Federal Criminal Trial for Killing George Floyd: Jury Deliberations and Verdict

On February 23, U.S. District Court Judge Paul Magnuson gave the Court’s instructions to the jury, and the jury engaged in their deliberations for the rest of the day and most of the next day. On the afternoon of February 24, the jury rendered its verdict. [1]

                                                     Jury Instructions

The Judge told the jurors they must view the evidence in light of what a “reasonable officer at the scene” would have done “without the benefit of 20-20 hindsight” and then “determine whether the decision to use force on Floyd was reasonable under the circumstances that were tense and rapidly evolving.” 

Moreover, “it violates the Constitution for a police officer to fail to intervene if he had knowledge of the force and an ability to do so.” 

On each count, if the jurors find an officer guilty, they must determine whether the officer’s actions caused Floyd’s death. (If the jury so finds, longer sentences would be permissible.)

                                                        Jury Verdict [2]

On the afternoon of February 24, after total deliberations of 13 hours over two days, the jury rendered its verdict that all three defendants were guilty of all charges.

                                            Reactions to the Verdict [3]

Afterwards, Assistant U.S. Attorney LeeAnn Bell said, “[A]s one of the brave bystanders said, ‘George Floyd was a human being.’ He deserved to be treated as such.”

George Floyd’s brother, Philonise Floyd, said, “This is something we want everybody to remember: If you kill somebody, you’re going to get time.”

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison stated, “Once again, the principle that no one is above the law and no one is beneath it has been upheld. The verdicts vindicate the principle that officers have a duty  and a responsibility to intervene and recognize when a fellow officer is using excessive force.”

Christy E. Lopez, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and an expert on police training, commented that this verdict “could significantly change law enforcement culture, compelling agencies to make sure that officers are properly trained and are upholding their duties. It shifts the entire narrative from misconduct being about just acts of commission to misconduct also being about acts of omission.” [4]

Other experts noted that “this case focused on a more widespread problem than a single officer’s act of violence: the tendency of officers to stand by when they witness a fellow officer committing a crime.”

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

[1] Olson & Mannix, Jury wraps first day of deliberating federal civil rights case against 3 ex-Minneapolis officers in George Floyd death, StarTribune (Feb. 23, 2022); Bogel-Burroughs, Jurors to Weigh Fate of Officers Who Restrained George Floyd as He Died, N.Y. Times (Feb. 22, 2022).

[2]Olson & Mannix, Ex-Minneapolis officers guilty on all civil rights charges related to George Floyd’s death, StarTribune (Feb. 24, 2022); Former Minneapolis Police Officers Found Guilty of Violating George Floyd’s Civil Rights, W.S.J. (Feb. 24, 2022); Former Minneapolis officers found guilty of violating George Floyd’s civil rights, Wash. Post (Feb. 24, 2022).

[3] Walsh, Reaction to guilty verdicts ranges from proper police accountability to worries of chilling effect on cops, StarTribune (Feb. 24, 2022); Arango, Bogel-Burroughs & Senter, 3 Former Officers Are Convicted of Violating George Floyd’s Civil Rights, N.Y. Times (Feb. 24, 2022).

[4] See Importance of Pending Federal Criminal Case Over Killing of George Floyd, dwkcommentaries.com (Jan. 24, 2022)(discussion of Professor Lopez’ work on police training), https://dwkcommentaries.com/2022/01/24/importance-of-pending-federal-criminal-case-over-killing-of-george-floyd/

 

Federal Criminal Trial for George Floyd Killing: Opening Statements

The trial of J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao began on January 24 with the opening statements of the prosecution and defense attorneys.[1]

Prosecution’s Opening Statement

Assistant U.S. Attorney Samantha Trepel said that when police officers take a person into their custody, those officers are responsible for keeping that ensuring a person’s safety. “In your custody is in your care. It’s not just a moral responsibility, it’s what the law requires under the U.S. Constitution.” Then someone signs “up to carry a gun and wear a badge [it] comes with life or death duties.”

“Here, on May 25, Memorial Day 2020, for second after second, minute after minute, these three CPR-trained defendants stood or knelt next to officer Chauvin as he slowly killed George Floyd right in front of them” and each of them  “made a conscious choice over and over again not to act. They chose not to intervene and stop Chauvin as he killed a man slowly in front of their eyes on a public street in broad daylight.” Eventually  “the window to save Floyd’s life slammed shut.”

Defense Counsels’ Opening Statements

Before their opening statements, at least two defense counsel asked Judge Paul Magnuson to declare a mistrial due to the prosecution’s alleged “argumentative” opening statement, but the Judge denied the request.

Attorney Robert Paule, representing ex-officer Tou Thau, acknowledged “the tragedy” of Mr. Floyd’s death, but “a tragedy is not a crime.” He reminded the jury that the familiar video by a young woman at the scene did not show why the officers were at the scene in the first place– to investigate a report of a counterfeit $20 bill and Mr. Floyd’s erratic behavior and failure to follow officers’ directions.

Attorney Thomas Plunkett said his client, ex-officer J. Alexander Kueng, was a “rookie officer” who was deeply influenced by Chauvin, the most senior officer on the scene with 19 years on the street, a field training officer (FTO) in Third Precinct “for a very long time” and Kueng’s FTO. Such a FTO “has great control over a young officer’s future” in the Department and can recommend the termination of such a newcomer. In order for Kueng to be found guilty, the jury must conclude that he acted willfully, which requires proof that he acted with a bad purpose to disobey the law to deprive Floyd of his rights.

However, there is no such proof. Moreover, the Minneapolis Police Department’s “training on ‘intervention’ is little more than a word on a PowerPoint.” With senior officer Chauvin in charge, Kueng did not have the experience or proper training to deal with the situation as it unfolded or how to intervene. Nevertheless, he checked Floyd’s pulse twice and told Chauvin he could not detect a heartbeat.

The video taken by a bystander was not what Kueng saw. It is not what he perceived. It is not what he experienced.

Attorney  Earl Gray for ex-officer Thomas Lane, emphasized that Floyd at 6 foot four and 225 pounds “was all muscle” and when he reached around in the console of his vehicle, Lane feared he might be reaching for a gun. Later Lane did not put pressure on Mr. Floyd, but just had his hands on the suspect’s feet. Lane suggested to Chauvin they should “hobble” Mr. Floyd on his side, but Chauvin said “no” so it was not done. Lane also suggested that the officers should roll Mr. Floyd on his side, but Chauvin said, “no, he’s good where he is. Lane asked Chauvin if Floyd was experiencing “excited delirium,” when someone after fighting wakes up with super-human strength,” which he learned about at his police training, but Chauvin rejected the suggestion.  When the ambulance arrived, Lane asked to ride with Floyd and performed chest compressions on him and was “not deliberately indifferent at all.”

Finally the attorney said Mr. Lane would testify at the trial.

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

[1] Mannix & Walsh, Opening Statements Monday in federal trial of 3 ex-cops implicated in George Floyd’s death, StarTribune (1/24/22); Live: Federal trial of 3 former Minneapolis officers in George Floyd death, StarTribune (1/24/22); Bailey, Opening statements to begin in federal trial over George Floyd’s killing, Wash. Post (1/24/22); Arango, George Floyd’s Civil Rights Are Focus in Opening Arguments of Federal Trial, N.Y. Times (1/24/22); Ajasa, Trial begins of three ex-police officers present at George Floyd murder, Guardian (1/24/22)

 

 

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.

Other Orders Regarding Upcoming Federal Criminal Trial Over Killing of George Floyd

As discussed in a prior post, on January 11, U.S. District Court Judge Paul Magnuson held a pretrial hearing in the federal criminal case against three ex-Minneapolis policemen over the killing of George Floyd and issued an order regarding certain issues.

The next day, the Government submitted a motion to clarify or reconsider two  of those rulings: (1) possible precluding one of the Government’s medical experts and (2) precluding a witness who was nine-years old on the date of Mr. Floyd’s encounter with the police and his death (May 25, 2020). Another motion regarding [1]

On January 14, Judge Magnuson issued an Order on the Government’s motion. First, it denied the motion for reconsideration of the refusal to allow the testimony of the young witness. Second, it granted the motion to clarify the ruling regarding the medical experts by saying, “the Court did not preclude the Government from offering multiple medical experts, but rather only ordered the Government  to ensure that its medical evidence was not cumulative. The Government has supplied the Court with information about three medical experts it intends to call as witnesses, and the testimony of these experts is not cumulative. The government may propound these witnesses, subject to other objections Defendants may raise.” [2]

The Court also on January 14 issued another order regarding the Government’s motions regarding defendants’ proposed evidence. It ruled inadmissible the reports of defense police-practices and use-of-force experts (Greg Meyer and Steve Ijames) on the ground that these reports “are replete with legal conclusions, attempts to introduce hearsay, and make improper determinations of fact and witness credibility.” However, these experts will be permitted to testify because “they clearly are [qualified]” and their “testimony … in that regard will assist the jury. But should either of these experts attempt to testify regarding matters that are inadmissible or improper, the Government may object.” [3]

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

[1] Government’s Motion To Clarify or Reconsider Certain Pretrial Rulings, U.S. v. Thao, et al., Criminal No. 21-108 (D. Minn. 01/12/22).

[2] Order, U.S. v. Thao, et al., Criminal No. 21-108 (D. Minn. 01/14/22).

[3] Order, U.S. v. Thao, et al., Criminal No. 21-108 (D. Minn. 01/14/22).

 

 

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).

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

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

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

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

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

Background[2]

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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 Against Ex-Minneapolis Cops for George Floyd Death: Initial Proceedings

On May 6, 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice filed in the U.S. District Court in Minneapolis an indictment over the killing of George Floyd on May 25, 2020 against four former Minneapolis policemen (Derek Chauvin, Tou Thao, J. Alexander Kueng and Thomas Kiernan Lane).

On the same date the Department filed a separate Indictment against Derek Chauvin over his alleged use  of unreasonable force against a juvenile in 2017.

The Indictment Over the Death of George Floyd [1]

The Indictment against all four former Minneapolis policemen asserted the following three counts:

  • 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.”

Initial Hearing of Thao, Kueng and Lane [2]

On May 7, three of the defendants (Thao, Kueng and Lane), who were free on bail in the state criminal case, made their first appearance before U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson, who issued three separate Orders Setting Conditions of Release that included a $25,000 appearance bond and submission to, and cooperation with, a Pretrial Services interview.

Separate Indictment of Chauvin [3]

This Indictment charged Chauvin with two counts for allegedly willfully depriving a 14-year-old Minneapolis boy of his civil rights during a 2017 arrest. Chauvin allegedly pinned the teenager down and struck him on the head with his flashlight, then grabbed him by the throat and hit him again. The second count alleged that Chauvin held his knee on the neck and upper back of the juvenile while he was lying prone, handcuffed and unresisting.

Initial Hearing for Chauvin [4]

On June 1, Chauvin appeared remotely from a state prison before U.S. Magistrate Becky Thomson. She appointed Erik Nelson, who represented Chauvin in the state trial resulting in his conviction, to act as Chauvin’s defense  attorney. In response to a question whether Chauvin knew he had a right to a federal detention hearing, he said,  “I do know. [but] probably in light of my current circumstances, I believe that would be a moot point.” He then waived his right to a detention hearing and was remanded to federal custody in the state prison

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

[1] Federal Court Charges Against Ex-Minneapolis Policemen Over George Floyd’s Killing, dwkcommentaries.com (May 7, 2021); Indictment, U.S. v. Chauvin, Thao, Kueng and Lane, U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota (CR. 21-108 PAM/TNL (May 6, 2021;

[2] Order Setting Conditions of Release, U.S. v. Thao, U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota (CR. 21-108-002 PAM/TNL (May 6, 2021); Order Setting Conditions of Release, U.S. v. Kueng,, U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota (CR. 21-108-003 PAM/TNL (May 6, 2021); Order Setting Conditions of Release, U.S. v. Lane, U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota (CR. 21-108-004 PAM/TNL (May 6, 2021).

[3] Indictment, U.S. v. Chauvin, U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota (CR. 21-109 WMW/HB, May 6, 2021).

[4] Mannix, Derek Chauvin appears before federal judge on civil rights charges, StarTribune (June 1, 2021); Forliti (AP), Chauvin makes appearance on federal charges in Floyd’s death, Wash. Post (June 1, 2021).