As Brother Malcolm used to say, “Make it plain.”

Even though I’ve been a trial attorney for over 25 years and even though I specialize in complex murder cases- including death penalty litigation, I’m not gonna use convoluted multi-syllabic legal jargon in this law-based article. Instead, in very basic terms, I’m gonna break down what happened and will (or is likely to) happen in connection with State vs. Derek Chauvin, No. 27-CR-20-12646. In other words, I’m gonna make it plain.

Every state, obviously including Minnesota, has something called rules of criminal procedure. And that’s the starting point when dealing with felony criminal court proceedings. For purposes of this article, I’ll discuss Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure 24 and 26 through 29:

 

Rule 24 Venue: The public sometimes confuses venue with jurisdiction. The difference is venue pertains to the county where the alleged crime took place and jurisdiction pertains to the state. By the way, in this article, I will no longer use the word “alleged” in regard to murderous Derek Chauvin and that’s because there’s nothing “alleged” about it. It’s irrefutable. It’s undeniable.

Since Chauvin murdered innocent, unarmed, defenseless, handcuffed, and prostrate George Floyd in the city of Minnesota, which is in Hennepin County, the trial had to take place in that county. As Rule 24.01 makes clear, “The case must be tried in the county where the offense was committed unless these rules direct otherwise.”

After Chauvin sadistically, maliciously, coldheartedly, and mercilessly murdered Floyd on May 25, 2020, Chauvin’s lawyer argued for a change of venue due to what he claimed was overwhelming pretrial publicity. But his requests were denied on Nov. 5, 2020 and March 19, 2021.

The trial judge easily denied the first request because, one, the trial legally had to take place somewhere in the jurisdiction of Minnesota and, two, as he wrote “No corner of the State of Minnesota has been shielded from pretrial publicity regarding the death of George Floyd. Because of that pervasive media coverage, a change of venue is unlikely to cure the taint of potential prejudicial pretrial publicity.”

But the judge’s denial of the second request could wind up being quite troublesome on appeal. And, in my personal opinion, here’s why. It’s because a flock (technically a “wake”) of money-grubbing, revolution-suppressing vultures (who could also be described as a gang of greedy, sellout vampires or a mob of avaricious traitorous parasites) held a totally unnecessary international press conference on March 18 grinning uncontrollably about their hefty fees from a $27 million monetary settlement that included absolutely no consent decree or injunctive relief for substantive and immediate transformation (or even reform) of the notoriously brutal Minneapolis Police Department.

They all stood there dressed in custom made suits/costumes pretending to be social change attorneys and Christ-like pastors while actually doing nothing but commodifying Black death by profiting from police murder of our people instead of ending police murder of our people. Because of that destructively unnecessary press conference publicizing a historic monetary settlement, which implies guilt by the city in connection with Chauvin as a city employee, he’ll argue on appeal that the trial should’ve been moved to another city in the state immediately following that “unduly prejudicial” press conference.

I should mention that the judge’s potentially erroneous denial of Chauvin’s change of venue request in connection with the lawyers and pastors’ self-promoting press conference circus is nothing like the judge’s proper denial of Chavin’s change of venue request regarding Honorable “Auntie” Congressperson Maxine Waters’ necessary public statement about necessary community confrontation if Chauvin were to have been acquitted. It’s different because she wasn’t a lawyer involved in the case and because what she said had no contractual or otherwise formal relationship to city officials.

But I digress. Now back to the rules of criminal procedure.

Rule 26.01 Subdivision (1)(a) Trial by Jury: A defendant has a right to a jury trial for any offense punishable by incarceration.

 
 

Rule 26.02 Jury Selection: Following unlimited “challenges for cause” (which mean for solid legal reasons) and no more than five “peremptory challenges” (which mean for bad personal vibes based on non-discriminatory reasons) for the defense and no more than three for the prosecution, a jury of twelve plus two or sometimes three alternates is empaneled.

Rule 26.03 Procedures During Trial: After all the jurors are selected, there is, chronologically, opening statements, prosecution’s case-in-chief, which means direct examination of its first witness and cross examination by the defense, then the second witness with direct examination and cross examination by the defense and so on until all the prosecution witnesses are called to the stand. Upon conclusion of direct and cross examination of the prosecution’s final witness, the prosecution rests.

If the defense attorney has a legal basis, he or she, pursuant to Subdivision 18, will raise a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, which means he or she claims the prosecution’s case is so weak that the judge should throw it out without the case proceeding any further. Because such motions are unsuccessful over 99 percent of the time, the defense, in its case-in-chief, then calls his or her first witness. He or she does direct examination followed by the prosecution doing cross examination. After the defense attorney’s final witness finishes, the defense rests.

The prosecution and the defense then meet with the judge in private to decide what the jurors will be told when they are instructed about the law by the judge.

Once that’s done, closing arguments take place with the prosecution going first and the defense going second. And the prosecution is allowed a final rebuttal if he or she wants it.

The judge then instructs the jury. The jury goes into a room to select a foreperson and to deliberate. And it reaches a unanimous verdict of guilty or a unanimous verdict of not guilty or there’s a hung jury, which means a mistrial and the probable scheduling of a new trial.

Rule 26.04 Post-Verdict Motions: Within 15 days after a guilty verdict, a defense attorney can file a motion seeking a new trial based on any one of several different grounds including, but not limited to, “the interests of justice” or “irregularity in the proceedings” or “prosecutorial misconduct.” You can bet that the change of venue issue stemming from that clownish and unwarranted $27 million press conference will be front and center in Chauvin’s post-verdict new trial motion. Gee, thanks, publicity-loving prostituting lawyers and camel/eye-of-the-needle fake clergymen!

Rule 27.03 Sentencing Proceedings: If the post-verdict motion is denied, the defendant is sentenced. Chauvin was found guilty of second-degree murder (Section 609.19), third-degree murder (Section 609.195), and second-degree manslaughter (Section 609.205), which, respectively, carry a maximum sentence of 40 years, 25 years, and 10 years. That means a total of 75 years in state prison for this 45-year-old viciously callous murderer. But that’s only if he’s sentenced to the max “consecutively” on all three charges, meaning do all 40 then all 25 then all 10. Or it means 40 if he’s sentenced to the max “concurrently” on the lead second-degree murder charge, meaning while he’s doing the 40, he’s also at the same time doing the 25 and the 10.

However, he’ll probably be sentenced to only a 10-15 year concurrent range based on Minnesota’s sentencing guidelines for first-time offenders convicted of second-degree murder. But Chauvin shouldn’t necessarily bet on that. Here’s why. As a result of a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court case known as Blakely v. Washington, the prosecution can seek an “upward departure” from the sentencing guidelines and ask the the judge to throw the book at Chauvin due to a number of factors, including, but not limited to, children being exposed to the murder, the murder being committed with particular cruelty, and the abuse of police authority.

Rule 28.02, Subdivision 4(3) Appeals to Court of Appeal: Chauvin has 90 days from his sentencing date to file an appeal in writing to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. He’ll definitely raise the same venue issue (and other issues) he raised in his Post-Verdict Motion.

Rule 29.04 Subdivisions 1 and 2 Appeals from Court of Appeal: An appeal — actually a “petition for review,” which is a request to be allowed to even file an appeal — to the Minnesota Supreme Court is permitted only if it is filed within 30 days from a denial by the Court of Appeals. However, that petition will be summarily rejected by the Minnesota Supreme Court, like all state Supreme Courts (as well as the U.S. Supreme Court) do, if it concludes that a litigant’s appellate issue is not exceptionally important enough. In other words, if a trial judge committed errors, most trial errors are not considered important enough for Supreme Courts to view them as reversible errors- especially when there’s overwhelming, irrefutable, and undeniable evidence of guilt.

 
Michael Coard, Esquire can be followed on Twitter, Instagram, and his YouTube Channel as well as at AvengingTheAncestors.com. His “Radio Courtroom” show can be heard on WURD96.1FM. And his “TV Courtroom” show can be seen on PhillyCAM/Verizon Fios/Comcast.