The closing arguments in the trial of Derek Chauvin are currently being made by the defense. What do you believe will be the outcome of the trial?
Guilty of second-degree murder.
Guilty of third-degree murder.
Guilty of second-degree manslaughter.
Not guilty on all charges.
0voters
Minnesota second and third degree murder definitions can be found here.
Second degree manslaughter defined here.
Essentially, second degree murder is intentional killing but without premeditation. Third degree murder is placing another in eminent danger and disregarding human life. Second degree manslaughter is knowingly acting in a reckless behavior that leads to the death of another.
My guess is that he’s found guilty of third degree murder. I don’t know if Chauvin intentionally meant to kill Floyd or not but I believe that it would be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. IMO, it is indisputable that Chauvin placed Floyd in eminent danger and disregarded any actions that would have mitigated Floyd’s death.
Sounds like I’m part of the choir. Based on the evidence seen so far by the general populace, manslaughter should be a slam dunk, 3rd degree murder is appropriate, and 2nd degree murder will be nearly impossible to get 100% of the jury behind. Based on the verdicts of other juries though, they’ll go with the second-degree manslaughter and feel that is good enough, even if third-degree murder seems to be fully justified as well.
In my view the prosecution proved all three charges and it would be appropriate for the jury to find Chauvin guilty on all three. All the defense had was the self-contradictory claim that George Floyd was both on the point of death before Chauvin encountered him, AND so inhumanly strong that even though he was handcuffed and face-down, he was liable to leap up and slaughter all four police officers present (thus justifying Chauvin’s leaning on him for over nine minutes).
I can’t believe that any juror would have fallen for that defense—but then I find it hard to believe that any voter would have thought a certain someone would make a good President (I won’t derail the thread by being more specific).
Of course one cannot be certain the jury feels the same way but kneeling on the guy for 9 minutes long after he’s subdued and even 4 minutes after he’s dead is incredibly telling. And although I’m very “anti Trump”, I’m also about the last guy who would support any kind of “defund police” initiatives.
I don’t think any of them will find that exact logic convincing because it’s been made clear in the trial that it only needs to be proven that Chauvin was a “substantial causal factor” in Floyd’s death. Someone might doubt that Chauvin met that threshold, but just thinking that there could be other factors won’t be enough.
I do think there are a lot of reasons they could stop short of murder. I’m nervous about even predicting manslaughter given this country’s history with holding police accountable, but we’ve at least seen enough differences in this trial - particularly other police being willing to testify against their own.
I could tell you what I think he actually is guilty of (murder 3), but I’m hesitant to choose an option. I’d put the median on manslaughter, saying it could also go for murder 3 or not guilty. I also wouldn’t be surprised as a mistrial from one or more stubborn jurors. (I’d hope they’d bring a new trial.)
Out of curiosity: in theory, could the jury return a Guilty verdict on multiple charges? I agree that it would make no sense, but is it actually possible? And how much would that cause the system to go haywire?
I believe he could be guilty of multiple. It could wind up mattering if there is an appeal that vacates one conviction but not another. If multiple convictions stand, I think the sentences would be concurrent, so effectively a lesser conviction would have no effect.
That’s incorrect in this case. In Minnesota law we have two flavors of 2nd Degree Murder. The first is indeed an intentional, unpremeditated killing, but the second flavor is what’s called “2nd Degree Unintentional Murder”, which is what Chauvin is charged with. It’s similar in facts (although the punishment is a lot less) to what other states call “Felony Murder”. Proving intent is not required for the killing, although in this case the underlying felony, 3rd Degree Assault, requires intent.
Fair question. To me, American law has had some quirks that I’ve not understood. Such as someone getting a sentence of “life” in prison plus 20 years. It conjures up images of the rotting corpse left in the cell.