Derek Chauvin Motions For New Trial

Minneapolis ex-cop Derek Chauvin was convicted of 2nd degree murder, 3rd degree murder, and 2nd degree manslaughter for killing George Floyd.  On April 30, 2021, state prosecutors and Chauvin’s defense attorney argued in separate filings whether certain conditions should be considered in Chauvin’s sentencing.  The prosecution’s filing argues 5 aggravated factors for consideration.  Chauvin is scheduled to be sentenced on June 16 or 25, 2021, depending on what source you read.   Chavin’s opposition for aggravating sentencing factors is linked here.

On May 4, 2021, Chauvin’s defense attorney filed a motion for a new trial.  The motion is linked here.

I noticed on Twitter that some of Chauvin’s supporters represent the motion is for a mistrial or dismissal, and their presentation is focused on a juror attending a protest.   Chauvin’s motion is for a new trial — a do-over.  According to the Minnesota Rules for Criminal Procedure, Post Verdict Motions;

“A motion for new trial must be based on the record. Pertinent facts that are not in the record may be submitted by affidavit, or statements signed under penalty of perjury pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, …”

To get the court to consider the juror, Chauvin must produce affidavits, or statements signed under penalty of perjury.  If I remember my teachings correctly, it cannot be hearsay.  In other words, the statement must come from the juror or someone with direct knowledge that the juror was biased against Chavin and dishonest in his juror questionnaire.  It must be signed under penalty of perjury.  I do not think that a video of the juror and a photo taken from social media will substitute for sworn testimony.   Of course, this is too long to put in a tweet.  Anyway, we shall see what the court decides.

Stay safe.  Wear a mask when out in public.  Get vaccinated for Covid-19.  Be blessed.


Posted on 05/05/2021, in Cases, George Floyd, Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 8 Comments.

  1. We knew he’d appeal. As soon as he was convicted some right-wingers were trying to agree the verdict should be overturned because of Maxine Waters, which was stupid. But I gotta admit, this seems like it would have a better chance for impact. I’m not a lawyer, but a juror having been at a BLM protest does seem like it would indicate bias.

    Liked by 1 person

    • J.R.,
      Indeed. Defense attorney Nelson tried getting a mistrial because of comments made by Waters. The prosecution countered by requesting the defense to present evidence, including that members of the jury heard her comments.

      Regarding the juror who came public, it is my opinion that one juror did not influence the other eleven. Considering that (1) Deliberation was short. (2) The jury did not contact the judge saying they could not reach a unanimous decision, which would have lead to instructions to go back and deliberate more. Of course, the court can deal with that juror if it decides to do so, but find that one juror is not relevant to grant Chauvin a new trial.


  2. I’m not surprised that he would appeal. I just hope that it doesn’t work and he still has to do the time for his crimes.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ospreyshire,
      Yes. Appeals are generally filed. I read defense attorney Nelson’s brief, and in my opinion, it runs short of facts that meet requirements for a new trial. I do think that Chauvin, as they say, will have the book thrown at him with sentencing.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Right. That sounds believable and I do hope the book is thrown at Chauvin. I also heard that Amber Guyger is trying to appeal, too.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Ospreyshire,
          Guyger’s appeal is strange. In 2019, she was sentenced to 10 years in prison. What she is asking for in her appeal is that the conviction be reduced to criminally negligent homicide which has a 2 year sentence. Guyger now argues that she killed Jean in self defense and she relies on Texas’ castle doctrine. That was argued at trial and during deliberation, the jury actually had a question about the castle doctrine.

          If you have 30 minutes, the below video is the appeal’s hearing. If the video does not appear, the URL is

          Liked by 1 person

Join the discussion

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: