Chauvin didn’t speak to investigators or his supervisors after Floyd’s death

In a pretrial motion hearing Wednesday, Eric Nelson, Chauvin’s attorney, sought to block prosecutors from “questioning or commenting on Chauvin’s right to remain silent” before jurors, revealing for the first time that the former officer did not try to explain his version of the events that led to Floyd’s death to either his supervisors or officials with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, which immediately took over the investigation. Nelson said his client stood with the other three officers implicated in Floyd’s death — J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas K. Lane and Tou Thao — “when they gave the public safety kind of statement about what happened,” a statement that presumably was the basis of a controversial news release that initially claimed Floyd had died of a “medical incident.” Nelson implied Chauvin didn’t say anything then or later when he and the other officers were escorted to City Hall for further questioning. He said Chauvin requested an attorney, who arrived and advised him to remain silent under his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Nelson said he would not challenge the admissibility of any body-camera video that captured statements that Chauvin made before he was advised by an attorney to remain silent, and prosecutors agreed they would not mention Chauvin’s decision to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights. But prosecutors argued they have a right to mention Chauvin’s “statements of silence” up until he retained counsel — a move Nelson argued would be “improper.” Hennepin County District Court Judge Peter A. Cahill, who is overseeing the case, declined to issue a ruling, saying the court will deal with the issue when it comes up at trial. But he questioned whether Chauvin, because he was a police officer, was afforded additional legal protections since he was aware he was involved in a “critical incident” before he arrived at City Hall.

Judge warns prosecutors on ‘spark-of-life’ testimony

Prosecutors indicated last week that they plan to introduce “spark of life” witnesses, a move permitted under Minnesota legal statute that allows family or friends to be called to the stand before verdict deliberations in an attempt to humanize the victim. Several close Floyd associates, including brother Philonise Floyd and former girlfriend Courteney Ross, are listed among the hundreds of potential prosecution witnesses. Unlike everything else the jury will hear, the spark-of-life testimony isn’t evidence and will be tightly controlled by Cahill, who told prosecutors that he will impose a hard line on what these witnesses say about Floyd. The judge said he would allow friends and family to speak about how much they loved Floyd, but he said if they stray into talking about his character, it would “open the door” for Chauvin’s attorney to introduce evidence that has so far been ruled inadmissible — such as Floyd’s criminal history. “Mr. Floyd, in this case, is entitled to have the jury realize he was a human being. He was loved. He had a family. I agree with all of that,” Cahill said last week. The judge said he was “specifically concerned” about descriptions of Floyd as a “gentle giant” and barred the witnesses from saying that. “It may be true,” Cahill said. “[But] as soon as you start getting into propensity for violence or propensity for peacefulness, I think then we’re getting into character evidence and then that does open the door for the defense.” Cahill said he would probably allow those witnesses to address Floyd’s struggles with opioid addiction . Chauvin’s defense has argued that Floyd died of a drug overdose and underlying health conditions, and not from the pressure of the officer’s knee, and argued such testimony would allow them to present their own testimony about Floyd’s drug abuse — an issue Cahill said he would take up at trial.

Chauvin’s attorney is subtly trying to change his client’s image

The viral video of Chauvin, who is White, kneeling on Floyd’s neck as the 46-year-old Black man cried out for breath and his mother has made Chauvin one of the most notorious law enforcement figures in the country — his name and face in the news and on the streets of Minneapolis, where there are posters calling for him to be convicted. Last week, nearly every potential juror questioned spoke of having a negative or “strongly negative” view of the former officer, as he sat at a nearby conference table taking notes and rarely making eye contact. Chauvin’s presence in court is not unlike the image that was captured in the videos of Floyd’s death and the aftermath. Each morning, Chauvin stood ramrod straight to welcome Cahill into the courtroom. He has said nothing. Much of his face is obscured by a black mask that makes it difficult to discern his emotions. Jurors are likely to notice that Chauvin is smaller in person than he appears in the video, and he has lost weight. But on Thursday, after another potential juror spoke of how she could not get past the “hateful look” on Chauvin’s face in the viral video, there was a change. That afternoon, as parties in the courtroom introduced themselves to a new group of potential jurors, Nelson introduced Chauvin, who stood and removed his mask to silently nod at the group — the first time he had done so all week. It was a subtle gesture in a courtroom where the theater of how people look and behave can be as influential as the evidence.

Jurors will hear that Chauvin was fired, but not why

Prosecutors successfully sought to exclude “any argument, evidence or testimony” regarding the Minneapolis Police Department’s “decision-making” that led to the firing of Chauvin and the other three officers the day after Floyd’s death. Nelson has argued that his client was fired because of bias, not for cause, and that Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo caved to community pressure. Arradondo “made this decision based upon how he feared the community generally would react to this, that goes to bias,” Nelson said last week. Nelson hinted that the argument fits into a larger framing of the case in which he is expected to argue that the entire investigation into the circumstances that led to Floyd’s death was biased against his client — from the handling of the crime scene and evidence to Chauvin’s quick termination. Arradondo, who is expected to testify in the trial, has said he decided to fire the officers after reviewing evidence in the case, including the body-camera videos. But Arradondo, the city’s first Black police chief, also said he consulted with faith leaders, including Black clergy, and Mayor Jacob Frey before he made his final decision. Jerry Blackwell, a longtime trial attorney who is serving as one of the lead prosecutors, argued the issue would bring “too much baggage” and ultimately was not relevant to the question of whether Chauvin’s use of force was a factor in Floyd’s death. Cahill granted the motion, saying both sides can say only that Chauvin was terminated. They would address any other issues during testimony, he said.

Hints of strategy and new revelations in first week of Derek Chauvin murder trial

By Holly Bailey

March 15, 2021 at 6:00 a.m. EDT

Citing last week's civil $27 million settlement, Judge Peter A. Cahill did not rule on these defense motions, proceeding with jury selection on March 15. (Video: The Washington Post)

MINNEAPOLIS — Legal twists and turns marked the first week of the murder trial of Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis police officer accused of killing George Floyd by kneeling on his neck for more than nine minutes during an investigation last year. A dispute over the reinstatement of a third-degree murder charge against Chauvin nearly stopped the trial before it started. Then, just before the proceedings recessed for the weekend, it was announced that the city had agreed to pay Floyd’s family $27 million to settle a wrongful-death lawsuit. Some observers say the development could result in a mistrial in Chauvin’s criminal case.

Get the full experience.Choose your plan

Seven jurors were seated last week — a faster-than-expected pace as the court seeks to impanel 12 jurors and up to four alternates. Beyond jury selection, there were also fresh revelations about the investigation into Floyd’s death and hints of strategy from both sides in the landmark case.