Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: We the jury in the above entitled matter as to
Speaker 1: count one unintentional second degree murder while committing a felony,
Speaker 1: find the defendant guilty. This verdict agreed to this twentieth
Speaker 1: day of April PM. As that guilty verdict for the
Speaker 1: murder of George Floyd was read in the Minneapolis courtroom
Speaker 1: and broadcast to the country. Former police officer Derek Chauvin
Speaker 1: displayed no reaction, but outside the heavily fortified and guarded courthouse,
Speaker 1: the crowd erupted at the announcement of the jury's verdict
Speaker 1: of guilt on all three counts, and jury convicted Chauvin
Speaker 1: of all three charges second degree murder, third degree murder,
Speaker 1: and second degree manslaughter for cutting off Floyd's air supply
Speaker 1: on May as he lay handcuffed and pleading for mercy.
Speaker 1: The verdict, reached after less than eleven hours of deliberation,
Speaker 1: came eleven months after the graphic footage of Chauvin Floyd
Speaker 1: went viral. The conviction could mean decades in prison for
Speaker 1: the forty five year old Chauvin. Joining me as former
Speaker 1: federal prosecutor Robert Mints, a partner Ma Carter in English?
Speaker 1: What's your reaction to this? What I would call a
Speaker 1: quick verdict and slam dung for the prosecution. It was
Speaker 1: a very quick verdict. Usually jurors take their time to
Speaker 1: methodically go through all of the evidence that is presented
Speaker 1: before them during the trial, even if they know at
Speaker 1: the beginning of their deliberation how this might end. So
Speaker 1: this was a very quick verdict given the amount of
Speaker 1: evidence and the complexity of the scientific and expert testimony
Speaker 1: that the jurors heard. But at the same time, it's
Speaker 1: not It's hardly a surprise. I think those nine and
Speaker 1: a half minutes that videotape was really the star witness
Speaker 1: for the prosecution. It was the most compelling evidence and ultimately,
Speaker 1: I think was so seared into the minds of jurors
Speaker 1: that it was very difficult for the defense to overcome. Bob,
Speaker 1: is there any conflict in finding guilty on all three
Speaker 1: of the charges where there is a depraved mind but
Speaker 1: also intent to commit a felony? Is there any kind
Speaker 1: of internal inconsistency? I don't think so. All three of
Speaker 1: them required different levels of recklessness. None of them required
Speaker 1: an intense to murder. The second degree murder charge, which
Speaker 1: is the most serious charge, required an intense to commit
Speaker 1: assault or a felony, which was in this case was
Speaker 1: a sault. And in this case they found that the
Speaker 1: the officer, Officer Shovin, had intended to commit an assault
Speaker 1: on George Floyd, and that that substantially led to his death.
Speaker 1: The other charges are sort of lesser included offenses in
Speaker 1: the sense that they require less of a tie between
Speaker 1: the conduct of the officer and the death. Their more
Speaker 1: recklessness and neglige, and they were thrown in there by
Speaker 1: the prosecution in case they could not get jurorsy and
Speaker 1: unanimously agree that the conduct of the officer was in
Speaker 1: fact a criming of itself, that he assaulted George Floyd.
Speaker 1: And those other charges were there because they would allow
Speaker 1: the jurors to still convict even if they did not
Speaker 1: find that there was an intent to commit a felony
Speaker 1: by former officers. Chauvin. What testimony stood out in the
Speaker 1: prosecution's case, Well, the prosecution had a case that was
Speaker 1: really fairly straightforward, and I think the video tape was
Speaker 1: the best and most compelling evidence for them that nine
Speaker 1: and a half minutes where you saw former officers Chauvin
Speaker 1: kneeling on the neck of George Floyd was something that
Speaker 1: was very, very difficult to watch. The defense tried to
Speaker 1: shift the focus of jurors on to all the events
Speaker 1: that led up to that particular moment where they were
Speaker 1: subduing him for nine and a half minutes. The defense
Speaker 1: tried to play up the fact that police officers are
Speaker 1: subject to situations that are inherently difficult to predict, their dangerous.
Speaker 1: You don't always know what a defendant is going to
Speaker 1: do during the course of an arrest, and trying to
Speaker 1: convince jurors that the conduct was reasonable, but that video
Speaker 1: was difficult to overcome the visual image of kneeling i
Speaker 1: George Floyd's neck while a crowd gathered and people started
Speaker 1: to hold up their cell phones at videotape what was
Speaker 1: going on? Sensing that something there was very wrong. I
Speaker 1: think that was just too much for jurors to ignore
Speaker 1: the fact that the blue wall sort of collapsed in
Speaker 1: this trial. Do you think this verdict will have an
Speaker 1: impact on other trials or in real life? I think
Speaker 1: that it will. We have to be mindful of fact
Speaker 1: that most police officers act within the law that they
Speaker 1: use only reasonable force when arresting individuals. But in this case,
Speaker 1: the conduct was so egregious that even officers was in
Speaker 1: the Minnesota Police Department could not come to after Chauvin's defense,
Speaker 1: I think there was a lot of pressure, public pressure
Speaker 1: that was being brought to bear on the department, and
Speaker 1: it was necessary that they step up and testify as
Speaker 1: they felt was accurate and reasonable in terms of whether
Speaker 1: or not the police conduct was defensible. And in this case,
Speaker 1: the officers who testified and they have the prosecution clearly
Speaker 1: crossed that line. As you said, they crossed the blue line.
Speaker 1: They testified for the prosecution saying that the conduct of
Speaker 1: their former colleague was unreasonable. It then became a battle
Speaker 1: of the experts as to whether or not that unreasonable
Speaker 1: conduct substantially led to George Floyd's death. You know, since
Speaker 1: before the trial, the defense has been stacking up different
Speaker 1: kinds of objections, and so it seems as if there'll
Speaker 1: be a lot of issues for appeal. Yeah, there always
Speaker 1: are appeals in criminal cases. It never happens that someone
Speaker 1: goes to trial and doesn't try to appeal. That can action.
Speaker 1: It's almost automatically something that is taken up because there
Speaker 1: are so many judgment calls that are made during the
Speaker 1: course of the trial, in terms of jury instructions, in
Speaker 1: terms of what evidence is admitted and not admitted. There
Speaker 1: are always issues that they can take up on appeal
Speaker 1: in this case. You know, for example, there's a question
Speaker 1: whether or not think jury should have been moved outside
Speaker 1: of downtown Minneapolis, but there should have been a change
Speaker 1: of venue. Could officer show and have gotten a fair
Speaker 1: trial in front of jurors from downtown Minneapolis. You know,
Speaker 1: that's gonna be one issue certainly that we can expect
Speaker 1: to see. Thanks Bob. That's Robert Mints of McCarter in English.
Speaker 1: Coming up next, possible sentences for Derek Chauvin. The jury
Speaker 1: convicted Chauvin on all three charges, a conviction that could
Speaker 1: mean decades in prison for the forty five year old
Speaker 1: Chauvin when he's sentenced in eight weeks. Joining me is
Speaker 1: former republic defender Krista Groshek, managing attorney of Gross Check
Speaker 1: Law in Minneapolis. So what do you think was the
Speaker 1: biggest factor in a verdict? Well, I think it all
Speaker 1: came down to the number of experts, the credibility of
Speaker 1: the experts, and the intensity of that expert testimony. I mean,
Speaker 1: the States presented a number of experts as it relates
Speaker 1: to the use of force, and then they presented additional
Speaker 1: experts as it related to causation. And I think that
Speaker 1: while Tobin is a I believe a breathing expert or
Speaker 1: a lung doctor, a pulminologist, he gave some really good
Speaker 1: testimony that really broke things down for the jury and
Speaker 1: they could clearly understand its point. You know, there was
Speaker 1: also a fair amount of emotion too, as it related
Speaker 1: to what the bystanders thought and saw and felt at
Speaker 1: the time. So I think the States had a lot
Speaker 1: of things working for them in their favor, and it
Speaker 1: all came together during the course of the trial. And again,
Speaker 1: you never know what this is gonna look like until
Speaker 1: people sit down and start talking, and you know, you
Speaker 1: make arguments and exhibits go in. I think it all
Speaker 1: just kind of sell their way. Is it unusual that
Speaker 1: they were able to come to a decision so quickly
Speaker 1: on these three different charges? What do you think happened
Speaker 1: back there? If I had to guess, which obviously I
Speaker 1: am the feedback I've gotten from juries is that when
Speaker 1: there's a situation where there's a top count and then
Speaker 1: a middle and then a lower count, if they find
Speaker 1: that the defendant is guilty on the top count, then
Speaker 1: everything goes like a like a line of dominoes. Right,
Speaker 1: they don't bother getting into the analysis of the lower counts,
Speaker 1: because that they've decided that he's guilty on the top counts,
Speaker 1: then it just flows that he's guilty on the other
Speaker 1: accounts as well. What kind of sentence is Chauvin facing, Well,
Speaker 1: what's not great for him is that while the murder
Speaker 1: two and murder three each carry that hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: months mandatory minimum, the maximum on murder two is forty
Speaker 1: years versus twenty five on three, and ten on the
Speaker 1: man's laughter too. So potentially he's looking at because the
Speaker 1: top count is the governing count, right, and it will
Speaker 1: be the governing sent the other charges will merge for
Speaker 1: the purposes of sentencings. It's a prosecution and successful and
Speaker 1: it's did for an aggravated sentence and upload departure to
Speaker 1: go to prison for forty years. I thought the Minnesota
Speaker 1: sentencing guidelines recommended twelve and a half years for each
Speaker 1: murder charge they do so for murder three and murder two.
Speaker 1: Of the mandatory minimum sentence for both is that twelve
Speaker 1: and a half years, that hundred and fifty months. However,
Speaker 1: the prosecution can say, judge, don't give him a guideline sentence.
Speaker 1: This was much more egregious on your typical case. And
Speaker 1: here's all the reasons why we heard information about how
Speaker 1: you know police officers are considered to be in a
Speaker 1: position of trust and authority, that there were children present
Speaker 1: in the area. And I expect the prosecution will have
Speaker 1: a very lengthy list of factors as to why they
Speaker 1: believe the judge should give him more than that hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty months. And with that top count that murder too,
Speaker 1: they have up to forty years. I mean, the prosecution
Speaker 1: can ask for double triple. We see that happening up
Speaker 1: their amount in terms of departures. You know, they laugh
Speaker 1: for the maximum sentence. Do you think the judge here
Speaker 1: is likely to give a sentence like that. I think
Speaker 1: the judge will give it a lot of thought. I
Speaker 1: think it's very likely that Judge Cahill was seriously entertained
Speaker 1: um that possibility. Judge Cahill isn't afraid to sentence people
Speaker 1: um to terms of imprisonments that are longer than the
Speaker 1: guidelines that he believed that that's recommended. What we didn't
Speaker 1: see here is a Blakely or a sentencing jury and panel.
Speaker 1: Typically speaking, if there's a finding of guilt, then the
Speaker 1: defendant can said, like to have my Blakely hearing now.
Speaker 1: And it's my understanding that um that either isn't going
Speaker 1: to happen, or that that Blakely issue was waived and
Speaker 1: Judge Cahill is going to make that decision. Typically speaking,
Speaker 1: juries really don't have a sense for whether or not
Speaker 1: there's aggravating factors because it was bad enough for them
Speaker 1: to convict, and they don't have a sense of other
Speaker 1: cases that you know, go in and out of that
Speaker 1: courthouse and what the typical case is. So it's not
Speaker 1: unusual for a defendant to waive that sentencing jury and
Speaker 1: argue those issues to the court. The defense almost from
Speaker 1: the beginning was raising issues that seemed like there will
Speaker 1: be a pellet issues. Do you see a lot of
Speaker 1: a pellet issues here? I said, a ton of a
Speaker 1: pellet issues here. I mean everything from the initial requests
Speaker 1: for change of venue. Um to the settlement issues that
Speaker 1: we saw surfacing early on right in a sparing with
Speaker 1: jury selection, we have the issues of process storial misconduct.
Speaker 1: The desfense frequently complained and we saw this during the trial.
Speaker 1: I just got this right, or oh I don't have
Speaker 1: the amended exhibit right, or oh they gave us discovery
Speaker 1: in what they were calling discovery soup right where everything
Speaker 1: was a mess and so the new information that they
Speaker 1: were disclosing couldn't be found. There's also the issue of
Speaker 1: the Brooklyn Center police officer who got charged with second
Speaker 1: degree man. Slaughter says she was reaching for her chaser,
Speaker 1: reached for her gun. Um, there was a request of
Speaker 1: what you the jury the judge that no said no,
Speaker 1: There was NUMSUS requests for miss Trow and there was
Speaker 1: a last request even I believe after closing arguments occurred
Speaker 1: based upon um the very public words of California Representative
Speaker 1: Maxine Waters, who was saying that a jury a Furson acquittal, Um,
Speaker 1: you know, people should take to the streets and protests,
Speaker 1: which could amount to jury intimidation. On one hand, said hey,
Speaker 1: you may have a good appeal issue there, but then
Speaker 1: denied the miss trout on the ground that well, nobody
Speaker 1: listens to you know, a representative from California. UM. So,
Speaker 1: I think there's just a number of things that children
Speaker 1: can appeal. We can even look at that reinstatement at
Speaker 1: the third degree murder charge that Judge Cahill was red
Speaker 1: sent to put in place that overturned centuries worth of decisions,
Speaker 1: that that you can't use that charge in the way
Speaker 1: it was used here in this case. So I think
Speaker 1: Chauvin has you know, a number of issues to contest
Speaker 1: for his appeal, and you know that doesn't even take
Speaker 1: into account the typical appellate issues that are existing now
Speaker 1: on the day of COVID and maths and separation and
Speaker 1: can't see people's faces. I mean, there's a lot here
Speaker 1: that he can make hay with down the road. Will
Speaker 1: this trial in any way affect the trot the upcoming
Speaker 1: trial of the three other police officers, I mean, will
Speaker 1: there be any kind of plea deals offered? Now? Perhaps
Speaker 1: the defense attorneys will consult their clients and say, hey,
Speaker 1: you know, this is how it went down with regard
Speaker 1: to Mr Chauvin. I don't know how co ordinated um
Speaker 1: the defense attorneys are with regard to sharing experts. Um,
Speaker 1: I know that the defense attorneys representing the three other
Speaker 1: individuals are seasoned, accomplished, very dynamic characters that may have
Speaker 1: in fact sought off their own experts and pursue the
Speaker 1: case in a much different fashion, knowing of course, that
Speaker 1: their clients are situated much differently, right, and and much
Speaker 1: of money of them being rookies, many of them not
Speaker 1: calling the shots with Chauvin. You know the main guy
Speaker 1: on the scene. Thanks Krista. That's Krista Groschek of Groschek Law.
Speaker 1: In Battle. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is now the
Speaker 1: subject of four investigations. The latest is an investigation by
Speaker 1: the New York State Attorney General, Letitia James into Cuomo's
Speaker 1: use of state resources for his book American Crisis Leadership
Speaker 1: Lessons from the COVID nineteen Pandemic. Joining me is Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado. So Pat tell us about this
Speaker 1: latest investigation. Well, Cuomo allegedly, according to The New York Times,
Speaker 1: you stafford to help write and do edit and make
Speaker 1: copies on his book. So the New York Times suggested
Speaker 1: that there might be an impropriety there that government employee,
Speaker 1: and expenditures were made on government time for his purposes
Speaker 1: of writing his book and getting his book published. So
Speaker 1: as results of that um, the New York Times wrote
Speaker 1: a story about it, and the New York State Controller
Speaker 1: recommended that this possibly be a new avenue to investigate
Speaker 1: Kama and if there was anything improper, did he suggest
Speaker 1: that to the attorney general. Basically, he authorized the opening
Speaker 1: of an investigation the big controller, the state controller has
Speaker 1: to recommend that the Attorney General investigates, so he authorized
Speaker 1: her to launch an inquiry into whether state resources were
Speaker 1: used for Cuomo's pandemic book. I assume that a lot
Speaker 1: of people at work have things copied, and if you
Speaker 1: have an assistant, you have an assistant copy some personal things.
Speaker 1: Is it that picky you know what they're talking about,
Speaker 1: or is it much more well, it depends on who
Speaker 1: you're talking to. I mean, the Times and some of
Speaker 1: the employees were alleging that this was work that was
Speaker 1: done during office hours and it was unseemly and improper.
Speaker 1: Now the governor has claimed that this was minor work,
Speaker 1: It was incidental. It was people who volunteered to copy
Speaker 1: edit and look over, you know, look at a draft
Speaker 1: of a chapter and that this didn't merit any kind
Speaker 1: of possible you know, there wasn't in any kind of
Speaker 1: flagrant violation of any state laws or any violations of impropriety.
Speaker 1: And in fact, the governor his staff came out with
Speaker 1: a very strong comment after this happened, and they actually
Speaker 1: his spokesman Rich as a Party said, we've officially jumped
Speaker 1: a shark. The idea that there was criminality involved here
Speaker 1: is patently observed on a space and it's just furthering
Speaker 1: of a political pylon. So it depends on who you're
Speaker 1: looking for. But you know, there's a series of avenues
Speaker 1: of investigation that that the governor is subject to. So
Speaker 1: he's being looked at for possible sexual harassment and at
Speaker 1: work as the governor by a impeachment committee formed by
Speaker 1: the state Assembly, and he's also the subject of a
Speaker 1: separate investigation being conducted by a law firm by Latitia James,
Speaker 1: the attorney General. And then he's also been investigated for
Speaker 1: alleged in the States and proprieties involving possible misreporting of
Speaker 1: nursing home depths last year during the pandemic. So you know,
Speaker 1: it just seems to show that Chromo isn't walking away
Speaker 1: anytime soon from allegations of impropriety. You know, in his actions,
Speaker 1: I guess he's opened himself up to possible claims that
Speaker 1: he has improperly used his job. And this is just
Speaker 1: another one. Do we know where those other investigations stand
Speaker 1: right now? You know, I think that this is in
Speaker 1: for a long haul. It's unclear how long the investigation
Speaker 1: is going to take. What is clear is it's probably
Speaker 1: going to take a long time. And the reason I
Speaker 1: say this is because Latitia James, the Attorney General, when
Speaker 1: she did an investigation of what happened with the nursing
Speaker 1: home death, she started it in March of last year
Speaker 1: and it it finally came out in January. So is
Speaker 1: a month long process. And these things are pretty detailed.
Speaker 1: So it's unclear how long it will take. But you know,
Speaker 1: certainly a federal investigation of the nursing home reporting that
Speaker 1: is being done by the Eastern District of New York
Speaker 1: and Brooklyn and the FBI, that's likely to take a
Speaker 1: very long time. And we do know that the impeachment
Speaker 1: investigation that's being done for the State Assembly, they said
Speaker 1: that it could take months, and so they're on the
Speaker 1: record same month. I imagine it's going to be a
Speaker 1: while before we hear anything. But they've also said that
Speaker 1: this is another element that is going to be investigated
Speaker 1: by both the Impeachment Assembly and investigation as well as
Speaker 1: now Kiss James is going to start one. So it
Speaker 1: seems like Cuomo is just going to try to ride
Speaker 1: the whole thing out. Yeah, and in meantime, he's it
Speaker 1: looks like Pomo might end up being like a political
Speaker 1: pinata here. Do we know how much he made for
Speaker 1: this book. It was at the height of his popularity
Speaker 1: during COVID that he made the deal. He will not
Speaker 1: say how much he earns, but he said that everybody
Speaker 1: has constantly asked him about his taxes, and he's released
Speaker 1: his tax information. So he calls this Albany politics at
Speaker 1: its worst, and he says that the Controller and the
Speaker 1: a G have spoken to people about running for governor
Speaker 1: and it's unethical for them to wield criminal referral authority
Speaker 1: for their political self interests. So you can see that
Speaker 1: he's calling this out that claiming this is all just
Speaker 1: payback for people who possibly want to run for Thanks Pat,
Speaker 1: that's Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado. And that's it for
Speaker 1: the edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can
Speaker 1: always get the latest legal news on a Bloomberg Law podcast.
Speaker 1: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at
Speaker 1: www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law. I'm
Speaker 1: June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg