In late April 2022, Derek Chauvin filed an Appeal Cataloguing Pervasive Trial Misconduct and Irregularities in his state conviction in the death of George Floyd. My assessment of Chauvin’s Brief was:
It’s all extremely detailed with evidence images and testimony. And none of it is likely to make a difference.
None of it was likely to make a difference because (1) Chauvin already had pleaded guilty to federal charges with roughly equal jail time as Chauvin’s state sentence, and (2) even if somehow he were to succeed in his appeal, he would be retried and the likelihood of getting a fair trial would just as dismal as in the first state trial.
Here are some of our prior posts demonstrating problems with the Chauvin trial:
It’s worth following the appeal because receiving a fair trial — even for “guilty” people — is so fundamental to our pre-existing now-fading justice system.
The appeal docket has all the documents. I don’t see an argument date listed. The state filed its Brief in opposition to the appeal;
Chauvin’s appeal raises an industrial kitchen-sink’s worth of arguments. Many have been forfeited, some several times over. The vast majority are reviewed for an abuse of discretion or for plain error—or both. None contain any merit.
Chauvin recently filed his Reply Brief. As before, it’s a catalogue of misconduct and mistakes that made it impossible for Chauvin to get a fair trial, including the threats of violence that enveloped the trial:
Pretrial publicity coupled with threats of violence poisoned the jury against Appellant Derek Chauvin (“Chauvin”). Appellant’s Brief 6–12 (outlining local daily media coverage from day of events to the start of trial); id. at 12–22 (discussing protests at the courthouse during voir dire and trial as well as potential and actual juror concern for personal and local public safety in the event of a Chauvin acquittal); id. at 3–5 (summarizing riots in response to the events in question in what was the second-most destructive riots in American history that caused $500,000,000 in property damage and two deaths in the local Hennepin County area)….There was no sufficient cooling period in this case to let the publicity or the physical pressure on the courthouse to simmer down….the District Court not only abused its discretion in refusing to grant a continuance, the District Court actually accelerated the trial such that there was less than ten full months between events and jury voir dire ….Threats included the second worse [sic] riots in the U.S. history, physical violence to the officer’s attorneys at pretrial hearings, extensive security at the Courthouse during the trial due to the threats of physical violence, riots in Brooklyn Center during trial, and elected Congresspersons egging on the violence….Juror prejudice was apparent throughout the voir dire process where jurors expressed concern for their safety and riots breaking out if they acquitted Chauvin. Juror concerns are laid out in Chauvin’s original appellate brief. Appellant’s Brief 13–22. Forthose venire members not actually selected to serve, their voir dire testimony illuminates the pretrial prejudice of the venue.Seated jurors actually stated their concerns during voir dire….First-tier analysis shows that the District Court should have presumed prejudice and transferred venue. On the second tier analysis, voir dire highlighted that pretrial publicity had been so pervasive in the community that the District Court abused its discretion by failing to transfer venue. A new trial in a fair venue should be ordered.
The trial took place in a fortress courthouse with violence and threats of violence swirling around the entire proceeding. A fair trial free from threats is particularly important for defendants reviled by the public. That’s were society is tested. Society failed the test here.
Not that it will make a difference ultimately to Derek Chauvin, who will serve about 20 years regardless. But it does make a difference to society to reiterate that we don’t have trials by mob.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY