Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Chauvin Post-Trial Sentencing: What to Expect

Chauvin Post-Trial Sentencing: What to Expect

Sentencing Guidelines, Enhancements & Blakely Factors

Welcome to our ongoing post-trial coverage of Minnesota v. Chauvin, following Chauvin being found guilty on all counts.  I am Attorney Andrew Branca for Law of Self Defense.

With the guilt phase of Chauvin’s trial now completed with verdicts of guilt on all counts—second-degree “felony” murder, third-degree “reckless” murder, and second-degree “reckless” manslaughter—we now move on to the sentencing phase of the legal process.

Incidentally, if you’re enjoying this content on the day of publication April 21, 2021, you might be interested in the Derek Chauvin Post-Trial Analysis webinar I’ll be doing live with Professor William Jacobson over at Legal Insurrection tonight at 8PM EDT.  We’ll each provide our own perspectives on the trial and the political dynamics surrounding the trial, as well as have live Q&A. If the timing doesn’t work, or is already passed when you learn of this, you can also catch a recording of the webinar after the fact.

Either option requires a free registration, which you can do by clicking the link below:

Derek Chauvin Post-Trial Analysis webinar

OK, with that out of the way, let’s jump into what to expect in terms of the sentencing of now-convict Derek Chauvin.

Minnesota uses sentencing guidelines for this purpose, as do most states these days, and for those interested I’ve embedded some of the guideline materials below in this post.  Generally speaking, sentencing guidelines calculate a sentence range based on the severity of the crime, and then adjust that range up or down primarily based on any prior convictions of the defendant being sentenced.

Once an initial range is determined, however, that range can be further reduced below the initial range if there are mitigating factors, or alternatively increased above the initial range if there are aggravating factors, now known as Blakely factors, in reference to the US Supreme Court decision on sentencing enhancement, Blakely v. Washington, 1264 S. Ct. 2531 (2004).

Blakely is an interesting case, because it resulted in a profound revision of how sentencing guidelines are understood and applied in criminal law.

Criminal offenses typically have a maximum sentence—say 40 years for second-degree “felony” murder—and then the sentencing guidelines suggest some fraction of that maximum for, say, a convict with no prior convictions—say, 10.5 years for that same-second degree murder.

The traditional practice had long been that a judge could consider a variety of mitigating and aggravating factors in ordering a shorter or longer sentence than the guidelines suggested, and that this consideration was entirely in the discretion of the sentencing judge—so long as the sentence ordered did not exceed the maximum statutory sentence for that particular offense for which the defendant had been found guilty.

So, in the context of our second-degree “felony” murder conviction, a jury of the defendant’s peers had found him guilty of that crime, punishable by up to 40 years, and now it was within the discretion of the sentencing judge to start sentencing considerations using the recommended sentence suggested by the guidelines, and then adjusting upward or downward based on his own discretion, with no further involvement by a jury.

The only time further involvement of a jury would be required, then, would be if the judge wished to exceed the statutory maximum sentence for the crime for which the defendant had been convicted—in effect, the defendant would need to be convicted of a separate offense that carried a longer than 40 year maximum if the judge wanted to sentence the defendant to additional time beyond the 40, and of course a separate conviction would once again trigger the right to a jury to do the fact finding.

That is how sentencing departures typically worked—a sentencing judge had no need to involve a jury in sentencing so long as the judge did not attempt to exceed the maximum statutory sentence for the crime for which the jury had already found the defendant guilty.

Blakely changed all that.

Under Blakely, the judge still needed to involve a jury if he wanted to sentence beyond the maximum statutory range for the crime for which the defendant was convicted. But Blakely also held that a judge needed to involve a jury if he wanted to sentence a convict beyond the range suggested by the sentencing guideline.

In effect, the limit of the sentencing judge’s discretion was no longer the statutory maximum for the crime in question.  Under Blakely the limit of the sentencing judge’s discretion became whatever sentence was suggested by the sentencing guidelines.  If the sentencing judge wanted to exceed the guideline suggestion of sentence, under Blakely the convict now has a right to a jury to do the fact finding on that decision.

In the case of Minnesota v. Chauvin, the state months ago filed notice with the court that if Chauvin were found guilty, they intended to seek sentencing departure above and beyond the normal range based on a variety of aggravating factors they claimd to exist, which they outlined in a motion filed last October 12, 2020.

Immediately after yesterday’s reading of the guilty verdicts, Judge Cahill informed the parties that they would have one week to file arguments on Blakely factors in this case, and that he would render his factual findings of aggravating factors for sentencing within the following week.

Separately, Judge Cahill ordered a pre-trial investigation (PSI) to be conducted, returnable in four weeks, and arguments on the PSI findings two weeks after that, and final sentencing a further two weeks after that—so, final sentencing will be 8 weeks from yesterday’s verdict.

Each of the charges on which Chauvin was convicted carries its own maximum sentence, but that maximum is rarely imposed in the absence of prior convictions, so generally the defendant without priors—now, convict, after being found guilty—can expect to be sentenced to some sizeable fraction of the maximum sentence.

In the context of second-degree “felony” the maximum sentence is 40 years in prison, and a convict without priors could expect to be sentenced to 10.5 years.

In the context of 3rd-degree “reckless” murder, the maximum sentence is 25 years, and a convict without priors could expect to be sentenced to 10.5 years.

In the context of 2nd-degree “reckless” manslaughter, the maximum sentence is 10 years, and a convict without priors could expect to be sentenced to 4 years and/or a fine of up to $20,000.

Normally those sentences would be ordered to run concurrently, in parallel with each other, not consecutively, so that Chauvin as a convict without priors would expect to be sentenced to 10.5 years in prison, and to be eligible for early release in some substantial fraction of that time.

The state’s pursuit of a Blakely upward departure in sentencing, however, means that if Judge Cahill agrees with the factual Blakely claims by the state, he will be free to sentence Chauvin to substantially more time than the 10.5 years the guidelines would otherwise suggest.

The state’s October motion cites several specific Blakely factors in its argument for an upward sentencing departure—we should assume that the same factors, and additional factors, will be made in the state’s Blakely motion submitted to Judge Cahill in the coming week.

First, that George Floyd was “particularly vulnerable” when he was killed by Chauvin.  This is based on the facts that Floyd’s arms were handcuffed behind his back, that Chauvin pressed him into the street, and that Floyd was rendered unconscious.

Second, that Derek Chauvin’s conduct qualifies as an abuse of his position of authority, committed while a police officer and in full uniform at the time of the offense.

While those were the only Blakely factors mentioned in the October 2020 motion I’ve mentioned, there are additional Blakely factors applicable to the facts of this case, and we should expect those to be argued in this week’s Blakely motion by the state.

These additional Blakely factors include argument that Floyd was treated with particular cruelty, that Chauvin committed his crimes as part of a group of three or more persons, and that Chauvin committed his crime in the presence of, and witnessed by, multiple children.

Because consideration of these Blakely factors involve making findings of fact—for example, were there actually present persons under the age of 18?—the defendant has a US Constitutional right to have a jury determine if Blakley factors have been proven, as discussed above.

Alternatively, a defendant can waive this right to a jury finding on Blakely factors, and instead have the sentencing judge do the fact finding on these factors. This is akin to a defendant waiving their right to a jury trial entirely and electing to instead have a bench trial in which the judge plays the role of finder of fact in place of the jury playing that role.

In this case, prior to the verdicts being announced Chauvin had informed the court that he chose to waive his right to jury fact finding on Blakely factors, and would defer to the court on that.

This was probably prudent—the Blakely factors are only relevant if the jury has returned a guilty verdict, and a jury that has just returned a guilty verdict seems unlikely to be favorably disposed in the next moment to being lenient on Blakely factors.

Had this Blakely fact-finding been left to the jury, however, the jury would have been provided with an additional fact-finding form, in addition to the jury verdict forms for each criminal count, on which the various factual claims of Blakely factors are listed and the jury is asked to indicated if each Blakely claim has been proven.

In anticipation of this possibility—that Chauvin would demand jury fact-finding on Blakely factors, the prosecution had prepared just such a fact-finding form for the jury. Although this form was ultimately not needed, as already explained, but I’ve nevertheless included it below.

Here’s the state’s October 2020 motion on Blakely factors in this case:

https://www.scribd.com/document/503983040/Briefs10122020

And here’s the jury fact-finding form on Blakely factors, prepared but never actually used:

https://www.scribd.com/document/503983041/Proposed-Instructions-10122020

Also, here are the current Minnesota sentencing guidelines:

https://www.scribd.com/document/503983418/Aug2020AdoptedAmendmentsMinnSentencingGuidelines

And the current Minnesota sentencing guidelines grid that provides a graphical view of how the guidelines are intended to be applied:

https://www.scribd.com/document/503983417/2020-Standard-Sentencing-Guidelines-Grid

Anyone interested in a free podcast version of our daily legal commentary and analysis of the Chauvin trial can access the Law of Self Defense News/Q&A Podcast, available on most every podcast platform, including PandoraiHeartSpotifyApple PodcastGoogle Podcastsimple RSS feed, and more.

And thanks, as always, to both Legal Insurrection and CCW Safe for the support that makes my coverage of this case possible.

Until next time, stay safe!

–Andrew

Attorney Andrew F. Branca

Law of Self Defense LLC

Attorney Andrew F. Branca’s legal practice has specialized exclusively in use-of-force law for thirty years.  Andrew provides use-of-force legal consultancy services to attorneys across the country, as well as near-daily use-of-force law insight, expertise, and education to lawyers and non-lawyers alike. He wrote the first edition of the “Law of Self Defense” in 1997, which you can now order in its current edition for just the price of shipping and handling by clicking here.  To know YOUR state’s use-of-force laws in an actionable way that will keep you safer physically and legally, take our state-specific advanced use of force class either streamed online or via a shipped DVD with a 100% no-question- asked money-back guarantee, here:  Law of Self Defense State Specific Use-Of-Force Class.

[Featured image is a screen capture from video of today’s court proceedings in MN v. Chauvin.]

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Ben Shapiro – The Jury Got It Wrong | Ep. 1240

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHwlcF0jrEY

    JusticeDelivered in reply to paralegal. | April 21, 2021 at 3:06 pm

    More like the jury was intimated, afraid for their own and their families safety..

      Joe-dallas in reply to JusticeDelivered. | April 21, 2021 at 3:19 pm

      I suspect that sometime in the 6-9 month time frame one of the jurors will speak out about the fear of a not guilty verdict. Probably too late to be a factor in any appeal

Interesting to contrast Turley and Ben Shapiro

Evidence was overwhelming in Derek Chauvin case, jury got it right: Turley

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dO8bt95S2Zo

    gonzotx in reply to paralegal. | April 21, 2021 at 4:09 pm

    Really surprised by Turkey

    C—k

    JohnT in reply to paralegal. | April 21, 2021 at 5:46 pm

    I am not surprised at all because Turley is a Dimocrat and an academic.

    maxmillion in reply to paralegal. | April 21, 2021 at 9:37 pm

    Shapiro is intellectually honest about what happened, and Turley is not.

      mark311 in reply to maxmillion. | April 22, 2021 at 10:07 am

      Shapiros entire argument hinges around the time the jury took to convict which was around 10 hours that’s not a trivial amount of time to spend deliberating. It seems to be the case that the jury found the prosecution evidence more compelling than the defence that’s what it boils down too.

        OBloodyhell in reply to mark311. | April 22, 2021 at 11:48 pm

        }}} It seems to be the case that the jury found the prosecution evidence more compelling than the defence

        Seems to me the jury was already tainted and considered him guilty from day zero, is what actually happened.

        I will ack there is a reasonable debate over the manslaughter charge. The other two were indisputably preposterous.

        This was a far greater injustice than what happened to Floyd. And it’s going to be endured by black people for a decade or more in the form of inadequate policing leading to more crime and victimization of them.

        Murder rates soar dramatically in cities after BLM protests with up to 6,000 extra deaths nationwide – massively outweighing the decline in police shootings, researcher finds
        https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9500789/Murder-rates-dramatically-cities-BLM-protests-researcher-finds.html

JusticeDelivered | April 21, 2021 at 3:08 pm

Until there is serious push back, as in putting down rioters, this problem will only become worse.

    I have concerns about his safety, it might be a death sentence or a few years in solitary.
    This will happen again now Leftists know how to play the game of video Propaganda and pay out first then trial.

    Coming up next: rioting if the same sentencing guidelines routinely applied to black convicts are applied to a white police officer.

MN statutes provide, “Upon prosecution for a crime, the actor may be convicted of either the crime charged or an included offense, but not both. An included offense [includes] a lesser degree of the same crime” (§ 609.04, https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.04). Given that guilty verdicts were returned on all counts, not just the “greater” one of 2nd-degree murder: I’m curious, therefore, if anyone knows why the 3rd-degree murder and manslaughter counts aren’t (apparently) considered lesser-includeds.

    Milhouse in reply to wm. tyroler. | April 21, 2021 at 5:23 pm

    Because you misread it. Each of those was a charged crime. For each of them he could be convicted either for the crime as charged, or for a lesser included offense, but not both. As it is he got the maximum conviction on each charge.

      wm. tyroler in reply to Milhouse. | April 21, 2021 at 10:20 pm

      Thanks for the answer, but it doesn’t quite get at what I’m asking. I probably didn’t phrase my question precisely enough so I’ll try again. The MN statute is quite clear: you can’t convict on both one crime and another crime that is a “lesser degree” of that first crime. One would think on the face of it that 3rd-degree murder is a “lesser degree” of 2nd-degree murder, therefore you can’t convict on both. I gather, however, that that must be wrong, simply because he was indeed convicted on both. I’m just wondering why that is, given the explicit labeling of one as a seemingly lesser degreed offense of the other. And yes, I understand the “elements-only” test for lesser-includeds. The statute is phrased in terms of “lesser degree” and not “same elements.”

        Bisley in reply to wm. tyroler. | April 22, 2021 at 1:17 pm

        I very much agree, and the problem lies with the morons who write and/or interpret the laws. This is a plain rejection of the constitutional prohibition of double jeopardy. Floyd only died once, and, if Chauvin was guilty (which was not proven), he can’t legally be tried and convicted for multiple charges which all amount to being responsible for the death in varying degrees. There should have been only one charge, with the possibility of other degrees of the same crime, not all of them. If the Supreme Court was any good (which is questionable), and appeals were to make it that far, this practice should be stopped.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair | April 21, 2021 at 3:39 pm

In the context of second-degree “felony” the maximum sentence is 40 years in prison, and a convict without priors could expect to be sentenced to 10.5 years.

In the context of 3rd-degree “reckless” murder, the maximum sentence is 25 years, and a convict without priors could expect to be sentenced to 10.5 years.

In the context of 2nd-degree “reckless” manslaughter, the maximum sentence is 10 years, and a convict without priors could expect to be sentenced to 4 years and/or a fine of up to $20,000.

Normally those sentences would be ordered to run concurrently, in parallel with each other, not consecutively, so that Chauvin as a convict without priors would expect to be sentenced to 10.5 years in prison, and to be eligible for early release in some substantial fraction of that time.

How can you have two different murder convictions and a manslaughter conviction, all for the same single act?? I don’t care if they are to run “concurrently” … you can’t have multiple charges on the same act. You might as well just charge him with 26 counts of 2nd degree murder and call it a day. WTFF??

    Yes, you can have multiple convictions for the same underlying act. The same act can violate several different statutes, and each of those is a separate crime. That’s the case in every single jurisdiction I’ve ever heard of, except ancient Jewish law.

      ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to Milhouse. | April 21, 2021 at 5:56 pm

      That is not what I am saying and you know it. You can have different convictions stemming from a single act but you can’t have multiple convictions of the same type. If you think so then you are totally nuts. I guess you would be the sort of person who thinks it’s fine to file a separate charge of theft for each individual atom in an item that someone stole … so you could get a guy on untold trillions of trillions of guilty verdicts for having swiped one candy bar. Friggin brilliant! “But he stole each individual atom!”

        There is no such thing as charges of the “same type” or “different types”. Each charge is a separate offense.

        And no, you can’t have the same charge of theft multiple times because many items were stolen at the same time; theft is a single offense, no matter how big or small the item stolen (until you get to the line between petty and grand larceny). To be charged with multiple counts of theft you would have to perform multiple acts of theft, i.e. first you stole one thing and then another and then another.

          DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | April 21, 2021 at 11:24 pm

          But doesn’t “manslaughter” infer no intent, and murder infer “intent”? If so, how can someone both kill someone “unintentionally” and “intentionally”?

          They are indeed separate offenses, but they apply to two different states of mind. The defendant can’t possibly have been in two states of mind at the same time. Or, if he was, no such evidence or testimony was presented at the Chauvin trial.

    Oh yeah. This is what is meant when cops and prosecutors say colloquially “throw the book at him.”

    They are not supposed to punish for both murder and manslaughter but it would not surprise me if they found a loophole. Double Jeopardy has been given a colder shoulder than the right to keep and bear arms. They can always chop up a single act into multiple crimes ala OJ Simpson II.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair | April 21, 2021 at 3:42 pm

Double jeopardy – just trying a person twice for the same crime – is totally un-Constitutional, but getting multiple guilty verdicts for the same exact crime is just peachy??

Is there any hint of logic left in our judicial system, at all??

    But but but Turley says the jury got it right!!!

      gran2ten in reply to gonzotx. | April 21, 2021 at 9:10 pm

      I thought anyone who ever followed J. Turley knows he’s a mealy mouth fuzzy peach.

      Dimsdale in reply to gonzotx. | April 22, 2021 at 9:16 am

      Did anyone get Jeffrey Toobin’s take on this? LOL!

      I will abstain from “long hard look at this crime” jokes….

    The 5th amendment prohibition against double jeopardy was negated by SCOTUS in the trials of the cops who beat up Rodney King. See
    https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/989/

    This is another example where riots influenced not only the courts involved in one case, but the application of the Constitution to everyone else.

    If Chauvin hadn’t been convicted in state court, you can bet that the Feds would have hauled him into Federal court. If that didn’t work, they would look for other courts to charge him in.

      Milhouse in reply to OldProf2. | April 21, 2021 at 5:47 pm

      The 5th amendment prohibition against double jeopardy was negated by SCOTUS in the trials of the cops who beat up Rodney King. S

      That is nonsense. The dual sovereignty doctrine was established more than 150 years before Rodney King. By the time he came around nobody living had even known someone who could remember a time when anyone supposed otherwise.

        lurker9876 in reply to Milhouse. | April 21, 2021 at 7:15 pm

        They don’t care anymore and can do whatever they want while transforming our government.

          Milhouse in reply to lurker9876. | April 21, 2021 at 7:32 pm

          Lurker, what are you talking about. I just wrote that the dual sovereignty is not some new thing, it’s been part of US law for almost 200 years now. Nothing was changed for the Rodney King case. So who is it who “doesn’t care any more”, or is “transforming our government”?

    Yes, it is just peachy, and always has been. The reason for the prohibition on double jeopardy has nothing to do with this. That prohibition exists only to prevent a situation where a determined prosecutor refuses to take “not guilty” for an answer, and keeps on trying his luck with jury after jury until he strikes it lucky. That is not the case here. If the state believes a person committed multiple crimes it must try him for each of them, and on each of them an acquittal is final.

      ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to Milhouse. | April 21, 2021 at 5:58 pm

      Yes, it is just peachy, and always has been.

      Really? So all convictions include counts for all lesser convictions of the same type?

      The reason for the prohibition on double jeopardy has nothing to do with this.

      It was a comparison, genius.

        So all convictions include counts for all lesser convictions of the same type?

        No, all charges include all possible lesser charges of the same type. That is, as wm. tyrole quoted, a jury can decide to convict someone not of the offense charged but of some lesser degree of that offense. So if Chauvin had been charged only with 2nd degree murder, the jury could decide to convict him of 3rd degree instead. But not both. To convict him of both he had to be charged with both.

        That is the law in many states, including Minnesota.

        It was a comparison, genius.

        What is that supposed to mean? The constitution bars double jeopardy, not things that can be “compared” to double jeopardy. You can’t just make up prohibitions by “comparison” to existing ones.

      ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to Milhouse. | April 21, 2021 at 6:05 pm

      If the state believes a person committed multiple crimes it must try him for each of them

      LOL. Name the “multiple crimes” that you think were committed in this case.

      These are just three variations on ONE alleged crime (which, itself, is total bullshit).

    It makes no sense to me. Is that a MN thing?

      Milhouse in reply to Melinda. | April 21, 2021 at 7:40 pm

      No, it’s an everywhere thing. I’m not aware of any common law jurisdiction where it’s not the case.

    yes, this is really stupid. one act, three convictions. makes no sense other than to evil prosecutors

ABC is reporting that although Chauvin was convicted of all three charges, he can only be sentenced on the felony murder charge,

“Chauvin will only be sentenced on the second-degree murder charge because, per state law, if a defendant is convicted of two or more felony offenses from the same incident, the defendant is punished for the “most serious” of the offenses.”

https://abcnews.go.com/US/derek-chauvin-verdict-overturned-appeal/story?id=77213609

I would never shower , ever, If I were him
Maybe join the Aryan Nation too

He’s going to need protection

I don’t understand the “stacking” of convictions. Chauvin committed one criminal act – the killing of George Floyd.

How can that one act be 3 crimes – 2nd degree murder, 3rd degree murder and manslaughter?

    gonzotx in reply to CENTFLAMIKE. | April 21, 2021 at 4:52 pm

    He’s innocent

    Milhouse in reply to CENTFLAMIKE. | April 21, 2021 at 5:55 pm

    It’s very easy for one act to be multiple crimes, even multiple unrelated crimes. E.g. suppose you have no driver’s license, and you come across a car full of illegal drugs, stopped at a red light, with no driver and the keys in the ignition, and you drive away with it. You’re guilty of theft, drug possession, unlicensed driving, and running a red. You should expect to be tried for all four offenses.

Subotai Bahadur | April 21, 2021 at 4:48 pm

I rather suspect that this discussion is moot because shortly after arriving in the Minnesota Department of Corrections Chauvin will mysteriously die with no clue as to the cause. To intimidate anyone who would oppose the Left.

Subotai Bahadur

Dear Talcum X,

They never asked any questions because they never got around to actually considering the evidence presented or the unsettled nuances in the jury instructions.

https://twitter.com/shaunking/status/1384600029676048385?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

I’d be curious to read these amicus briefs filed in the Noor case.

Brief – Amicus E-Filed (Minnesota Board of Public Defense, Minnesota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers)

Amicus – Minnesota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

Amicus – Minnesota County Attorneys Association

Amicus – o/b/o Minnesota Criminal Law Professors

https://macsnc.courts.state.mn.us/ctrack/docket/docketEntry.do?action=edit&deID=1142588&csNameID=94266&csInstanceID=112250&csIID=112250

    lurker9876 in reply to paralegal. | April 21, 2021 at 7:41 pm

    I would also be interested in the above amicus briefs. But I don’t know how to get the documents.

    My prediction? Chauvin will get maximum sentence per charge.

    Milhouse in reply to paralegal. | April 21, 2021 at 7:44 pm

    Probably won’t stick. Pretty much everyone agrees that the MN supreme court will overturn it when it gets around to deciding the Noor appeal. That’s why this judge wanted to strike the charge now. The supreme court said no, you can’t get ahead of yourself; right now the court of appeals decision is the law, and you’re bound by it even if you’re sure we’re about to overturn it.

      lurker9876 in reply to Milhouse. | April 21, 2021 at 7:51 pm

      Politico says that if overturned, Chauvin will walk away.

      But had the MN Supreme Court not forced Cahill’s hand and Chauvin was declared guilty of the other two charges, then he would not have walked away?

        Mike Wilson in reply to lurker9876. | April 22, 2021 at 8:22 am

        No. it would only matter if he were acquitted on the other two charges and convicted on 3rd degree. Then throwing out the 3rd degree would leave no remaining convictions. Can’t possibly happen now.

      paralegal in reply to Milhouse. | April 21, 2021 at 9:29 pm

      Not true in my jurisdiction. Here, once review is granted the opinion is of persuasive value only.

Now Ellison wants 3rd degree murder added to the other officers too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TPhWkH_Bkw

George_Kaplan | April 22, 2021 at 2:24 am

Given sentencing expectations and Blakely factors how did Noor manage to score a mere 12.5 years?

Noor was found guilty of both 3rd-degree “reckless” murder and 2nd-degree “reckless” manslaughter, with a prison term of 12.5 years.

Noor should have expected 10.5 years with an additional 4 years run concurrently, assuming no Blakely factors. Dammond – Noor’s victim, was particularly vulnerable – approaching the police car in her pajamas at night, and Noor committed a murder whilst in uniform and on the job, an abuse of a position of authority. Do these factors constitute a mere 20% increase in time to serve?

So does this mean Chauvin should expect a similar sentence given his crime was less onerous, though he was convicted of an additional offence? Or does the fact that this is a White cop on Black man disputed death rather than a Black cop blatantly murdered a White woman mean the sentencing will be exponentially higher?

I said before, on a different comment, that just like everyone I saw the video in the beginning and was repulsed. But common sense started to make me wonder, like anyone else who uses the tiniest bit of critical thinking skills, ok well if I was going to just say, as a cop, screw this this man is black or a drug addict or whatever, but this time I’ve had enough I’m just going to choke him out and if he dies oh well. None of these other cops, or the ton of idiots screaming at me and taping me, or the paramedics or the doctors when this guy goes to the ER etc. Will ever turn me in because I’m a cop, and a white man, and we get away with openly murdering black people every day. Muh hahaha!
Its something that doesn’t happen. Even if that was a movie plot, you’d be thinking, this is nothing like real life.
Then, the defense more or less proved, everything they were saying about everything except MAYBE being reckless so manslaughter.
As I said in a past post, I’m an ex addict. I can almost GUARANTEE Floyd swallowed his stash not meaning to die but knowing he’d be going to the ER. Then he avoids possession charges,AND going to jail at least in the moment. Every cop or addict knows this happens regularly.
THEN, this whole verdict, zoomed in on Chauvin’s face as if it was the trial of Hitler/Ted Bundy/Satan was ridiculous. Then the crowds crying and sobbing, comparing Floyd to Emmitt Till, this wasn’t even someone these people know!
I’m so creeped out seeing the whole spectacle. Thinking that this dude that at best was just a dick when he’s performing something that happens all the time, cop holds junkie who is freaking out because ambulance is coming. That he probably did hundreds of times. Now gets to live, in basically solitary, in prison, for life. Even serial killers, child murderers etc haven’t been this demonized.
If anyone should have been happy about this its me, someone who lived like Floyd at one point and saw fed up police who were not very kind about junkie drama. But this was wrong. Anyone with a conscience should be very creeped out about this whole thing.

    Mike Wilson in reply to katesully. | April 22, 2021 at 8:25 am

    very correct katesully. people don’t know how to think anymore, and react like animals due to the propaganda they have been fed.

      lurker9876 in reply to Mike Wilson. | April 22, 2021 at 9:48 am

      Saw this article (but I also read similar articles) pluse the G. Edwards Griffin 1969 YT.

      https://amgreatness.com/2021/04/21/its-not-a-race-war-its-something-much-bigger/

      That block memorializing GF is now limited to the blacks only. Any white entering that GF memorial zone will be persecuted and assaulted for something that the blacks did not like.

      Biden and the Democrats (and some Republicans) are taking advantage of this. They see this as helping them transform our country.

      Unfortunately, many people belong to the younger generations exposed to the public school indoctrination and more so these days. Home tutoring or teaching pods seem to the best options for young children to learn the proper education.

      So now the previously approved method is no longer approved, have they come up with a new method when dealing with drug addicts under influence? I haven’t seen anything but my guess is that the police (if they have not turned in their resignation) will do nothing and run the other way. If they respond to a call, they might show up but no hands on the victim, even if they have a knife or gun in their hands a few seconds prior. They probably will not do anything to create a safe zone for the EMS to show up.

      We know that the blacks are not concerned about crimes committed by blacks against blacks. So let them police themselves without the police (which I’m sure it will now be all blacks). We may see more ghettos across the nation under full black control.

    Samantha in reply to katesully. | April 22, 2021 at 10:30 am

    This is the best comment I have seen. Thank you! The state did not even charge intentional murder and the entire country has made assumptions without evidence that this is an evil person without knowing anything about him. He was doing his job, he had no intention of killing anybody, autopsy did not show any harm to the body, but drugs indicated it could be an overdose, or his high blood pressure or heart condition could have played a role. I don’t know what kind of a person he actually his—he said Floyd was a big guy, out of control, need to be restrained until the ambulance came. Just a neutral cop. Keep him where he is until the ambulance comes. Manslaughter at most. I wished they had had or tried Narcan or the paramedics had. My son almost died of an overdose but the paramedics got there in time–but if you get started on drugs it is only a matter of time–either get off successfully or you are likely to die. (All his other friends have died of overdoses.) Now Chauvin in solitary on suicide watch. Political prisoner.

    Best comment ever, from experience, not second-party guessing. If the ambulance had arrived sooner, or Floyd not had underlying (and unknown) health issues, he would have been in the emergency room getting his stomach pumped instead of what happened. Three days later, he would have been back on the streets, no I had no idea those were counterfeit bills, etc…

Lawyerinmynextlife | April 22, 2021 at 11:27 am

Okkkk, soooooo….

What is the sentence going to be? 10 years? 15? 25?

This is just asinine. Floyd NEVER complied. Period.

Ellison told Pelley he believed Floyd was treated the way he was because he “was suffering from anxiety and claustrophobia.” He said Floyd was “cooperating with the police in every way until they tried to make him take his 6-foot-4 body and jam it into that tight space in that car.”

“And he kind of freaked out,” Ellison said, referring to Floyd.

He rejected the idea that Floyd was resisting the officers’ attempts at arresting him and said instead that Floyd “wasn’t complying because he was having an emotional reaction to getting into that car.”
https://www.foxnews.com/us/minnesota-ag-keith-ellison-derek-chauvin-motive

    paralegal in reply to paralegal. | April 22, 2021 at 3:35 pm

    The “emotional reaction to getting into a car” nonsense is ridiculous because Floy was in a car when the cop first arrived. Did he “freak out” before getting into the driver seat?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend