3rd Degree Murder Charge Reinstated in Derek Chauvin Trial
In the first major development in the Derek Chauvin trial for the death of George Floyd, the judge has reinstated the third degree murder charge.
The decision was a victory for prosecutors who had sought to reinstate the charge against Derek Chauvin, the White officer filmed with his knee on Floyd’s neck for more than nine minutes during a police investigation last May. He is already charged with second-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter in the Black man’s death.
The judge overseeing the trial of a former Minneapolis police officer charged in the death of George Floyd reinstated a third-degree murder charge on March 11. (The Washington Post)
On Wednesday, the Minnesota Supreme Court declined to take up the appeal filed by Eric Nelson, Chauvin’s attorney, seeking to overturn a state Court of Appeals ruling that ordered Hennepin County District Court Judge Peter A. Cahill, who is overseeing the trial, to reconsider a third-degree murder charge in the case. The appellate court issued a final judgment in the case and then sent the issue back to Cahill, who heard arguments on the issue Thursday morning.Cahill threw out the charge in the fall and declined to reinstate it last month, arguing the statute requires the fatal action to be “eminently dangerous to others.”
“The evidence presented by prosecutors so far has only shown that Chauvin’s actions were eminently dangerous to Floyd,” Cahill said in an October ruling.
Nelson pointed to Cahill’s past rulings and argued the case cited in the appellate court decision ordering the judge to reconsider the charge against Chauvin was “factually different” from the circumstances around Floyd’s death.
In that case, former Minneapolis police officer Mohamed Noor was convicted of third-degree murder and manslaughter after he shot and killed a woman in 2017 as she approached his squad car after making a 911 call about a possible sexual assault behind her home. The court of appeals last month rejected Noor’s effort have his conviction thrown out — a ruling that established third-degree murder as precedent and led prosecutors in the Chauvin case to reinstate the charge.
Nelson argued the Cahill had “inherent discretion” to continue to reject the charge.
But Cahill disagreed, saying he was “duty bound” to accept the appellate court ruling and their read of the statute. He said that although the Noor and Chauvin cases are different — Noor was convicted of killing someone with a gun and Chauvin is accused of killing someone with his knee — the appellate court had decided that “single acts directed at a single person fall within the gamut” of third-degree murder.
“I am granting the motion because although these cases are factually different … I don’t think there is factual difference that denies the motion to reinstate,” Cahill said. “The court of appeals has said in a precedential opinion specifying the single person rule applies to third-degree murder … I feel it would be an abuse of discretion not to grant the motion.”
If you are not familiar with the shooting of Justine Damond, you should read about it here.
Short version: Ms. Damond called the police late at night (like, 11:30PM) saying that she heard something that might be an assault in the alley near her home. The cops showed up, didn’t see anything, and were preparing to leave when Ms. Damond came up to the car and the cops, claiming to be “spooked”, pulled their guns. Officer Mohamed Noor shot her.
She died 20 minutes later.
Third Degree Murder is a charge that only happens in a handful of states. From Wikipedia:
If I were being cynical, I’d say that third degree murder is for when cops shoot someone indefensibly but it apparently also gets used for stuff like causing a miscarriage.Report
For Damond, we’re in “which heinous/incompetent thing did they do” territory. We’d need bodycams to clean this up because their testimony doesn’t make sense.
They reported everything was safe, then there was a loud noise (there’s no evidence Damond banged on the car) and one drew a gun and the other fired?
Clearly something really stupid happened, and if that’s the best spin they can put on it then you have to wonder how deep that rabbit hole is.
Also: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-first-second-and-third-degree-murderReport
Their bodycams were not on. Not particularly scandalous, as they were not yet mandatory in all situations.Report
This was an event which showcased how we can instantly go from “not in a situation” to “they killed someone”. And yes, that wasn’t especially clear at the time.
From a 10,000 foot evaluation, the problem with Damond is the basic facts aren’t clear. What was she doing when they shot her, what were they doing, what did they think was happening, how reasonable was that, etc.
We have no evidence and the police testimony is confused enough that we need to wonder if it’s self serving.
With the police testimony it’s hard to envision a situation where her shooting was justified, but it’s easy to envision a situation where it was more murder one than murder three.Report
Jury has been chosen, I guess?
Report