On April 20, 2021, the jury in the Derek Chauvin Murder Trial had reached their verdict. The world seemingly stood still while the jury's decision was read aloud after less than 10 hours of deliberation. To the surprise of many, they came back with a guilty verdict on all 3 counts: Murder in the Second Degree, Murder in the Third Degree and Manslaughter in the Second Degree.
The shock came from a variety of angles. Some who were of the belief that Chauvin was guilty, were surprised that the jury "did the right thing". Others, like myself, were surprised because they felt the charges were excessive (legally speaking). It is worth note that I am not a lawyer. That said, I am capable of reading and interpreting the law, as most of you are.
I can hear people screaming already. "9 MINUTES WITH HIS KNEE ON THE MAN'S NECK." Well, if that were true, I might agree with the hecklers. Actually, when the tape was initially released, that was my exact reaction. However, one of the facts that emerged during the trial was that Chauvin's knee was NOT on Floyd's neck for the entirety of the now-infamous nine minutes. It was on his shoulder blade for at least some portion of the incident, as was admitted by the Minneapolis Police Chief during the trial. The coroner did not provide any evidence that Chauvin's knee cut off blood to Floyd’s brain, nor did they provide any evidence of any damage done to his trachea. The medical examiner did, however, provide information detailing the amount of drugs in Floyd's system and some substantial pre-existing conditions, likely caused by his history of drug use. All of that was compounded by that fact that Floyd worked himself into a tizzy while resisting arrest. He has a vast criminal history, which meant he would likely be going back to prison whenever he next interacted with the police, but there he was using a fake $20-bill and high as a kite on hardcore drugs. These are facts. You don't have to like them. Their relevance is not contingent upon your opinion, or at least, that's how things used to be.
Many of the arguments you have heard for Chauvin’s conviction have been emotional. The judge allowed multiple days of irrelevant testimony to bring that emotion into the courtroom. There have been repeated claims that Chauvin was motivated by racism, except for when it came to the actual charges and case. The prosecution did not attempt to charge Chauvin with a hate-crime, nor did they provide any evidence that Chauvin was racist, or showed any racial animus towards Floyd during their lengthy interaction. We all saw the 9-minute video of Chauvin on top of Floyd. It looked bad. It still doesn’t look great, but this is why we have trials. These issues are not to be decided based on emotion or ginned-up racial allegations. They are supposed to be decided by evidence. There was a lot of evidence in this case that should have created a reasonable doubt in the mind of at least one juror. Yet, they came back after less than 10 hours of deliberation for a 3-week trial that is as significant as any criminal trial in this country since the trial of O.J. Simpson. Clearly, the emotion had found its way into the jury’s deliberation room.
To explain my surprise and ultimately my dismay with this decision requires some legal mumbo-jumbo, so bear with me. Let's take a look at the charges:
Murder in the Second Degree is defined a couple of different ways according to Minnesota State law. These varying definitions are split into 2 categories: intentional murder or unintentional murder. The charge against Chauvin was the latter.
Murder in the Second Degree - Unintentional Murder: Under this subcategory of Minnesota statute 609.19, a person can be found guilty of Murder in the Second Degree in the State of Minnesota if they do either of the following:
(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or
(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.
Part 2 deals with a victim who is under an "order of protection" which does not apply to this circumstance, so I will focus my energy on Part 1. This statute clearly states that the suspect does not need to have intended to kill the victim, but they would have had to kill them while attempting to commit a felony. Some might interpret the knee on the neck as a form of assault, but the prosecution would need to prove that Chauvin knew he crossed a line from routine police suppression hold to full-on assault. That was not proven, certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt, and was even rebutted by a variety of testimonials throughout the trial. The Minneapolis Police were, after all, trained to use this exact maneuver. Why Chauvin would have assumed the training he received was somehow felonious is a big, unanswered question. Not to mention Floyd outweighed Chauvin by about 80 pounds (40-50 lbs, if you include Chavin’s police equipment). Chauvin would have been required to apply a large percentage of his body weight to Floyd to keep him suppressed, which was the intended goal for law enforcement until an ambulance arrived. Oh, and Floyd was actively on a cocktail of drugs, one of which was methamphetamine, a substance known for giving some users short bursts of superhuman strength, particularly when they are under stress.
The statute, as written, clearly does not apply to this situation. I don't doubt the possibility that Derek Chauvin contributed to Mr. Floyd's death, but to suggest that the prosecution proved that fact beyond a reasonable doubt is nonsense. There were a variety of related factors, many of which had absolutely nothing to do with the actions of Derek Chauvin, that would have to be completely ignored in order to claim that Chauvin was exclusively, or at least predominantly, responsible for Floyd's death. Not to mention the various actions taken by Chauvin and his fellow officers to attempt to make Floyd comfortable during his arrest, a luxury most are not afforded. Floyd said he was claustrophobic, so they opened the windows of the cop car for him to ease his hysteria. He, then, continued to kick and scream (literally) before requesting to be put on the ground outside of the car. The police complied with his request. These are not the actions of officers who have no regard for human life, and certainly not the life of George Floyd.
Realistically, they could have shoved him in the back of that car and taken off for the precinct, but they stayed on the scene and called for medical assistance. Again, these are hardly the actions of someone who wanted George Floyd to die. That sort of cuts the legs out from the idea that Chauvin had "intent to effect the death of that person or another". You can be unhappy with the outcome and with Chauvin's actions all you'd like. I'm not thrilled with them either, even now, but actions don't simply, become murder because someone on CNN told you so. Murder has a very specific legal definition, with a variety of subcategories, each of which have their own definitions, and they can vary by State. These aren’t just words scribbled on a page. They hold immense significance in a criminal proceeding such as the spectacle we have witnessed over the last several weeks. They are written in such a way as to ensure that even the worst of us receives justice. Was Chauvin the worst of us? Some would say so. He certainly wasn’t the best of us, but he still deserved a fair trial. I don’t believe he got one. I will elaborate once I’ve finished going through the charges.
Next charge...
609.195 Murder in the Third Degree
(a) 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.
(b) Whoever, without intent to cause death, proximately causes the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $40,000, or both.
Again, the second section does not apply here, unless someone can prove that George Floyd did die from an overdose, and that overdose resulted from tainted drugs that were sold to him by Derek Chauvin. That seems to be about the only thing Chauvin hasn’t been accused of, so we will look to Subsection A. This particular statute is so obviously not applicable, it is not going to take much to debunk at all.
In order to be guilty of this charge, Chauvin would have had to have been “perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life”. The actions taken by Chauvin were not, in any way, “dangerous to others”. Note: “Others”, as in the plural form of the word “other”. This language is more descriptive of a person who fires a gun into a crowd or throws a brick onto a highway. If you commit either of these actions, and those actions result on someone’s death, you were, in fact, “perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life”. It can be said that Chauvin’s actions were dangerous to Floyd, but they were only dangerous to Floyd. Again, Chauvin isn’t a saint, but he’s certainly not guilty of this crime, by any rational interpretation of the law.
Last but not least: 609.205Manslaughter in the Second Degree
Feel free to click the link for the full description of the statue, but there is only one sub-definition worth considering for this case:
A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:
(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another;
Here is where we begin to steer back towards reality a bit. This charge is completely relevant to events of May 25, 2020, the day George Floyd died. The language of the statute leaves some room for interpretation, but it at least fits the circumstances. George Floyd died and it is being charged that his death is the result of Derek Chauvin’s “culpable negligence”. I don’t necessarily agree, but if Derek Chauvin was convicted of Manslaughter in the Second Degree, I don’t think you’d have too many complaints. Even if you are of the mindset, as I am, that Floyd’s death was the result of the drugs in his system and the way he lived his life prior to May 25, 2020... you probably still have that visual of Derek Chauvin looking directly at the camera and being seeming unfazed by what he was involved in. He was even aggressive towards onlookers, threatening to use pepper spray on them. Even if you think he technically didn’t do anything wrong, you would probably be hard-pressed to say he did everything right. Is it suggest that police should have to be perfect? Obviously not, but when a life is lost, there should be serious scrutiny. This case experienced that scrutiny, perhaps too much.
All in all, looking at the charges, it is clear 2 of the 3 didn’t even apply to the circumstances. In fact, Murder in the Third Degree was originally charged and then dropped before being reinstated at the beginning of the trial. It was an overreach. Even the Prosecution, being run by radical Left Attorney General Keith Ellison knew it, but Judge Cahill allowed the charge to be added back in. That said, the manslaughter charge was always a coin flip, even with a jury that wasn’t under duress.
“The jury was under duress?” you say? Of course, they were. This brings be back to my explanation of why I don’t believe this was a fair trial. Chauvin will undoubtedly appeal, but will an Appellate Court Judge have the courage to serious look into the following glaring reason for such an appeal? I’m not so sure. Nevertheless, here are a few grounds for appeal:
The venue should have been moved. This is a case that is so tied into the community that it would be nearly impossible to find an unbiased jury. This jury may have been tainted in a couple of ways. The first being their proximity to the events. This was a major, global story. Think about how much you know about this case. Now imagine how much more you would have heard about it if you lived in Minneapolis. George Floyd’s memory is ever-present in Minneapolis since his death. There is even a George Floyd autonomous zone near the location of Floyd’s death.
The jury should have been sequestered. As I stated earlier, this is the most public criminal trial since the OJ Simpson murder trial. If there was ever a reason to have jurors sequestered, this was it. Think about all of the news coverage and social media posts you have seen about this trial since before it even started. How could one possibly avoid all of that, unless they were forced to? They couldn’t and despite Judge Cahill’s optimism, I don’t believe they did.
Impending threats. The threat of a second wave of rioting always loomed over this trial. We all know what would have happened if the jury came back with 3 not guilty verdicts, and it wasn’t going to be pretty. Now, imagine the potential destruction of your city is determined on whether or not you find this police office guilty of murder. Might that sway your decision a little? Of course, it would. This was later compounded by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) stating that she wants a verdict of “guilty, guilty, guilty.” When asked what protesters should do, she stated the following (while wearing a mask and a face shield, despite being fully vaccinated for COVID-19): “Well, we’ve got to stay on the street. And we’ve got to get more active. We’ve got to get more confrontational. We’ve got to make sure that they know that we mean business.” More confrontational?! How do you get more confrontational than burning and looting business? Are they supposed to hunt police down in their homes? How could any reasonable person not take this as a threat, particularly if you were one of the jurors. One of the alternate jurors has already come forward to state that she was concerned about the safety of her family, if the jury did not reach the desired verdict. Of course, she was. Does anyone doubt that the identities of the jurors would have be leaked if the verdict came back differently? Moreover, would anyone doubt that those jurors and their families would be in danger if that happened? Nope! Yet, despite all of this, we are supposed to believe they made the decision to convict Derek Chauvin without any outside influence. Who could possibly be that gullible? For the record: Even Judge Cahill stated that Rep. Waters’ comments could give the defendant grounds for appeal.
Racial issues. Again, this case has been surrounded with a ton of racial rhetoric, despite zero evidence that this incident had anything to do with race. This is particularly important when you consider the makeup of the jury. The jury consisted of 6 white people, 4 black people and 2 people who described themselves as multiracial. I want to be clear: I’m not making any assumptions about the people of color on this jury, nor am I suggesting that they were in any way aggressive or threatening towards their white counterparts. That said, as a white person, and one who often puts themselves in the middle of debates where I am not welcome, I know that’s not a path most would choose. Many would rather let a man go to prison for crime they may not be guilty of than dare utter even a single syllable that would get them labeled as a racist. Considering America is such a deeply racist place, it is practically a death sentence to be labeled a racist. It’s sort of weird how that works.
Overall, I think these are all viable reasons for an appeal of the convictions. I’m not optimistic that any Judge will have the temerity to put their own life in danger, but perhaps this can make it all the way to the Supreme Court, so we can all get some tomatoes and sour cream out of the deal. (Yes, that’s a Taco Bell joke.)
In conclusion, thanks for making it this far and almost a week after the verdict came in. I appreciate you. But, in all seriousness, I hope I’ve provided a clear and reasonable explanation for what I think happened here. I believe this verdict might very well be the beginning of the end for our justice system. It was one thing when the Twitter mob was bullying schools and corporations to bend to their will, but now the mob is controlling juries? How is any society supposed to function under these conditions? How can anyone trust the process if it can be so easily manipulated? I’m not worried about Derek Chauvin. I’m worried about the rest of us.