Are the Charges Against Derek Chauvin Appropriate?

Are the Charges Against Derek Chauvin Appropriate?

First a couple of disclaimers. Derek Chauvin hasn’t been convicted of anything, and like any criminal defendant he is presumed innocent until proven guilty. I respect that presumption of innocence and Mr. Chauvin’s constitutional rights to due process. Second, I am not a lawyer. I used to be a lawyer. I have a law degree and years of legal experience. I however never practiced criminal law. My analysis here is based on general principles of statutory interpretation and what I remember of criminal law from law school. For those of you who don’t want to read all that follows I’ll say here that my analysis of the legal issues around the charges brought against Chauvin leads me to believe that the Minnesota prosecutors made the right charging decisions. Now on to my analysis.

The Minneapolis police officer who killed Mr. George Floyd is named Derek Chauvin. He has been arrested and charged with third degree murder and second degree manslaughter. We hear people demanding that he be charged with first degree murder, a charge that under Minnesota law carries a mandatory life sentence. There are several considerations in analyzing these charges, both those made and those not made, of which most lay people may be unaware. Here are some of them.

To understand criminal charges we must understand some basic things about criminal law. The first is that the law is, in theory at least, thoroughly analytical and not emotional. What Chauvin may be criminally guilty of, or whether he is criminally guilty of anything, does not depend on the abhorrence with which we react to the video we’ve seen of what he did to Mr. Floyd. The prosecuting attorneys must approach this case analytically, rationally, in a way that may seem cold to the average layperson. So be it. That’s how it is with the law. That’s part of what it is to be trained to think like a lawyer.

Then we must understand that no act is criminal unless it falls under the specific language of a statute, that is, a written law enacted by a legitimate government, that makes the act criminal. People do awful things all the time and are never charged with a crime because no statute makes the thing the person did criminal. Because acts are criminal only if a statute makes them criminal the act in question must fit the specific language of a particular statute not some general concept of what constitutes a particular crime. The relevant statutes here are the Minnesota state criminal statutes.

Next, the prosecuting authority that brings a criminal charge against a person has the burden of proving every element of the crime charged as specified in a relevant statute in court beyond a reasonable doubt. A prosecuting attorney making a charging decision must be convinced that she can prove every element of a crime to that standard before bringing a specific criminal charge against any person.

Many criminal statutes specify different degrees of a particular criminal offense. In the case of one person causing the death of another person state criminal codes often specify different degrees of murder, usually first and second degree and sometimes third degree murder. Those codes also typically specify one or more degrees of a crime called manslaughter, which is typically a lower order of crime than murder. Manslaughter generally carries a lighter punishment than murder but is still a serious criminal offense. What each degree of a crime entails is entirely a matter of the specific wording of the relevant statutes and the way the appellate courts have resolved any legal issues that arise from that wording.

The criminal statutes of the state of Minnesota specify three degrees of murder and two degrees of manslaughter. All five crimes are serious felonies carrying significant possible prison sentences. In dealing with which of these crimes to charge Chauvin with the prosecuting attorney had to compare the available evidence at the time the charge was brought to the relevant Minnesota statutes, remembering always that the standard of proof in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt.[1] The prosecutor can file additional charges against Chauvin is new evidence warrants them.

These are the relevant Minnesota criminal statutes:

1.     Murder in the First Degree. The relevant portions of Minnesota statutes Section 609.185 provides that a person is guilty of murder in the first degree if the person “causes the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent to effect the death of the person or another.”

2.     Murder in the Second Degree. The relevant portions of Minnesota statutes Section 609.19 provide that a person is guilty of murder in the second degree if that person “causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation.”

3.     Murder in the Third Degree. Minnesota statutes Section 609.195(a) states: “Whoever without the intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree….”

4.     Manslaughter in the First Degree. Minnesota statutes Section 609.20 provides that a person is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree if that person “intentionally causes the death of another in the heat of passion provoked by such words or acts of another as would provoke a person of ordinary self-control under like circumstances….”

5.     Manslaughter in the Second Degree. Minnesota statutes Section 609.205 provides that a person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree if that person causes the death of another “by the person’s culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another.

Given that these are the potentially relevant criminal statutes, what are the facts that we know beyond a reasonable doubt? The prosecutors in this case may of course know more facts than we do, but I can only work here with the facts I know. We know for certain that Chauvin pressed his knee into Mr. Floyd’s neck when Mr. Floyd was flat on the pavement for more than eight minutes and that as a result of that act by Chauvin Mr. Floyd died. At the time of Chauvin’s actions against Mr. Floyd, Mr. Floyd was under arrest and was restrained by hand restraints. Three other Minneapolis police officers were present at the scene. One of more of them applied pressure to Mr. Floyd’s back, and none of the officers did anything to stop Chauvin from doing what he was doing to Mr. Floyd. At the present time we in the public know no other relevant facts.

Which of the Minnesota murder or manslaughter statutes apply or applies to these facts?

1.     We can quickly dispose of manslaughter in the first degree. There is no evidence that Chauvin acted “in the heat of passion” as that section of the law requires. The video of the subject incident shows Chauvin being perfectly calm and collected as he pressed his knee onto Mr. Floyd’s neck.

2.     Murder in the second degree requires that Chauvin have acted without premeditation but with intent to cause Mr. Floyd’s death. Intent can be very hard to prove. Proving it requires evidence of what was going on the defendant’s mind as he committed the criminal act in question. Did Chauvin intend to kill Mr. Floyd? We don’t know. Unless Chauvin said something like “I’m going to kill this son-of-a-bitch” as he applied pressure to Mr. Floyd’s neck it is probably not possible for the prosecutor in this case to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin intended to kill Mr. Floyd.

3.     Murder in the first degree is the charge we hear people saying Chauvin should be charged with. The Minnesota statute on first degree murder keeps the requirement of intent to cause death that is in the statute on second degree murder and adds the element of premeditation. The prosecutor would have to prove both premeditation and intent to convict Chauvin of first degree murder. We have already seen that the prosecutor probably couldn’t prove that Chauvin intended to kill Mr. Floyd. Failure to prove intent is itself enough to defeat a charge of first degree murder. Add the element of premeditation, that is, that Chauvin somehow planned at least some time in advance to kill Mr. Floyd, and the chances of convicting Chauvin of first degree murder become even more remote.

4.     Murder in the third degree is one of the charges the prosecutor has brought against Chauvin. A third degree murder charge does not require the prosecutor to prove that Chauvin intended to kill Mr. Floyd. Intent is explicitly not an element of third degree murder under the relevant Minnesota statute. The prosecution must first prove that Chauvin caused Mr. Floyd’s death “by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others.” That seems easy enough to prove in this case. Pressing your knee on someone’s neck for more than eight minutes is quite obviously eminently dangerous to anyone including Mr. Floyd. The third degree murder statute also requires the prosecution to prove that Chauvin’s act was “evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life.” This element could be harder to prove. There seems first of all to be a legal issue here. Does this part of the statute specify only one element of the crime or does it specify two? In other words, are having a depraved mind and acting without regard for human life the same thing or different things? Does acting without regard for human life establish by itself that the defendant had a depraved mind, or does proving a depraved mind require some other proof? I suspect that the Minnesota appellate courts have answered that question, but I’ve done no research to try to find out. It seems clear enough that Chauvin acted without regard for human life. If having a depraved mind is a separate element of the crime it might be harder to prove.

5.     Manslaughter in the second degree is the other charge the prosecutors have brought against Chauvin. This is almost certainly the easiest charge for the prosecutors to prove. There is a legal question in this statute about what “culpable” negligence is. Is it worse negligence than simple negligence such as could support a civil case for wrongful death? Probably, and the Minnesota appellate courts have probably specified what “culpable” means, or maybe it’s even defined by statute. I will assume for purposes of this analysis that a jury would find that Chauvin acted with “culpable negligence,” whatever that term may mean. Did Chauvin’s culpable negligence create an “unreasonable risk” and did he “consciously” take chances of causing Mr. Floyd’s death as this statute requires? I think it is clear that the prosecution can prove this element of manslaughter in the second degree.

This analysis of the relevant facts as we know them and the applicable Minnesota criminal statutes convinces me that the prosecuting attorneys in this case made the proper charging decisions. I know of no facts that would prove that Chauvin acted with intent to kill Mr. Floyd as required for both first and second degree murder. Nor do I think the prosecutors could prove premeditation as required for first degree murder.

The prosecution may well be able to prove third degree murder. That is a very serious felony. One convicted of it can be sentenced to prison for up to 25 years. The standard sentencing range for this crime is probably less than that, but if Chauvin is convicted of third degree murder he will spend many years locked up.

Second degree manslaughter is the charge of which Chauvin is most likely to be convicted. It too is a serious felony. A person convicted of it may be sentenced to up to ten years in prison. Once again the standard sentencing range is probably less than that, but even if second degree manslaughter is the only charge of which Chauvin is convicted he will be looking at a significant number of years behind bars.

---

[1] Jury instructions in criminal cases don’t typically define reasonable doubt. I’ve heard it defined as a doubt for which there is a reason. I guess that comes as close as anything to defining it.