Do you think Derik Chauvin was over charged?

[muwarrior69]

I do. I fear the outcome could very likely be the same as the Trevon Martin Case.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/second-degree-murder-overview.html

[Galway Eagle]

Yes. Third degree seemed like a slam dunk. Remember philando Castile? Same thing happened.

[pbiflyer]

The guy who was fondling himself while he killed someone? No.

In before the lock!

[jficke13]

Well to begin with let's look at the actual statute that he us charged under:

Subd. 2.Unintentional murders. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(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

https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2020/docs/Complaint_Chauvin.pdf

It looks like the whole "upgraded charge" thing is actually adding a "felony murder" count to the prosecution. "Felony murder" is, for simplicity's sake, killing someone while committing another felony crime. Committing an armed robbery and the victim slips, falls, and dies even though you didn't touch them? Felony murder could be on the table.

Criminal law his this concept called "mens rea." The mens rea is a state of mind of the offender. Was the offender negligent? reckless? did they act with intent? Charge Reckless Homicide but you can only prove the offender was negligent? Not guilty verdict. (To my recollection this where the overcharging of Zimmerman bit the prosecution, they couldn't prove that Zimmerman intended Martin's death, but speculation is that they could have proven that he caused the death recklessly).

Felony murder is a criminal statue with NO mens rea element. The government doesn't need to prove Chauvin acted with any criminal mindset, simply that Floyd died while Chauvin was committing an underlying felonious act.

So, then we have to look down to to the underlying felony charges, which, I think, haven't changed. If they could prove a reckless homicide before, they can now. I guess, since we're here, let's look at the other charging statutes:

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.

I see three issues:

1. Is the knee-on-neck technique "eminently dangerous to others"? Expect the defense to trot out an army of experts who have built their careers on the militarization of police industry. Will that defense work? I dunno, probably not? I guess it depends on how convincing the experts are, and how good the prosecution is at impeaching their conflicts of interest.

2. Did Chauvin act with "a depraved mind, without regard for human life"? Expect the defense, again, to rely on experts to say that a reasonable police officer in a similar situation would have used the same technique. Same issues as above apply.

3. Did Chauvin's application of knee-on-neck cause Floyd's death? We already saw the trial balloons of "underlying health issues" floating around in the immediate wake of Floyd's autopsy, so again I'd expect the defense to beat this drum.

And lastly

609.20 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.
Whoever does any of the following is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 15 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $30,000, or both:

(1) intentionally causes the death of another person in the heat of passion provoked by such words or acts of another as would provoke a person of ordinary self-control under like circumstances, provided that the crying of a child does not constitute provocation;

I have no idea why this is here and a MN criminal attorney would have to give me an explanation on duplicitive charging practices there, because it seems to mirror the second count but frankly be weaker. Why would they draw a parallel of Chauvin to a reasonable person? But again, I'm out of element here. I've got no good read on this one. I think if they charge Murder 3 it necessarily precludes Man 1, but again, not my field <shrug>

Okay, tl;dr, no. I don't think he was overcharged.

[Pakuni]

Prosecutors structured the charges so that even if a judge or jury somehow decides it was all just a big accident and there was no intent, they can still find guilt on the lesser included charge of third-degree murder.
So, the answer is no.

[muwarrior69]

 

Prosecutors structured the charges so that even if a judge or jury somehow decides it was all just a big accident and there was no intent, they can still find guilt on the lesser included charge of third-degree murder.
So, the answer is no.

So he is still charged with 3rd degree murder and trying to get him on second degree. Thanks for the clarification.

[jficke13]

So he is still charged with 3rd degree murder and trying to get him on second degree. Thanks for the clarification.

Yes. I just linked the charging document above and literally explained that the "2nd degree murder" charge is actually a felony murder charge that, by necessity, requires an underlying felony to stand.

[jesmu84]

Covid?

[WarriorDad]

Covid?

Seeing how some states were counting murder victims with Covid as Covid deaths, why not?

[MU82]

Waiting for a prominent businessman, who one day might run for the presidency, to take out full-page newspaper ads saying Chauvin should be executed.

In before a thread that never should have been started gets locked.

[dgies9156]

Let the jury decide.

We have seen a small fraction of the evidence the Minnesota Attorney General intends to present.

[real chili 83]

This city will erupt again if this is not handled properly.

Mike, you're right....IBFTL

[GooooMarquette]

No.

Based strictly on the language of the statute, third-degree seemed like the better charge. But I read on some legal blog that case law in MN has consistently held that "an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life" means that the act has to endanger multiple people (like driving a car into a crowd or shooting a gun in a crowded theater). Chauvin's action was clearly depraved and disregarded Floyd's life, but I don't see how prosecutors could prove he endangered anyone else. I can't find the blog right now and I don't do criminal law, but if that interpretation of case law is correct, the original third-degree charge was a major faux pas by the prosecutor.

Second degree is a challenge that it requires intent to kill...but it doesn't require premeditation. I suspect the prosecutor will show that Chauvin may not originally have planned to kill anyone (or Floyd in particular), but that this intent evolved over the course of the incident, as evidenced by the fact that he kept his knee on Floyd's neck long after he was subdued and no longer a threat, after another officer asked if the knee was necessary, and after onlookers pleaded with him to get off. Big challenge...but not impossible.

[Billy Hoyle]

Prosecutors structured the charges so that even if a judge or jury somehow decides it was all just a big accident and there was no intent, they can still find guilt on the lesser included charge of third-degree murder.
So, the answer is no.

exactly.  If they don't prove second degree they can prove third degree. There's also the charge for manslaughter. They have been very careful here to make sure they can get something to stick. I just hope violence or outrage (looking at you, DSA) won't occur if he gets convicted on third-degree and not second degree.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

exactly.  If they don't prove second degree they can prove third degree. There's also the charge for manslaughter. They have been very careful here to make sure they can get something to stick. I just hope violence or outrage (looking at you, DSA) won't occur if he gets convicted on third-degree and not second degree.

Pretty sure the anarchists will get violent no matter what the jury decides.

[jficke13]

[...]

Second degree is a challenge that it requires intent to kill...but it doesn't require premeditation. I suspect the prosecutor will show that Chauvin may not originally have planned to kill anyone (or Floyd in particular), but that this intent evolved over the course of the incident, as evidenced by the fact that he kept his knee on Floyd's neck long after he was subdued and no longer a threat, after another officer asked if the knee was necessary, and after onlookers pleaded with him to get off. Big challenge...but not impossible.

Is there a different charging document than the one I posted? I'm pretty sure the 2nd degree charge specifically lacks an intent element.

[Billy Hoyle]

Pretty sure the anarchists will get violent no matter what the jury decides.

no doubt they will. The same people are complaining about not charging Chauvin with first-degree murder. My wife and I watched in horror as they hijacked a vigil for George Floyd and marched downtown smashing windows and tagging buildings along the way (including my wife's office building) then looted the Apple Store, Louis Vuitton, the Sprint store, jewelry stores, etc. and setting fires. You know, because nothing says "Black Lives Matter" like a bunch of white kids looting and spraying ACAB and F--k 12.

Rant over.

[Hidden User]

Seeing how some states were counting murder victims with Covid as Covid deaths, why not?

What value are you adding to this conversation by spouting this drivel?

[tower912]

Seeing how some states were counting murder victims with Covid as Covid deaths, why not?

So wrong.   So troll.   So over this iteration.   

[GooooMarquette]

Is there a different charging document than the one I posted? I'm pretty sure the 2nd degree charge specifically lacks an intent element.

This is what the MN statute says verbatim: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19

609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.

Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:

(1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or
(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause (3).

Subd. 2.Unintentional murders. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:

(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.

____________

IMHO, the underlined part (with intent but without premeditation) fits this case better than the unintentional sections, because one requires another felony, and the other requires that the perpetrator be under an order for protection.

[Eldon]

If prosecutors can charge someone with second AND third-degree murder for the same crime, why don't they do it all the time?

It seems to me they'd have nothing to lose.

[jficke13]

He was charged under 609.19.2(1):

Subd. 2.Unintentional murders. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:

(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

It's the felony murder statute. Not 2nd degree intentional.

Happy to have a MN atty correct me, but I read the statute pointing to Subdivision 2, not subdivision 1.

[Eldon]

He was charged under 609.19.2(1):

Subd. 2.Unintentional murders. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:

(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

It's the felony murder statute. Not 2nd degree intentional.

Happy to have a MN atty correct me, but I read the statute pointing to Subdivision 2, not subdivision 1.

So the prosecutor has to prove (in order):

1) Chauvin was indeed committing a felony assault
2) During the process of that assault, he ended up killing Floyd

And hence intent isn't relevant for this case.

Do I have that correct?

[jficke13]

So the prosecutor has to prove (in order):

1) Chauvin was indeed committing a felony assault
2) During the process of that assault, he ended up killing Floyd

And hence intent isn't relevant for this case.

Do I have that correct?

Kinda. Felony murder is causing death while "attempting to commit a felony offense" so proving an underlying felony of any kind would allow the prosecutor to tack on a serious homicide charge without needing to prove intent.

Normally this comes up in robberies gone wrong. Prove the underlying robbery, then you get the capital murder charge even if the defendant had no intent whatsoever of committing homicide.

[GooooMarquette]

He was charged under 609.19.2(1):

Subd. 2.Unintentional murders. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:

(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

It's the felony murder statute. Not 2nd degree intentional.

Happy to have a MN atty correct me, but I read the statute pointing to Subdivision 2, not subdivision 1.

Sorry, did not mean it to sound like a correction. I did not see the charging document before posting, so I was solely posting my opinion based on the statutory language what I had read about third-degree murder on the blog. Anyhow, I still think their best bet would be under subdivision 1 because it does not require proving two separate felonies.

As I mentioned earlier, I am not a criminal attorney (pretty much slept through Criminal Law in law school) so take that opinion for the $0.02 it's worth.