinned down in prone position. Fentanyl by itself is a depressant, shows down breathing, but would not lead to severe agitated state.

After Dr. Langenfeld had worked on Floyd for about 30 minutes, cardiac arrest had come to near standstill; no clinical improvement; so doctor declared Floyd dead. When the heart stops, tissues and brain start to die, and irreversible brain damage occurs within 4-6 minutes of cardiac arrest.

Cross-examination by Paule (Thau’s attorney). Dr. Langenfeld says excited delirium is controversial because it is used almost exclusively when law enforcement is restraining an individual and predominantly people of color, thus raising concerns about bias and most often it is a pre-hospital diagnosis, which is condemned by  AMA and which typically is used for someone who is delirious, erratic, unable to be verbally de-escalated, sweaty.

If Floyd had been using illegal drugs and sweating profusely, this possibly could have been cause of cardiac arrest.

Cross examination by Plunkett (Kueng’s attorney). If someone had consumed methamphetamine and fentanyl and then was struggling hard, that possibly could kill someone.

Redirect by prosecution. Cardiac arrest from acidosis can be reversed by prompt chest compressions and CPR ventilation. After reviewing video of Floyd’s arrest, Dr. Langenfeld believes Floyd was not subject to severe agitation that would lead to cardiac arrest.

Andrew Baker

A medical examiner, Baker examined Floyd at HCMC and testified that his heart and lungs stopped due to restraint by law enforcement. “ I view his death as being multifactorial” due to the duration of his “interaction with law enforcement” for 9.5 minutes along with his already enlarged heart and hardened arteries. However, he denied that the fentanyl and methamphetamine found in Floyd’s body and carbon monoxide poisoning were contributory factors.

Under cross examination by attorney Paule, Baker testified that he and his office were targets of protests after Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman had published Baker’s preliminary autopsy findings that highlighted Floyd’s cardiovascular disease and “potential intoxicants” in his body. These protests included threatening phone calls, some of which targeted specific employees in his office and their families and included their home addresses. But Baker said the final conclusions on Floyd’s death were neither partisan nor driven by outside pressure. Baker also testified that excited delirium was not a cause of death.

Kueng’s attorney, Thomas Plunkett, showed Baker a photo of Kueng restraining Floyd, and Baker said that that position “wouldn’t impair his ability to breathe.” Baker gave the same answer to a question by Lane’s attorney (Earl Gray) about Lane’s position on Floyd.

Christopher Douglas

Attorney Gray objected to having Douglas testify because he trained Lane as a corrections officer in 2017 and, therefore, is not relevant. The objection, however, was overruled.

Douglas works for the Hennepin County Department of Community Corrections as the lead safety trainer for the County’s Juvenile Detention Center, where Lane worked before joining MPD. Douglas testified regarding the training about positional asphyxia that Lane would have received at that Center in 2017 and 2018. It emphasized getting “control of the subject quickly,” using arms instead of body weight while avoiding putting pressure on the torso and neck and monitoring the subject for medical issues and claiming inability to breathe. The trainees also learn de-escalation and physical restraint techniques, which aim to keep someone vertical and on their feet making it easier to transport someone and less likely to cause injury.

Comment

According to Holly Bailey, a Washington Post reporter, defense cross examination of Katie Blackwell suggests that a major defense argument will be that “Minneapolis officers are not given adequate scenario training on intervention policies and they operate in a militarized environment where younger officers are strongly discouraged from disagreeing with senior officers.” Thomas Plunkett, Kueng’s attorney, has argued that Kueng had received “inadequate training” and that the U.S. Justice Department currently is investigating the MPD, including its training programs.

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

[1]  The above summary of witness testimony is based upon the following newspaper articles: Live: Federal trial of 3 former Minneapolis officers in George Floyd death, StarTribune; Mannix & Olson, Cup Foods clerk who interacted with George Floyd tells jurors of events leading to killing, StarTribune (01/25/22);  Olson & Mannix, Day 3 of testimony underway as paramedic describes how George Floyd was likely dead at scene, StarTribune (1/26/22); Mannix & Olson, ‘I think they killed him:’ Off-duty firefighter testifies of futile attempts to help unresponsive George Floyd, StarTribune (1/26/22); Mannix & Olson, Minneapolis police inspector testifies of training protocol in civil rights trial, StarTribune (1/27/22); Mannix & Olson, Kueng and Lane should have been in charge at George Floyd arrest, protocol not followed, StarTribune (1/28/22);  Mannix & Olson, Defense says poor training, paramilitary culture, stopped officer from intervening in George Floyd’s death, StarTribune (1/28/22); Bailey, Officers charged in George Floyd’s killing had been taught to intervene, police trainer testifies, Wash. Post (1/28/22); Jany & Furst, Minneapolis police training, policies under microscope in trial of 3 ex-cops in George Floyd’s death, StarTribune (1/30/22); Mannix & Olson, Testimony: Minneapolis police trained to ignore city’s civil rights report on ketamine, excited delirium, StarTribune (1/31/22); Olson & Mannix, Defense asks medical examiner about outside pressures during George Floyd death investigation, StarTribune (2/1/22); Olson & Mannix, Trial of ex-Minneapolis cops postponed by COVID diagnosis, StarTribune (2/2/22).

Importance of Pending Federal Criminal Case Over Killing of George Floyd

A Professor of Practice at the Georgetown University Law Center, Christy Lopez, asserts that the current federal trial of the three ex-officers for not intervening to prevent the death of George Floyd may be even more important than the state case that convicted Derek Chauvin for murder and manslaughter of Mr. Floyd. She says, although “a duty to intervene to prevent another [police] officer from using unreasonable force has existed for 50 years, it has led to few federal prosecutions for same. [Moreover, the professor has not found any] federal prosecutions of lower-ranking officers for failing to intervene to prevent a higher-ranking—or even a peer officer—from using unreasonable force.” [1]

Reasons for Police Intervention To Stop Excessive Force

According to Professor Lopez,”this trial could set federal precedent for holding officers criminally culpable . . . for failing to prevent another officer — even a peer or superior officer — from committing . . . [civil rights violations]. And that precedent could add momentum to a badly needed sea change in policing — toward a shared expectation that every officer will take all feasible steps to prevent another officer from violating constitutional rights, regardless of rank.”

“It is difficult to overstate the impact such a change culture would have. As I wrote just a few days after Floyd’s death, our central concern should be preventing deaths like his; no after-the-fact measure of accountability can make up for the brutal, unnecessary snuffing out of a human life. Intervention by officers in real time is often the best way — sometimes the only way — to prevent harm.”

“Further, building a culture of intervention is an essential component of broader efforts to transform policing and public safety. When officers stand by while another officer causes needless harm, they commit a separate, in some ways more corrosive, damage: the delegitimizing of police and rule of law that takes hold when abuse committed by bad-apple officers is tacitly condoned by passive bystander officers.”

“[The particular facts of Floyd’s murder underscore the importance of training officers in how to effectively intervene. Turning the legal duty to intervene into routine practice requires building a policing culture that supports active bystandership. Accountability — criminal, civil and administrative — is part of this, but so is demonstrating that officers will be supported when they step in. Training signals that support and increases the likelihood that interventions will be effective — a precursor to intervention becoming the norm. While not having been trained cannot be an excuse to avoid accountability for a failure to intervene, strong training can create a culture in which effective interventions are more likely.”

“Active bystandership programs, such as the one focusing on policing that I helped found at Georgetown Law, teach people to anticipate this reaction and be prepared to overcome it. We use the acronym PACT — for probe, alert, challenge, take action — to help officers remember not only the potential need to ratchet up intervention, but also how to do so. Officers role-play escalating stages of intervention. Imagine if just one of the officers had directly challenged Chauvin (“Take your knee off his neck!”) and, if that didn’t work, taken action to physically remove him.”

“Training cannot guarantee better outcomes, but when good training is bolstered by accountability — like that possible through the trial in St. Paul — it can become a potent component of culture change. Building this culture in policing is essential, not only to prevent tragedies like Floyd’s death but also to stop the everyday violations that steadily erode police legitimacy and that other officers are often the only ones in a position to prevent.”

Conclusion

Professor Lopez’ opinion deserves serious attention. Before joining the Georgetown faculty in 2017, she served for seven years as a Deputy Chief in the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice where she led pattern-or-practice investigations of police departments and other law enforcement agencies, including litigating and negotiating settlement agreements to resolve investigative findings. Professor Lopez also helped coordinate the Department’s broader efforts to ensure constitutional policing. Before that she spent 15 years as a lawyer involved in criminal justice reform and constitutional policing. [2]

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

[1] Lopez, The officers who didn’t stop Derek Chauvin are on trial. Their prosecution may matter even more than his did, Wash. Post (1/23/22).

[2] Christy E. Lopez Biography, Georgetown Law.

Final Preparations for  Federal Criminal Trial Over Killing of George Floyd 

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

Jury Selection[1]

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

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

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

Cancelled Hearing on Other Issues[2]

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

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

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

Conclusion [3]

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

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

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

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

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

Pre-Trial Hearing in Federal Criminal Case Over Killing of George Floyd

On January 11, 2022, U.S. District Court Judge Paul Magnuson held a pre-trial hearing in the federal criminal case against three ex-Minneapolis police officers (J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao) on charges of violating the civil rights of George Floyd in connection with his May 2020 killing. The trial is scheduled to start on January 20.[1]

The Judge expressed his concern about the potential impact of COVID-19 on the trial. “Move the case along and get it tried in a shorter time. The longer we are in the courtroom, the more exposure we have to COVID. And if we get to that point and we don’t have 12 people sitting here, you know what happens. We all go home.” The Judge also expressed concern about the threat of  “outside pressures” that could interfere with the case.

With the prosecution’s filing a list of 48 potential witnesses, the Judge said the case was “getting out of proportion” and that the parties needed to reduce the number of witnesses. The Judge also ruled that a 10-year-old witness will not be allowed to testify and that other witnesses may testify in uniform only if they are appearing in their “official function” and thus an off-duty firefighter [at the scene of the killing] will not be allowed to wear her uniform on the witness stand.

Judge Magnuson also stated that he expects the 12 jurors and six alternates to be selected in two days (January 20 and 21) and the opening statements to begin the following Monday (January 24). There will be no live-streaming of the trial and thereby not allowing the public to follow every minute. Instead there will be only a  few journalists and members of the public in the courtroom while a small group of other journalists and members of the public will watch a video feed of the trial from other rooms in the courthouse.

The next day (January 13), the prosecution filed a brief saying that prohibiting  some witnesses from testifying in the upcoming civil rights case against three former Minneapolis officers will hinder their argument and “deprive the government of its right to a fair trial.” Although they plan to shore up their witness list and heed the concerns for the virus interfering with the trial, “the pursuit of justice should not become a subordinate interest to brevity here. This case involves constitutional violations by sworn law enforcement officers that resulted in the death of a man, and neither COVID nor concerns about security should limit the government or the defense from presenting its case.”[2]

The prosecution also said the nine-year-old witness  is not a mere prop, and objectively serious medical need, “meaning one that is so obvious that even people with no formal medical training would recognize that care is required. Viewed through this lens, it is significant that a then-9-year-old observed and immediately understood that Mr. Floyd needed medical attention.”

In addition, the prosecution also objected to Magnuson’s ruling that calling multiple medical experts to testify would be “inefficient” and “improper.” Prosecutors plan to call two medical experts, including Andrew Baker, who they say is limited to his specialized expertise as Hennepin County Medical Examiner, who”only treats the dead.” As a result, the prosecution wants to call a second expert who can speak to medical issues such how the officers’ compression on Floyd’s airway and torso could hinder his ability to breath, how resuscitation could have saved him and specific effects of the combination of fentanyl and methamphetamine.

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

[1] Mannix, With opening arguments on horizon, judge worries COVID outbreak could upend trial of three former Minneapolis officers, StarTribune (Jan. 12, 2022); Memorandum and Order, U.S. v. Thao, et al., Crim. No. 21-108 (D. Minn. Jan. 11, 2022).

[2] Mannix, Prosecutors say barring witnesses in case against ex-officers in George Floyd death deprives them of fair trial, StarTribune (Jan. 13, 2022).

Postponement of State Court Trial of Ex-Policemen for Killing of George Floyd                 

On January 12, 2022, Hennepin County District Court Judge Peter Cahill postponed the commencement of the state trial of three Minneapolis ex-policemen (J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao) on charges of aiding and abetting the May 2020 second-degree murder and manslaughter of George Floyd. [1]

The Judge ordered the parties’ attorneys to meet before January 16 to select a new trial date between March 14, 2022 and January 9, 2023. If they cannot agree on a new date, the trial will start on March 7 as previously scheduled.

In the meantime, the three men are scheduled to go on trial in federal court starting January 20 on charges of violating Mr. Floyd’s civil rights during his arrest. If that trial has not concluded by the new date for the state trial, the latter shall be continued on a daily basis until the attorneys are available.

In addition, Judge Cahill stated that in the state case the attorneys should set aside three weeks for jury selection and five weeks for trial testimony.

All of these developments happened after the state court trial, conviction and sentencing of Derek Chauvin to 22.5 years imprisonment for second-degree and third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter of Mr. Floyd.[2] And then in mid-December 2021 Chauvin unexpectedly pleaded guilty to the federal charges against him over the killing of Mr. Floyd with Chauvin to serve the state and federal sentences concurrently in a federal prison.[3] Thus ended Chauvin’s criminal charges and trials over Floyd’s death.

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

[1] Xiong, State trial of three officers charged in George Floyd killing postponed from March date, StarTribune (Jan. 12, 2022); Order Granting Joint Request To Continue Trial Date, State v. Thao, Lane, Kueng, Henn. Cty Dist. Ct., File Nos. 27-CR-20-12949, 12951 & 12953 (Jan. 12, 2022).

[2]  See the “Derek Chauvin State Criminal Trial” and “State Court Sentencing of Derek Chauvin” sections of List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: George Floyd Killing.

[3] Derek Chauvin Pleads Guilty to Federal Criminal Charges Over Killing of George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 16, 2021).

Federal Criminal Cases Over George Floyd Death Seem Ready for Trial in Mid-January

On November 18, U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson mailed questionnaires to prospective jurors ordering them to report to the Federal Courthouse in Minneapolis on January 20, 2022, and be ready to serve from mid-January to mid-February on the federal criminal cases against Derek Chauvin, J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao.[1]

The Judge’s letter said, “In trials of this nature, the Court and the attorneys need to ask probing questions of prospective jurors, including questions about their views on law enforcement, various interest groups, and events that have taken place over the past year-and-a-half. We do this not because we wish to pry into the private lives of prospective jurors, but because we are obligated to ensure that the jurors who hear the case will be fair and impartial.”

The Judge also asked those responding to the questionnaire to avoid media coverage related to this case.

This development looks as if it will interfere with the commencement of the state criminal trial of J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao, previously scheduled to start on March 7, 2022.[2]

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

1/ Mannix, Federal civil rights trial for ex-Minneapolis-cops in George Floyd killing on track for mid-January,  StarTribune (11/30/21).

2/ Xiong, State trial postponed to March 2022 for ex-officers charged with aiding and abetting murder in George Floyd death, StarTribune (May 13, 2021).

Federal Criminal Cases Over George Floyd Death: Four Policemen To Be Tried Together  

As previously noted, four Minneapolis policeman—Derek Chauvin, J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao–face a federal grand jury indictment over the death of George Floyd in the District of Minnesota. They are charged with  allegedly using the “color of the law” to deprive  George Floyd of his constitutional rights to be “free from the use of unreasonable force” when Chauvin held Floyd down by the neck for more than nine minutes while the others did nothing to stop Chauvin. In addition, all four are charged with failing to help provide medical care to Floyd and “thereby acting with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of harm.” [1]

All four of the defendants have pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Denial of Severance of the Four Cases

On November 29, U.S. Magistrate Judge Tony Leung denied the motions by the last three ex-policemen to sever their federal cases from the one against Derek Chauvin. [2]

The Magistrate Judge said said the attorneys making the motions had failed to prove that Chauvin’s conviction would prevent their clients from receiving a fair trial.

Elaborating on the reasons for that conclusion, the Magistrate Judge said the charges against Chauvin are not identical to the others, but there is “significant overlap and interplay” in the allegations. “Also, the Government will be using essentially the same substantive evidence against each of the Defendants at trial. There will be witnesses. A number, if not a majority, of these same witnesses will be called to testify regardless of whether Chauvin is tried jointly with Thao, Kueng and Lane. The events at issue occurred during a short temporal period on a single day in a single location. In addition to the discrete unities of time and place, there can be no genuine dispute that all four Defendants were at the scene of the events giving rise to this case.”

This decision was made “without prejudice,” meaning that if these three defendants object to this ruling, U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson, who will be presiding over the trial, may make his own ruling on the motion.

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

[1] Indictment, U.S. v. Chauvin, Thao, Kueng and Lane, U.S. Dist. of Minn. (Case 0:21-cr-00108-PAM-TNL (May 6, 2021); Federal Court Charges Against Ex-Minneapolis Policemen Over George Floyd’s Killing, dwkcommentaries.com (May 7, 2021).

[2] Mannix, Former Minneapolis officers should be tried together in federal case, says magistrate judge, StarTribune (11/29/21).

Criminal Cases Over George Floyd Killing: Recent Developments  

As mentioned in previous posts, former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was charged, tried, convicted and sentenced in Minnesota state trial court for the May 2020 killing of George Floyd[1] and he has been criminally charged in Minnesota federal court for that same killing.[2] The other three former police officers who were so involved (Thomas Lane, J. Alexander Kueng and Tou Thao) also face state and federal criminal charges with their state trial scheduled for March 2022 while their request for prohibition of video or audio coverage of the trial is still pending.[3]

There have been recent developments in these cases.

Minnesota Supreme Court OverturnsThird-Degree Murder Conviction of Mohammed Noor.[4]

Former Minneapolis police Officer Mohammed Noor, after trial in state court, was convicted of third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter for the July 15, 2017, killing of Justine Ruszczyk Damond, and on September 15, 2021, the Minnesota Supreme Court unanimously reversed the third-degree murder conviction and remanded the case for re-sentencing on the manslaughter charge.

The Supreme Court held that the third-degree murder statute required a “depraved mind” or a “generalized indifference to human life”  and that  requirement cannot be satisfied when a defendant’s conduct is aimed at a single person, as was the case with Noor.

Upon remand to the trial court, Noor will be re-sentenced for his conviction for second-degree manslaughter, which is expected to be four years, which given his imprisonment so far for 28 ½ months means he could be eligible for supervised release in 3.5 months.

This decision raises the question of whether it will affect Chauvin’s sentence of 22 ½ years for the second-degree murder of George Floyd. Although the jury also had found Chauvin guilty for third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter, the 22 ½ year sentence was only based on conviction for second-degree murder.[5] Therefore, the Noor decision does not directly impact Chauvin’s sentence. Perhaps Chauvin’s attorney will argue on appeal that the third-degree murder charge against Chauvin unfairly impacted the entire case against him and thus calls for complete reversal by the appellate court, but Susan Gaertner, former Ramsey County Attorney, thinks that is highly unlikely. This blogger, a retired attorney without criminal law experience, concurs in that reaction.

Chauvin and the Other Three Defendants Plead to Federal Criminal Charges.[6]

In May 2021, Chauvin and the three other officers were criminally charged in federal court with allegedly using the “color of the law” to deprive Mr. Floyd of his constitutional rights to be “free from the use of unreasonable force” in his May 2020 arrest, and on September 14, 2021, all four entered not guilty pleas in federal court.

The pending motions of the other three officers to be tried separately from Chauvin have not yet been acted upon.

On September 16, Chauvin was arraigned on a separate charge in federal court for alleged use of excessive force in the September 2017 arrest of a 14-year-old boy, and Chauvin entered a not guilty plea to this charge.

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

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

[2] Federal Criminal Charges Against Ex-Minneapolis Policemen Over George Floyd Killing, dwkcommentaries.com (May 7, 2021); Federal Criminal Cases Against Ex-Minneapolis Cops for George Floyd Death: Initial Proceedings, dwkcommentaries.com (June 2, 2021).

[3]  Defendant’s Motion To Exclude Video and Audio Recording of Proceedings, State v. J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas K. Lane, District Court , Court File NO.: 27-CR-20-12953 & 27-CR-20-12931 (Aug. 25, 2021); State’s Memorandum of Law Opposing Motions To Exclude Audio and Video Recording of Proceedings, District Court File NO.: 27-CR-20-12953 & 27-CR-20-12931 & 27-CR-20-12949 (Sept. 1, 2021).

[4] Minnesota Supreme Court Hears Argument About Scope of Third- Degree Murder Statute, dwkcommentaries.com (June 10, 2021); Xiong & Olson, Supreme Court overturns third-degree murder conviction against ex-Minneapolis police officer Mohammed Noor, StarTribune (Sept. 16, 2021); State v. Noor, Opinion, No. A19-1089 (Minn. Sup. Ct. Sept. 15, 2021).

[5] See. n.1.

[6]  Mannix, Four former Minneapolis officers plead not guilty to federal civil rights charges, StarTribune (Sept. 14, 2001); Olson, Chauvin enters not guilty plea to federal civil rights charge involving a 14-year-old, StarTribune (Sept. 16, 2021); Federal Criminal Case Over George Floyd Killing: Request To Sever Chauvin Case from Three Co-Defendants Cases, dwkcommentaries.com (Aug. 9, 2021).

 

Federal Criminal Case Over George Floyd Killing: Requests To Sever Chauvin Case from Three Co-Defendants Case 

On April 20, 2021, the  first criminal trial over the killing of George Floyd resulted in a Minnesota state court jury verdict holding former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin guilty on counts of second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter.  On June 25, 2021, Minnesota District Court Judge Peter Cahill sentenced Chauvin to 22.5 years imprisonment for these crimes. [1]

Since then the Minnesota state court has handled various issues relating to the Chauvin conviction and sentencing while also preparing for the criminal trial in March 2022 of the other three former Minneapolis police officers involved in the killing of Mr. Floyd (J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao).[2]

Federal Criminal Cases Over the Killing of George Floyd[3]

In the meantime, on May 6, 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice filed in the U.S. District Court in Minneapolis an indictment against Chauvin and these other three former Minneapolis police officers. These were the charges:

  • Count 1 charged Derek Chauvin, “while acting under color of law . . . willfully deprived George Floyd of the right, secured and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, to be free from an unreasonable seizure, which includes the right to be free from the use of unreasonable force by a police officer.”
  • Count 2 charged Tou Thao and J. Alexander Kueng, “acting under color of law, willfully deprived George Floyd of the right, secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, to be free from an unreasonable seizure . . . [by failing] to intervene to stop . . . Chauvin’s use of unreasonable force.”
  • Count 3 charged all four defendants, “while acting under color of law, willfully deprived George Floyd of the right, secured and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, which includes an arrestee’s right to be free from a police officer’s deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs [when they saw ] George Floyd lying on the ground in clear need of medical care, and willfully failed to aid Floyd, thereby acting with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of harm to Floyd.”

Also on May 6, 2021, the Department of Justice filed in the federal court in Minneapolis another indictment of Chauvin for alleged use of unreasonable force against a juvenile in 2017. But the other three former Minneapolis policemen were not involved in this case.

Motions To Sever the Federal Chauvin Case from That Case Against the Other Three Ex-Cops[4]

As of August 4, 2021, the docket sheet for the federal case over the killing of Mr. Floyd had 104 entries, almost all of which are preliminary matters not requiring comments here.

However, on August 3, defendants Thao, Kueng and Lane filed motions to sever their cases from the one against Chauvin, Thao’s motion had the following most extensive statement pf reasons for severance:

  1. The defendants were “not properly joined under Rule 8(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,” which allows charging “2 or more defendants if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction, or in the same series of acts or transactions, constituting an offense or offenses.”
  2. “The jury will have insurmountable difficulty distinguishing the alleged acts of each defendant from the alleged acts of his co-defendants.”
  3. ”Evidence may be introduced by each defendant which would be inadmissible against other defendants in a separate trial to the prejudice of these defendants.”
  4. “The counts of the indictment are not properly joined under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,which allows charging “a defendant in separate counts with 2 or more offenses if the offenses charged—whether felonies or misdemeanors or both—are of the same or similar character, or are based on the same act or transaction, or are connected with or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan.”
  5. “Mr. Thao’s Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate himself will be prejudiced by the joinder of the counts.”
  6. “Evidence which would be inadmissible were the counts tried separately, may be admitted and considered by the jury to the prejudice of Mr. Thao.”
  7. “The jury will have insurmountable difficult distinguishing evidence presented on one count from that evidence presented on other counts, and will inevitably consider the evidence cumulatively.”
  8. “Mr. Thao will obtain a fair and more impartial Trial [if] he is tried separately from his co-defendants.”

As other filings however, make clear, the U.S. opposes the severance motions but agrees to abide by any order the Court may issue on these motions. However, “a decision on severance is pre-mature,” and all parties “jointly ask that [these] motions[s] be reserved until a point in the future when information relevant to severance of Mr. Chauvin becomes more developed.[5]

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

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

[2] Xiong, State trial postponed to March 2022 for ex-officers charged with aiding and abetting murder in George Floyd death, StarTribune (May 13, 2021);  Bailey, Trial for 3 former officers charged in George Floyd murder delayed until March, Wash. Post (May 13, 2021); Furber, Judge Delays Trial for Other Officers Charged in Killing of George Floyd, N.Y. Times (May 13, 2021).

[3] Federal Court Charges Against Ex-Minneapolis Policemen Over George Floyd’s Killing, dwkcommentaries.com (May 7, 2021); Federal Criminal Cases Against Ex-Minneapolis Copes for George Floyd Death: Initial Proceedings, dwkcommentaries.com (June 2, 2021).

[4] Forliti (AP), Ex-cops charged in Floyd death want separation from Chauvin, StarTribune (Aug. 3, (2021); Xiong, Former Minneapolis officers request separate federal trial from Derek Chauvin, StarTribune (Aug. 3, 2021); Motion for Severance. United Sates v. Thao, U.S. Dist. Ct., Dist. Minn. File No. 21-CR-108(2) (Aug. 3, 2021); Defendant’s Pretrial Motion for Severance of Derek Chauvin (Defendant 1), U.S. v. Kueng, U.S. Dist. Ct., Dist. Minn. File No. 21-CR-108(2) (Aug. 3, 2021); Motion To Join Co-Defendants Pretrial Motions, U.S. v. Lane, U.S. Dist. Ct., Dist. Minn. File No. 21-CR-108 (Aug. 3, 2021).

[5] Defendant’s Meet and Confer Notice, U.S. v. Kueng, U.S. Dist. Ct., Dist. Minn. File No. 21-CR-108(2) Aug. 3, 2021.See generally List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: George Floyd Killing.

Reconsidering Third-Degree Murder Charges Against Other Ex-Policemen in George Floyd Killing 

On June 30, 2021, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed  Judge Cahill’s denial of the State’s motion to add a third-degree murder aiding and abetting charge against former MPD officers, J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao. Their trial is now scheduled for March 2022.[1]

Before looking at this Court of Appeals decision, we will examine a summary of the complicated background for this issue.

Background for Appellate Decision

“Murder in the Third Degree: in the Minnesota Statutes (section 609.195) is defined as “Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.”

The original superseding criminal complaint of June 3, 2020, against Derek Chauvin included a third-degree murder charge while not so charging the other three former officers of aiding and abetting that charge in their original complaints of June 3.[2]

On August 28, 2020, Chauvin moved to dismiss the complaint, including the third-degree murder charge. On October 21, 2020, Judge Cahill granted Chauvin’s motion to dismiss the third-degree murder charge while denying the balance of the motion. According to the Judge, such a charge can be sustained only when “the defendant’s actions . . . were not specifically directed at the particular person whose death occurred.” [3]

On February 4, 2021, the State moved for leave to reinstate the third-degree charges against the former officers. The basis for this motion was the Court of Appeals’ February 4th 2-1 decision upholding a third-degree murder charge against Mohammed Noor for the 2017 killing of an Australian woman in south Minneapolis.[4]

On February 11, Judge Cahill denied this motion to add the third-degree murder charges. According to the Judge, the majority opinion in its recent Noor case “is not persuasive in this Court’s view because it departs from the Minnesota Supreme Court’s long adherence to the no-particular person requirement embedded in the depraved mind element [of the crime].” In addition, said Judge Cahill, the dissent in the Noor case was correct.[5]

On February 22, the State appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals. On March 1 the Court of Appeals heard arguments on that appeal, and on March 5 that court reversed Judge Cahill’s decision. As a result, on March 11, Judge Cahill reinstituted the third-degree murder charge against Chauvin. The Judge said he was “duty bound” to accept the appellate court’s ruling and interpretation of the statute.[6]

Court of Appeals June 30th Decision[7]

The Court of Appeals on June 30, 2021, said that its previous decision on the third-degree murder charge in the Chauvin case requires Judge Cahill to reverse his previous denial of the charge of aiding and abetting such a crime by these three former officers and to hear additional arguments from the parties.

Judge Cahill will be duty-bound to follow this decision and order.

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

[1] Xiong, Court of Appeals ruling puts third-degree murder back into play in George Floyd killing, StarTribune (July 1, 2021); Williams, Minnesota appeals court clears way for third-degree murder charge against officers in George Floyd death, The Hill (July 1, 2021).

[2] The Criminal Complaint Against Derek Chauvin Over the Death of George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (June 12, 2020); The Criminal Complaints Against the Other Three Policemen Involved in George Floyd’s Death, dwkcommentaries.com (June 14, 2020).

[3] Chauvin Moves To Dismiss Criminal Complaint, dwkcommentareis.com (Sept. 9, 2020); Court Sustains Most Charges in George Floyd Criminal Cases, dwkcommentaries.com (Oct. 23, 2020).

[4] Prosecution and Chauvin Dispute Adding Third-Degree Murder Charges in George Floyd Criminal Case, dwkcommentaries.com (Feb. 10, 2021); Court Denies Third-Degree Murder Charges for George Floyd Killing, dwkcommentaries.com (Feb. 12, 2021).

[5] Ibid.

[6] Comment: State Appeals Dismissal of Third-Degree Murder Charges in George Floyd Case, dwkcommentaries.com (Feb. 23, 2021); Appellate Hearing on Third-Degree Murder Charge Against Derek Chauvin, dwkcommentaries.com (Mar. 1, 2021); Court of Appeals Reverses District Court’s Refusal To Follow Precedent on Third-Degree Murder Charge Against Derek Chauvin, dwkcommentaries.com (Mar. 5, 2021); Derek Chauvin Trial: Week One, dwkcommentaries.com (Mar. 15, 2021)Thomas Lan

[7] See n.1 supra.