So Chauvin was convicted of manslaughter, which I understand is tied into his second degree murder conviction. He also was convicted of third degree murder.
I understand prosecutors going for both in case they can’t convince the jury of the second degree charge, but I don’t understand why it makes sense to be convicted of both for the same person.
If I steal $100, what sense does it make to be convicted of stealing $100, convicted of stealing at least $50 and convicted of stealing at least $10.
If they are truly just lesser included offenses, the lesser ones will merge into the primary offense. But, they probably have different elements.* If so, they are not lesser included they are separate offenses. So the prosecution charged the different offenses that they thought could fit the facts.
In my state, because they are all based on the same act and have the same victim, whatever sentences he gets would have to be concurrent. That’s likely the case in Minnesota as well.
But, having convictions on all 3 can matter if, say, 1 or both of the others are overturned on appeal, or through a collateral challenge.
*I don’t remember the exact elements, but I seem to recall they are not lesser includeds.
This sounds like a legal term of art. What is the technical meaning of this phrase?
IANAL, but as I understand it, a “lesser included offense” has all the elements of another offense - so “assault” is a lesser included offense of “assault with a deadly weapon”. But if offense A includes elements 1, 2 and 3, and offense B includes elements 1, 2 and 4, neither A nor B is a lesser included offense of the other.
Looks like I have it basically right
Yes. The details might vary by jurisdiction, but that’s the gist of it.
This article
explains why he was convicted of three separate offenses.
To bring this back to the Chauvin case, if they had tried him for Assault, that would be a lesser included offense to the 2nd Degree murder charge, because the assault is an element of the murder charge.
But 3rd degree murder is actually quite different from Unintentional Murder in the 2nd Degree, with different elements. You charge both in case the defense manages to raise reasonable doubt about one of the elements of either one.
For example, 2nd Degree requires the underlying assault - but maybe the defense is able to raise reasonable doubt that Chauvin didn’t intent to assault Floyd so the jury acquits on that. But 3rd degree murder doesn’t need the underlying assault. However, 3rd degree requires a “depraved mind” - maybe the jury doesn’t believe the state proved that beyond reasonable doubt, so they could acquit on only that charge.
If the state meets the burden of proof for all elements of all charges, then the jury should convict on all of them even if they seem redundant.
Interesting point. It’s different in Canada. If a person is convicted on two similar charges arising from the same actions, then they’re only sentenced on one count and the other count is stayed by the court. If the first count is set aside on appeal, it may be that the second count can be re-activated and sentence passed. It’s a variation on double jeopardy in our system: just because the legislature has written overlapping offences doesn’t mean you can be sentenced for multiple crimes arising out of the same action.
In the US, it is functionally the same. If any other offense is a lesser included offense, it will merge into the greater offense, and will cease to be a separate offense unless the greater one were overturned. If the offenses are not lesser included, but are based on the same act, with the same victim, the convictions can have separate sentences, but they will be concurrent. I don’t think they result in more time being served than would be served on the greatest offense. (I believe this is true across jurisdictions – it’s true in mine.)
From the cite
The separate acts the jury had to find Mr. Chauvin committed also seem compatible with one another. To streamline the language a bit, “committing an assault” and “committing an act that is eminently dangerous to other persons” and “creating an unreasonable risk” can all go together.
Right. That’s my point. They’re practically synonyms and the cite goes on to say the sentencing will depend on how the judge wants to parse it.
That is bizarre to me.
Is the bottom line here the prosecution just wants to make more roadblocks to a successful appeal.
The article is not true as written. As far as I can tell, Minnesota’s sentencing system works like the one in my jurisdiction. There is a presumptive guidelines sentence (12.5 years, in this case, of which 8 would typically be served) for the offenses here, given the lack of any other criminal history. The judge can “depart” from the guidelines, but to do so, there need to be one or more “departure factors” found. A defendant is entitled to have a jury decide whether those factors are proven or not, but Chauvin waived jury on the departure factors, so the judge is deciding them.
If the judge finds one or more aggravating factors to be proved – I expect at least one, that Chauvin was in a position of trust as a police officer – then the judge can depart from the guidelines, but in my jurisdiction at least, it would only bump the sentence up by one step. I don’t have a Minnesota sentencing grid, so I don’t know what that sentence is, but it is definitely not 40 years.
Most importantly, regardless of how exactly the Minnesota law works, it does not just depend on how the judge “parses it.” It depends on what the law allows. Sentences can be appealed if the law isn’t followed. The judge doesn’t just get to make up a sentence in Minnesota’s system.
Well, the prosecution alleged three possible crimes that fit the facts. They didn’t know which one or ones the jury would find to be proved. The prosecution wanted to get one or more convictions to put away an officer who murdered a man. Having gotten the convictions, I’m sure they are pleased that, should one or two of them be overturned on appeal, there will still be a conviction left. He wasn’t charged with three offenses just to “make roadblocks to a successful appeal,” I’m sure, though.
Assuming I’m reading the Guidelines correctly, it’s pretty simple (much simpler than the federal guidelines with which I am most familiar). I assume Chauvin has a criminal history of 0. The offense has a severity of 10. So he has a guideline range of 128 to 180 months. (It also looks like 2/3 would be served as a term of imprisonment and 1/3 as a term of supervised release).
Although, Minnesota seems to treat “departures” as if they were what I’d call a “variance” – that is, a “departure” under Minnesota law is imposed outside the guidelines as opposed to an adjustment within the guidelines as is constrained by case law and statute.
Interesting. So that does open things up if the court finds at least one departure factor. In which case, the sentencing court has discretion in choosing a sentence outside the guidelines. The exercise of that discretion is still constrained by law, and subject to review on appeal.
The Guideline manual has a (non-exhaustive) list of aggravating and mitigating factors (none of which seem relevant to this case) as well as a (non-exhaustive?) list of impermissible departure factors. I don’t know what the statutory maximum is (I guess we said 480?). I’m not going to do the research into Minnesota law to see if any of the unenumerated departure factors are relevant here.
This is GQ, but let me say that if I were a trial judge, I don’t think I’d want to invite reversal on a high-profile case by straying too far from the guideline range.
Does someone like Chauvin have a criminal record for three offences? Wouldn’t in Canada, because the other offences are stayed.
Check out:
(13) The offense was committed in the presence of a child.
The main point of hauling in the minor witnesses was trolling for an upwards departure via this.
You could also make the case for (2) particular cruelty, in that most people would consider suffocation a rather ugly way to go, There’s also (10) three or more actors as major participants, but I this is really a stretch since the other officers haven’t been convicted yet and whether they are “major participants” would be a big issue.
Maybe. I really don’t know. I feel like “presence of a child” isn’t really intended to get at crimes committed in public that happen to be observed by a child (as opposed to crimes committed in that child’s home or where the victim is particularly vulnerable due to the presence of the child). But, again, I haven’t researched it.
My wife (an attorney) was curious how it works in Minnesota; apparently in other states they’re separate charges and would likely not be tried, so that he could be tried again for one of the lesser charges if he wins an appeal on the highest one. (not double jeopardy- different crime, you know).
Yes, probably, if the offenses don’t merge.
How similar do the offenses have to be in Canada for one or more to be stayed? Can you have related, but not similar enough charges based on the same act, that result in more than one conviction and sentence? Like, say, identity theft and grand larceny, or something like that, that capture different prohibitions.