Derek Chauvin cites 'riots' and 'poisoned' jury in plea to overturn his conviction for George Floyd's murder
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA: Former Minneapolis police officer, Derek Chauvin, who is convicted of murdering George Floyd Jr has made a request to overturn his multiple state-level convictions. He was found guilty of second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter by a Minnesota jury last year. In separate proceedings, he struck a plea deal on federal charges. On Friday, October 7, Chauvin’s attorneys filed a reply brief to explain several potential rationales for overturning the ex-cop’s state-level convictions.
According to Law & Crime, Chauvin's vast list of complaints include the highly infamous worldwide attention he attracted after the death of Floyd and also issues with a juror the defense characterized as a liar. “Pretrial publicity coupled with threats of violence poisoned the jury against Appellant Derek Chauvin,” the brief argues. It cites “local daily media coverage,” “protests at the courthouse,” and “riots in response to the events in question” — the latter of which it said were “the second-most destructive riots in American history that caused $500,000,000 in property damage and two deaths in the local Hennepin County area.”
READ MORE
Lee Zeldin 'outraged' after 2 men were shot outside his house while twin daughters, 16, were home
“[P]rejudice is presumed when the community from which jurors are drawn is sufficiently poisoned either by adverse publicity or the effects of the very events at issue – in this case the second worst riots in US history,” the brief states. “Presumed prejudice requires changing venue because voir dire cannot perform its usual function of securing a fair and impartial jury.” The state “suggests ignoring and abandoning the US Supreme Court’s two-tiered approach” to such questions and “to apply abuse of discretion analysis to both tiers” instead, according to Chauvin’s jurors.
“With the biased media coverage, the Floyd riots, the Brooklyn Center riots during the trial, the lack of cooling period, and legally-impossible conviction on all charged counts, Chauvin’s case lands in the company of extreme cases where publicity went beyond the bounds of mere news media and had a physical effect on the venue community such that voir dire was impotent and prejudice is presumed,” the defense brief continued.
The brief also spoke against the jurors claiming that they were not secluded. It even mentioned Brandon Mitchell, one juror who spoke several times about his service, “lied regarding his views of the case and the extent of his activism.” The brief explains Chauvin’s issues with Mitchell - "Mitchell had traveled 1,000 miles to participate in an August 28, 2020 protest march in Washington DC That march used the slogan 'Get Your Knees Off Our Necks' in direct reference to Chauvin and George Floyd. At that march, Mitchell wore a t-shirt with a photo of Dr Martin Luther King, Jr and words saying 'BLM, * Get Your Knee Off Our Necks.' Had this come to light at voir dire, it would have allowed Chauvin to evaluate whether to strike Mitchell for-cause." The brief states that the defendant’s concerns about the matter was rubbised “without analysis” by the judge who oversaw the trial, once it was discovered.
The juror who is questioned now as of the present moment was previously defended by the prosecutors in the past. Besides, they claimed the publicity surrounding the trial wasn’t as significant as they initially feared. Chauvin's reply brief says that the third-degree murder conviction placed on him is irrational because his “actions were directed against an individual person.”
“Third-degree murder is only possible with an undirected mens rea,” the brief says, citing the Minnesota Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in favor of Mohammed Noor, another convicted police officer. Chauvin also said that it is not possible to convict a police officer of felony murder attached to a third-degree assault and his second-degree felony murder conviction must be reversed. According to the brief, the district court improperly withheld training manuals that instructed Minneapolis police officers to place their knees “on the back of suspects resisting arrest.” The filing also asserted that Chauvin’s trial violated the Constitution by failing to allow testimony that Morries Hall, a passenger in Floyd’s vehicle, believed Floyd “was under the influence of drugs at the time of his death.” During Floyd's trial, Hall did not testify saying that he would incriminate himself if he took the stand. Chauvin’s attorneys say if the court declared him an unavailable witness, Hall’s beliefs could have been entered in other ways.
“[T]he law authorizes officers only to use reasonable force,” the state argued as to Chauvin’s claims that sworn police officers could not be convicted of certain crimes, such as assault. “When officers use unreasonable force, the law holds them responsible.”