Anonymous wrote:

There is no felony in this case. Are you saying the felony is assault? ALL murder is assault.

MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE—WHILE COMMITTING A FELONY—ELEMENTS

The elements of murder in the second degree while committing a felony, as alleged here, are:

First, the death of George Floyd must be proven.

Second, the defendant, acting alone or aided by others, caused the death of George Floyd.

“To cause” means to be a substantial causal factor in causing the death. The defendant is criminally liable for all the consequences of his actions that occur in the ordinary and natural course of events, including those consequences brought about by one or more intervening causes that were the natural result of the defendant's acts. The fact that other causes contribute to the death does not relieve the defendant of criminal liability.

However, the defendant is not criminally liable if a “superseding cause” caused the death. A “superseding cause” is a cause that comes after the defendant's acts, alters the natural sequence of events, and produces a result that would not otherwise have occurred. An action that occurs before the defendant’s conduct and is not the sole cause of the death does
not constitute a superseding cause.

Third, the defendant, at the time of causing the death of George Floyd, was committing or attempting to commit the felony offense of assault in the third degree. It is not necessary for the State to prove the defendant had an intent to kill George Floyd, but it must prove that the defendant committed or attempted to commit third-degree assault.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawyers, help me out here. I just don’t see how he could possibly found guilty for murder 2 or murder 3. Can you explain how this could be argued?

I do see how he could be found guilty of excessive force or manslaughter.

Charged with 2nd degree “unintentional” murder under MN statute:

-Cause the death of another, without intent, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19

Prosecution argument:

1. Use of force was not objectively reasonable and as such constituted felony assault

2. Floyd’s death was caused by Chauvin’s restraint of Floyd

Note: the accused has to substantially contribute to cause of death. So causing a heart attack, for example, is still an issue if that’s a reasonable and natural conclusion of your conduct.

Charged with 3rd degree murder under MN statute:

-cause the death of another, without intent, while perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others, depraved mind, without regard to human life

Argument:

1. Use of force was not objectively reasonable and indicated depraved conduct without regard to human life

2. That conduct caused or was a substantial contributing factor to Floyd’s death

The prosecution started expert witness testimony with use of force experts, and then moved to medical experts. I’m just stating a broad overview of their arguments as I see it.

I bolded “others” because it’s at the heart of an appellate issue. In 2019, Mohammed Noor, a former MPD officer, was convicted of 3rd degree murder for firing across the driver’s seat of a squad car, killing Justine Damond. Note that it could be argued that this conduct endangered “others.” Chauvin was originally charged with 3rd degree murder, but then the charge was dropped with the judge citing case law that this charge applies to conduct that endangers others in general, not one specific person. Chauvin’s conduct was intentional towards Floyd. A Noor appeal decision clarified that endangering others could apply to one person, the MN Supreme Court declined to intervene before trial and handed the decision to the presiding judge (Judge Cahill), so Judge Cahill reinstated the charge.

I think there could be an issue on appeal if Chauvin is only convicted of 3rd degree murder. 2nd degree unintentional and 3rd degree carry the same charging recommendations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:State proposed jury instructions for Chauvin trial: https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/StateProposedJuryInstructions02082021.pdf

Defense proposed jury instructions: https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/ProposedJuryInstructions02082021.pdf

Both sides submit a proposal, and then the judge will issue the final jury instructions.

GREAT find, thank you for posting!

How did you find these? I tried looking at the MN court records, but they only show the docket entries, no actual documents.

https://mncourts.gov/StateofMinnesotavDerekChauvin - click on documents.

The state filed these awhile ago of course. I noticed this document contained instructions for aiding and abetting charges which the other three officers were charged with.

I would guess there’s basically no chance the judge would include some of the stuff in the defense proposal.

One thing that I noticed is that the state avoided using “hindsight” in the reasonable use of force section. The defense included “20/20 hindsight.” These are jury instructions on that section from the Noor trial (this does included some clause about hindsight):

“As to each count or defense, the kind and degree of force a peace officer may lawfully use is limited by what a reasonable peace officer in the same situation, without the benefit of hindsight, would believe to be necessary. Any use of force beyond that is regarded by the law as excessive. To determine if the actions of the peace officer were reasonable, you must look at those facts known to the officer at the precise moment he acted with force. Giving due regard for the pressures faced by peace officers, you must decide whether the officer’s actions were objectively reasonable in the light of the totality of the facts and circumstances confronting the officer, without regard to the officer’s own state of mind, intention or motivation.

The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant Mohamed Noor was not authorized to use deadly force.”

I would expect Judge Cahill would choose to use very similar language on this section.

Link to full Noor trial instructions: https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-18-6859/JuryInstructions042919.pdf

I love you, supremely informed and informative poster! Please come back and comment often! <3<3

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:State proposed jury instructions for Chauvin trial: https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/StateProposedJuryInstructions02082021.pdf

Defense proposed jury instructions: https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/ProposedJuryInstructions02082021.pdf

Both sides submit a proposal, and then the judge will issue the final jury instructions.

GREAT find, thank you for posting!

How did you find these? I tried looking at the MN court records, but they only show the docket entries, no actual documents.

https://mncourts.gov/StateofMinnesotavDerekChauvin - click on documents.

The state filed these awhile ago of course. I noticed this document contained instructions for aiding and abetting charges which the other three officers were charged with.

I would guess there’s basically no chance the judge would include some of the stuff in the defense proposal.

One thing that I noticed is that the state avoided using “hindsight” in the reasonable use of force section. The defense included “20/20 hindsight.” These are jury instructions on that section from the Noor trial (this does included some clause about hindsight):

“As to each count or defense, the kind and degree of force a peace officer may lawfully use is limited by what a reasonable peace officer in the same situation, without the benefit of hindsight, would believe to be necessary. Any use of force beyond that is regarded by the law as excessive. To determine if the actions of the peace officer were reasonable, you must look at those facts known to the officer at the precise moment he acted with force. Giving due regard for the pressures faced by peace officers, you must decide whether the officer’s actions were objectively reasonable in the light of the totality of the facts and circumstances confronting the officer, without regard to the officer’s own state of mind, intention or motivation.

The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant Mohamed Noor was not authorized to use deadly force.”

I would expect Judge Cahill would choose to use very similar language on this section.

Link to full Noor trial instructions: https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-18-6859/JuryInstructions042919.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:State proposed jury instructions for Chauvin trial: https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/StateProposedJuryInstructions02082021.pdf

Defense proposed jury instructions: https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/ProposedJuryInstructions02082021.pdf

Both sides submit a proposal, and then the judge will issue the final jury instructions.

GREAT find, thank you for posting!

How did you find these? I tried looking at the MN court records, but they only show the docket entries, no actual documents.

“As to each count or defense, the kind and degree of force a peace officer may lawfully use is limited by what a reasonable peace officer in the same situation, without the benefit of hindsight, would believe to be necessary. Any use of force beyond that is regarded by the law as excessive. To determine if the actions of the peace officer were reasonable, you must look at those facts known to the officer at the precise moment he acted with force. Giving due regard for the pressures faced by peace officers, you must decide whether the officer’s actions were objectively reasonable in the light of the totality of the facts and circumstances confronting the officer, without regard to the officer’s own state of mind, intention or motivation.

The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant Mohamed Noor was not authorized to use deadly force.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:State proposed jury instructions for Chauvin trial: https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/StateProposedJuryInstructions02082021.pdf

Defense proposed jury instructions: https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/ProposedJuryInstructions02082021.pdf

Both sides submit a proposal, and then the judge will issue the final jury instructions.

GREAT find, thank you for posting!

Anonymous wrote:State proposed jury instructions for Chauvin trial: https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/StateProposedJuryInstructions02082021.pdf

Defense proposed jury instructions: https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/ProposedJuryInstructions02082021.pdf

Both sides submit a proposal, and then the judge will issue the final jury instructions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if there are toxicology reports for Chauvin? Was he high on drugs at the time he killed Floyd?

Yes. The Medical Examiner stated that there was enough fentanyl to have killed him. That if he had been found dead at home, there were enough drugs in his system that they would have been ruled the cause of death.

at trial they stated this, in testimony?

btw, police officers are supposed to help people od’ing, not kneeel on their necks. also someone who took enough opiates to OD is immobile, not walking around. oh, coincidentally somehow he took the fentanyl at exactly the right time to kill him and render him immobile, just when Chauvin was kneeling on him. total coincidence!

That’s not what I said. The Medical Examiner didn’t say the fentanyl killed him. Just that he had a level high enough that if, for example, he had died in his home that day, fentanyl would have been ruled the likely cause. See the difference?

No, I don’t see the difference, only smoke you’re trying to cast. the cause of death was the knee on the neck.

+1 If he had died in his home that day with someone’s knee on his neck, the fentanyl would not have been ruled the likely cause.

Medical Examiner:
“The law enforcement subdual restraint and the neck compression was just more than Mr. Floyd could take by virtue of those heart conditions,” Baker said.
The medical examiner did not point to asphyxia, however, in a contrast to other medical experts who spoke this week. Baker said that in his opinion, Chauvin’s knee would not “anatomically cut off Mr. Floyd’s airway.”

Anonymous wrote:Lawyers, help me out here. I just don’t see how he could possibly found guilty for murder 2 or murder 3. Can you explain how this could be argued?

I do see how he could be found guilty of excessive force or manslaughter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if there are toxicology reports for Chauvin? Was he high on drugs at the time he killed Floyd?

Yes. The Medical Examiner stated that there was enough fentanyl to have killed him. That if he had been found dead at home, there were enough drugs in his system that they would have been ruled the cause of death.

at trial they stated this, in testimony?

btw, police officers are supposed to help people od’ing, not kneeel on their necks. also someone who took enough opiates to OD is immobile, not walking around. oh, coincidentally somehow he took the fentanyl at exactly the right time to kill him and render him immobile, just when Chauvin was kneeling on him. total coincidence!

That’s not what I said. The Medical Examiner didn’t say the fentanyl killed him. Just that he had a level high enough that if, for example, he had died in his home that day, fentanyl would have been ruled the likely cause. See the difference?

No, I don’t see the difference, only smoke you’re trying to cast. the cause of death was the knee on the neck.

+1 If he had died in his home that day with someone’s knee on his neck, the fentanyl would not have been ruled the likely cause.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if there are toxicology reports for Chauvin? Was he high on drugs at the time he killed Floyd?

Yes. The Medical Examiner stated that there was enough fentanyl to have killed him. That if he had been found dead at home, there were enough drugs in his system that they would have been ruled the cause of death.

at trial they stated this, in testimony?

btw, police officers are supposed to help people od’ing, not kneeel on their necks. also someone who took enough opiates to OD is immobile, not walking around. oh, coincidentally somehow he took the fentanyl at exactly the right time to kill him and render him immobile, just when Chauvin was kneeling on him. total coincidence!

That’s not what I said. The Medical Examiner didn’t say the fentanyl killed him. Just that he had a level high enough that if, for example, he had died in his home that day, fentanyl would have been ruled the likely cause. See the difference?

No, I don’t see the difference, only smoke you’re trying to cast. the cause of death was the knee on the neck.

+1 If he had died in his home that day with someone’s knee on his neck, the fentanyl would not have been ruled the likely cause.