Ruling could put 3rd-degree murder charge in play for ex-cop
At issue is whether the conviction of another former police officer in an unrelated case established a precedent for prosecutors to restore a third-degree murder charge against Derek Chauvin that the trial judge dismissed earlier.
The high court’s decision left open the possibility that the judge could add the charge back, lessening the chances that his trial would be delayed over the dispute.
Judge Peter Cahill noted the ruling during a break and told the prosecution and defense that they’ll discuss the issue Thursday morning before jury selection begins for the day. He noted that there are still some legal issues left to be decided before resolving that dispute.
During the second day of jury selection, attorneys probed potential jurors about their attitudes toward police, trying to determine whether they’re more inclined to believe testimony from law enforcement over evidence from other witnesses to the fatal confrontation.
Cahill seated two more jurors to go with the three picked Tuesday for Chauvin’s trial, which currently involves second-degree murder and manslaughter charges. It’s been a grinding process during which attorneys ask prospective jurors one by one whether they could keep an open mind, what they think of the criminal justice system and racial justice issues, how they resolve conflicts and much more.
The first juror picked Wednesday, a man who works in sales management and grew up in a mostly white part of central Minnesota, acknowledged saying on his written questionnaire that he had a “very favorable” opinion of the Black Lives Matter movement and a “somewhat unfavorable” impression of the Blue Lives Matter countermovement in favor of police, yet “somewhat agreed” that police don’t get the respect they deserve. He said he agrees that there are bad police officers.
“Are there good ones? Yes. So I don’t think it’s right to completely blame the entire organization,” he told the court under questioning from prosecutor Steve Schleicher.
He also said he would be more inclined to believe an officer, all things being equal, over the word of another witness. But he maintained he would be able to set aside any ideas about the inherent honesty of an officer and evaluate each witness on their own.
The second, a man who works in information technology security, marked “strongly agree” on a question about whether he believes police in his community make him feel safe. His community wasn’t specified — jurors are being drawn from all over Hennepin County, which includes Minneapolis and many of its suburbs.
“In my community, I think when there is suspicious activity the police will stop by, they will ask a question,” he said. “I think that sense of community is all we want right? We want to live in a community where we feel safe regardless of race, color and gender.”
Schleicher noted that the man also stated in questionnaire that he strongly disagreed with the concept of “defunding” the police, which has become a political flashpoint locally and across the country in the wake of Floyd’s death.
“While I necessarily might not agree with the police action in some situation, I believe that in order for police to make my community safe they have to have the money,” he replied.