Derek Chauvin Murder Conviction and Sentencing

and broadcast to the country. Former police officer Derek Chauvin displayed no reaction, but outside the heavily fortified and guarded courthouse, the crowd erupted at the announcement of the jury's verdict of guilt on all three counts, and jury convicted Chauvin of all three charges second degree murder, third degree murder, and second degree manslaughter for cutting off Floyd's air supply on May as he lay handcuffed and pleading for mercy.

The verdict, reached after less than eleven hours of deliberation, came eleven months after the graphic footage of Chauvin Floyd went viral. The conviction could mean decades in prison for the forty five year old Chauvin. Joining me as former federal prosecutor Robert Mints, a partner Ma Carter in English? What's your reaction to this? What I would call a quick verdict and slam dung for the prosecution. It was

a very quick verdict. Usually jurors take their time to methodically go through all of the evidence that is presented before them during the trial, even if they know at the beginning of their deliberation how this might end. So this was a very quick verdict given the amount of evidence and the complexity of the scientific and expert testimony that the jurors heard. But at the same time, it's

not It's hardly a surprise. I think those nine and a half minutes that videotape was really the star witness for the prosecution. It was the most compelling evidence and ultimately, I think was so seared into the minds of jurors that it was very difficult for the defense to overcome. Bob, is there any conflict in finding guilty on all three of the charges where there is a depraved mind but also intent to commit a felony? Is there any kind of internal inconsistency? I don't think so. All three of

them required different levels of recklessness. None of them required an intense to murder. The second degree murder charge, which is the most serious charge, required an intense to commit assault or a felony, which was in this case was a sault. And in this case they found that the the officer, Officer Shovin, had intended to commit an assault on George Floyd, and that that substantially led to his death.

The other charges are sort of lesser included offenses in the sense that they require less of a tie between the conduct of the officer and the death. Their more recklessness and neglige, and they were thrown in there by the prosecution in case they could not get jurorsy and unanimously agree that the conduct of the officer was in fact a criming of itself, that he assaulted George Floyd.

And those other charges were there because they would allow the jurors to still convict even if they did not find that there was an intent to commit a felony

by former officers. Chauvin. What testimony stood out in the prosecution's case, Well, the prosecution had a case that was really fairly straightforward, and I think the video tape was the best and most compelling evidence for them that nine and a half minutes where you saw former officers Chauvin kneeling on the neck of George Floyd was something that

was very, very difficult to watch. The defense tried to shift the focus of jurors on to all the events that led up to that particular moment where they were subduing him for nine and a half minutes. The defense tried to play up the fact that police officers are subject to situations that are inherently difficult to predict, their dangerous.

You don't always know what a defendant is going to do during the course of an arrest, and trying to convince jurors that the conduct was reasonable, but that video was difficult to overcome the visual image of kneeling i George Floyd's neck while a crowd gathered and people started to hold up their cell phones at videotape what was going on? Sensing that something there was very wrong. I think that was just too much for jurors to ignore the fact that the blue wall sort of collapsed in

this trial. Do you think this verdict will have an impact on other trials or in real life? I think that it will. We have to be mindful of fact that most police officers act within the law that they

use only reasonable force when arresting individuals. But in this case, the conduct was so egregious that even officers was in the Minnesota Police Department could not come to after Chauvin's defense, I think there was a lot of pressure, public pressure that was being brought to bear on the department, and it was necessary that they step up and testify as they felt was accurate and reasonable in terms of whether

or not the police conduct was defensible. And in this case, the officers who testified and they have the prosecution clearly crossed that line. As you said, they crossed the blue line. They testified for the prosecution saying that the conduct of their former colleague was unreasonable. It then became a battle of the experts as to whether or not that unreasonable

conduct substantially led to George Floyd's death. You know, since before the trial, the defense has been stacking up different kinds of objections, and so it seems as if there'll be a lot of issues for appeal. Yeah, there always are appeals in criminal cases. It never happens that someone goes to trial and doesn't try to appeal. That can action.

It's almost automatically something that is taken up because there are so many judgment calls that are made during the course of the trial, in terms of jury instructions, in terms of what evidence is admitted and not admitted. There are always issues that they can take up on appeal in this case. You know, for example, there's a question whether or not think jury should have been moved outside of downtown Minneapolis, but there should have been a change

of venue. Could officer show and have gotten a fair trial in front of jurors from downtown Minneapolis. You know, that's gonna be one issue certainly that we can expect to see. Thanks Bob. That's Robert Mints of McCarter in English. Coming up next, possible sentences for Derek Chauvin. The jury convicted Chauvin on all three charges, a conviction that could mean decades in prison for the forty five year old

Chauvin when he's sentenced in eight weeks. Joining me is former republic defender Krista Groshek, managing attorney of Gross Check Law in Minneapolis. So what do you think was the biggest factor in a verdict? Well, I think it all came down to the number of experts, the credibility of the experts, and the intensity of that expert testimony. I mean, the States presented a number of experts as it relates to the use of force, and then they presented additional

experts as it related to causation. And I think that while Tobin is a I believe a breathing expert or a lung doctor, a pulminologist, he gave some really good testimony that really broke things down for the jury and they could clearly understand its point. You know, there was also a fair amount of emotion too, as it related to what the bystanders thought and saw and felt at the time. So I think the States had a lot of things working for them in their favor, and it

all came together during the course of the trial. And again, you never know what this is gonna look like until people sit down and start talking, and you know, you make arguments and exhibits go in. I think it all just kind of sell their way. Is it unusual that they were able to come to a decision so quickly on these three different charges? What do you think happened

back there? If I had to guess, which obviously I am the feedback I've gotten from juries is that when there's a situation where there's a top count and then a middle and then a lower count, if they find that the defendant is guilty on the top count, then everything goes like a like a line of dominoes. Right, they don't bother getting into the analysis of the lower counts, because that they've decided that he's guilty on the top counts, then it just flows that he's guilty on the other

accounts as well. What kind of sentence is Chauvin facing, Well, what's not great for him is that while the murder two and murder three each carry that hundred and fifty months mandatory minimum, the maximum on murder two is forty years versus twenty five on three, and ten on the man's laughter too. So potentially he's looking at because the top count is the governing count, right, and it will be the governing sent the other charges will merge for

the purposes of sentencings. It's a prosecution and successful and it's did for an aggravated sentence and upload departure to go to prison for forty years. I thought the Minnesota sentencing guidelines recommended twelve and a half years for each murder charge they do so for murder three and murder two. Of the mandatory minimum sentence for both is that twelve and a half years, that hundred and fifty months. However, the prosecution can say, judge, don't give him a guideline sentence.

This was much more egregious on your typical case. And here's all the reasons why we heard information about how you know police officers are considered to be in a position of trust and authority, that there were children present in the area. And I expect the prosecution will have a very lengthy list of factors as to why they believe the judge should give him more than that hundred and fifty months. And with that top count that murder too, they have up to forty years. I mean, the prosecution

can ask for double triple. We see that happening up their amount in terms of departures. You know, they laugh for the maximum sentence. Do you think the judge here is likely to give a sentence like that. I think the judge will give it a lot of thought. I think it's very likely that Judge Cahill was seriously entertained um that possibility. Judge Cahill isn't afraid to sentence people um to terms of imprisonments that are longer than the

guidelines that he believed that that's recommended. What we didn't see here is a Blakely or a sentencing jury and panel. Typically speaking, if there's a finding of guilt, then the defendant can said, like to have my Blakely hearing now. And it's my understanding that um that either isn't going to happen, or that that Blakely issue was waived and

Judge Cahill is going to make that decision. Typically speaking, juries really don't have a sense for whether or not there's aggravating factors because it was bad enough for them to convict, and they don't have a sense of other cases that you know, go in and out of that courthouse and what the typical case is. So it's not unusual for a defendant to waive that sentencing jury and argue those issues to the court. The defense almost from the beginning was raising issues that seemed like there will

be a pellet issues. Do you see a lot of a pellet issues here? I said, a ton of a pellet issues here. I mean everything from the initial requests for change of venue. Um to the settlement issues that we saw surfacing early on right in a sparing with jury selection, we have the issues of process storial misconduct. The desfense frequently complained and we saw this during the trial.

I just got this right, or oh I don't have the amended exhibit right, or oh they gave us discovery in what they were calling discovery soup right where everything was a mess and so the new information that they were disclosing couldn't be found. There's also the issue of the Brooklyn Center police officer who got charged with second degree man. Slaughter says she was reaching for her chaser,

reached for her gun. Um, there was a request of what you the jury the judge that no said no, There was NUMSUS requests for miss Trow and there was a last request even I believe after closing arguments occurred based upon um the very public words of California Representative Maxine Waters, who was saying that a jury a Furson acquittal, Um, you know, people should take to the streets and protests,

which could amount to jury intimidation. On one hand, said hey, you may have a good appeal issue there, but then denied the miss trout on the ground that well, nobody listens to you know, a representative from California. UM. So, I think there's just a number of things that children

can appeal. We can even look at that reinstatement at the third degree murder charge that Judge Cahill was red sent to put in place that overturned centuries worth of decisions, that that you can't use that charge in the way it was used here in this case. So I think Chauvin has you know, a number of issues to contest for his appeal, and you know that doesn't even take into account the typical appellate issues that are existing now on the day of COVID and maths and separation and

can't see people's faces. I mean, there's a lot here that he can make hay with down the road. Will this trial in any way affect the trot the upcoming trial of the three other police officers, I mean, will there be any kind of plea deals offered? Now? Perhaps the defense attorneys will consult their clients and say, hey, you know, this is how it went down with regard to Mr Chauvin. I don't know how co ordinated um

the defense attorneys are with regard to sharing experts. Um, I know that the defense attorneys representing the three other individuals are seasoned, accomplished, very dynamic characters that may have in fact sought off their own experts and pursue the case in a much different fashion, knowing of course, that their clients are situated much differently, right, and and much of money of them being rookies, many of them not calling the shots with Chauvin. You know the main guy

on the scene. Thanks Krista. That's Krista Groschek of Groschek Law. In Battle. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is now the subject of four investigations. The latest is an investigation by the New York State Attorney General, Letitia James into Cuomo's use of state resources for his book American Crisis Leadership Lessons from the COVID nineteen Pandemic. Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado. So Pat tell us about this

latest investigation. Well, Cuomo allegedly, according to The New York Times, you stafford to help write and do edit and make copies on his book. So the New York Times suggested that there might be an impropriety there that government employee, and expenditures were made on government time for his purposes

of writing his book and getting his book published. So as results of that um, the New York Times wrote a story about it, and the New York State Controller recommended that this possibly be a new avenue to investigate Kama and if there was anything improper, did he suggest

that to the attorney general. Basically, he authorized the opening of an investigation the big controller, the state controller has to recommend that the Attorney General investigates, so he authorized her to launch an inquiry into whether state resources were used for Cuomo's pandemic book. I assume that a lot of people at work have things copied, and if you have an assistant, you have an assistant copy some personal things.

Is it that picky you know what they're talking about, or is it much more well, it depends on who you're talking to. I mean, the Times and some of the employees were alleging that this was work that was done during office hours and it was unseemly and improper. Now the governor has claimed that this was minor work,

It was incidental. It was people who volunteered to copy edit and look over, you know, look at a draft of a chapter and that this didn't merit any kind of possible you know, there wasn't in any kind of flagrant violation of any state laws or any violations of impropriety. And in fact, the governor his staff came out with a very strong comment after this happened, and they actually his spokesman Rich as a Party said, we've officially jumped

a shark. The idea that there was criminality involved here is patently observed on a space and it's just furthering of a political pylon. So it depends on who you're looking for. But you know, there's a series of avenues

of investigation that that the governor is subject to. So he's being looked at for possible sexual harassment and at work as the governor by a impeachment committee formed by the state Assembly, and he's also the subject of a separate investigation being conducted by a law firm by Latitia James, the attorney General. And then he's also been investigated for alleged in the States and proprieties involving possible misreporting of

nursing home depths last year during the pandemic. So you know, it just seems to show that Chromo isn't walking away anytime soon from allegations of impropriety. You know, in his actions, I guess he's opened himself up to possible claims that he has improperly used his job. And this is just another one. Do we know where those other investigations stand right now? You know, I think that this is in for a long haul. It's unclear how long the investigation

is going to take. What is clear is it's probably going to take a long time. And the reason I say this is because Latitia James, the Attorney General, when she did an investigation of what happened with the nursing home death, she started it in March of last year and it it finally came out in January. So is a month long process. And these things are pretty detailed.

So it's unclear how long it will take. But you know, certainly a federal investigation of the nursing home reporting that is being done by the Eastern District of New York and Brooklyn and the FBI, that's likely to take a very long time. And we do know that the impeachment investigation that's being done for the State Assembly, they said that it could take months, and so they're on the record same month. I imagine it's going to be a

while before we hear anything. But they've also said that this is another element that is going to be investigated by both the Impeachment Assembly and investigation as well as now Kiss James is going to start one. So it seems like Cuomo is just going to try to ride the whole thing out. Yeah, and in meantime, he's it looks like Pomo might end up being like a political pinata here. Do we know how much he made for this book. It was at the height of his popularity

during COVID that he made the deal. He will not say how much he earns, but he said that everybody has constantly asked him about his taxes, and he's released his tax information. So he calls this Albany politics at its worst, and he says that the Controller and the a G have spoken to people about running for governor and it's unethical for them to wield criminal referral authority

for their political self interests. So you can see that he's calling this out that claiming this is all just payback for people who possibly want to run for Thanks Pat, that's Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado. And that's it for the edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news on a Bloomberg Law podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at

www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg