Reply to Thread for Derek Chauvin trial watchers?

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Thread for Derek Chauvin trial watchers?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

This finding established the upward departure from the guidelines sentences of approx 10-12 years. [/quote]
TV talking head expert just said any for of these factors could have quadrupled the sentence.  [/quote]

Not sure if they meant legally or morally. There is still a statutory maximum.

Theoretically he could have been sentenced to something higher if he was prosecuted and convicted of first degree murder. But he was not.

Note that a federal grand jury has indicted these defendants on federal civil rights charges. This is still the beginning, or maybe the middle, of Chauvin’s legal battle. [/quote][/quote]

I thought the guy had some expertise in sentencing guidelines when he said any one of the factors could have kicked in the sentencing multiplier (the judge found 4 such factors)[/quote]

Here is a link to Judge Cahill’s sentencing order: https://mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/MCRO_27-CR-20-12646_Sentencing-Order_2021-06-25_20210625145755.pdf

It goes into detail about sentencing guidelines, sentencing departures, and also reiterates the findings about the factors that justified a sentencing departure in this case.

When the state filed for an upward departure, they asked the judge for a 30 year sentence. This would be the statutory maximum for unintentional 2nd degree murder in MN.

Page 19 goes into more detail about how the departure works. One or more factors is sufficient for a departure but they really don’t work the way you’re describing. The departure is from the presumptive guidelines sentence, but there is still a statutory maximum.

Quoting from page 19 of the above linked document (bolded by me):

[quote] When a sentencing trial court has found that [b]one or more[/b] aggravated factors are present, the court may, in the exercise of its discretion if substantial and compelling circumstances warrant, impose a sentence that is up to [b]“double the presumptive sentence length.”[/b] State v. Evans, 311 N.W.2d 481, 483 (Minn. 1981). The existence of a single aggravating factor is sufficient to justify the imposition of a sentence “double the upper limit of the presumptive range.” Barthman, 938 N.W.2d at 269, 275; see also State v. Solberg, 882 N.W.2d 618, 624 (Minn. 2016) (“[W]e have affirmed upward durational departures that were based on a single aggravating factor.”); State v. Gaines, 408 N.W.2d 914, 918 (Minn. App. 1987) (finding double upward departure appropriate where only one aggravating factor applied). Here, [b]the State is asking this Court to sentence Mr. Chauvin to 360 months,[/b] which represents a double upward durational departure from the 180 months at the “top of the box” of the presumptive guidelines range.[/quote]

If the judge ordered a sentence of 100 years by using the factors as a multiplier outside of the statutory maximum, then it would be successfully appealed. It’s not going to happen like that.

But he could have sentenced Chauvin to 30 years. As for why he didn’t, he goes into analysis on pages 20-21 using precedent of other upward departures to establish why he chose to impose a sentence of ten years above the “middle of the box” guidelines sentence.

So perhaps the person on CNN meant that only one factor needed to be found in order for him to get that sentence (which implies that arguing on appeal won’t be that easy, because you would have to successfully argue all four are wrong). Or maybe they don’t understand that no one was ever arguing for more than the statutory max (30 years).

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics