We’re at Closing Arguments in the Chauvin Trial. Here’s Exactly What The Jury Must Now Decide.
What do the separate charges actually mean, and could Derek Chauvin really skate free or with few consequences?
As the trial of Derek Chauvin draws to a close, with both sides now set to give their closing arguments, it’s a good time to review what the jury must soon deliberate and decide.
Chauvin is charged with three counts. The two murder counts are for second degree unintentional felony murder and third degree murder (a count that was added and fought over up to the Appeals court in Minnesota). The manslaughter count is in the second degree. What would the jury need to decide as to each to find him guilty?
Under Minnesota law, to find a defendant guilty of second degree unintentional felony, the jury must conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin caused Floyd’s death while committing or trying to commit a felony—in this case, third-degree assault. That carries a prison term of up to 40 years if he’s convicted.
For third degree murder, the jury would need to find that Floyd’s death was caused by an act that was obviously dangerous, though not necessarily a felony. That carries a lighter maximum sentence of up to 25 years.
For the manslaughter charge, they’d have to find that Chauvin acted with “culpable negligence” by creating an “unreasonable risk,” one that “consciously takes chances of causing death” to another. That charge carries a 41 to 57 month sentence.
For each of these potential sentences, the fact that Chauvin does not have a record likely will mitigate for a lower sentence, perhaps substantially lower. (We’ll cross the sentencing bridge if and when we get to it.)
On the question of whether Chauvin is guilty or innocent, each of these three charges boils down to two key questions: Did Chauvin cause Floyd’s death, and were Chauvin’s actions nonetheless reasonable?
We’ve seen the two sides argue over causation, with the prosecution putting on witnesses who testified that Floyd died due to Chauvin’s knee on his neck for over nine minutes causing asphyxiation and heart failure, while the defense argued that Floyd died due to his having taken fentanyl and methamphetamine alongside existing health conditions. Most observers believe the state has the better case here. This is because under the law prosecutors do not have to prove that Chauvin was the sole cause of Floyd’s death—only that his conduct was a “substantial causal factor.” It is hard (though not impossible) to deny that reality.
The question of reasonableness is a far harder one because it is in many ways squishier. The reasonableness standard that the jury will be instructed to apply derives from the point of view of a reasonable officer under the circumstances, a rule laid out by the Supreme Court unanimously back in 1984 in Graham v. Connor. Police officers, it is often argued, have to make split-second decisions of life and death. Because of the danger police often find themselves in, many police homicide defendants have successfully used the Graham standard to achieve an acquittal, the most infamous perhaps being the four LAPD officers whose beating of Rodney King was captured on video. Chauvin’s attorney will seek to argue that police officers in Chavin’s shoes would have found what he did reasonable; to rebut this, the prosecution has put on many witnesses, including from Chauvin’s own force, who testified that what he did was not reasonable or acceptable, especially because Chauvin was not in any danger whatsoever.
The entire system feels on trial here because if a jury were to conclude that Chauvin acted reasonably from the perspective of a police officer (e.g. that Floyd could have risen up and grown violent suddenly due to his size or the drugs Chauvin allegedly believed Floyd was on) or that somehow Chauvin was not a “substantial causal factor” in the death of Floyd, despite video evidence and the testimony of medical professionals, then it becomes hard to imagine future circumstances where a police officer would ever be held accountable. That was the deep-seated sense of injustice that ignited the L.A. riots in 1992 over the acquittal of the officers who beat Rodney King.
The Chauvin jury is anonymous and walled off from reporters and the public, and court watchers are genuinely split as to how they are likely to rule. By law, the ruling must be unanimous, which means that a holdout juror or two could cause the entire jury to hang, or more likely through persistence could cause more serious charges (such as murder) to fail—the unmistakable message being that this wasn’t actually murder and therefore Chauvin will serve very little time for it.
To many, the fundamental question is whether Chauvin will get away with a murder that happened before their very eyes. For an answer to that, America now must await a decision by the jury. It is one that will have far-reaching and profound social consequence no matter what the outcome.