Question for legal experts on DU

[magicksmom]

Why is the fact that George Floyd and Derek Chauvin knew each other and had a contentious working relationship not being included in the case against Chauvin? Thanks in advance.

[Quemado]

1. I'm not a legal expert, but

it’s possible that during pre-trial discovery, or through some rule or regulation, the judge told both sides that any prior interactions between Floyd and Chauvin could not be brought up in the trial. Chauvin is facing three charges: second degree unintentional felony murder, third degree “depraved mind” murder, and second degree manslaughter. Any prior interactions would imply some kind of degree of pre-meditation, which is usually an element of first degree murder. Chauvin was not charged with first degree murder.

Anyway, that’s my two cents. I’m not a lawyer.

[Ocelot II]

2. Because the only way to get that information before the jury

would be for Chauvin to testify, and he is not at all likely to do that. Testimony by other witnesses who worked at the club would probably be ruled inadmissible as hearsay, an out-of-court statement made in court to prove the truth of an assertion. For example, if the manager of the club said Floyd told her that he didn't like Chauvin or that they'd had an argument, that would be hearsay. Floyd can't verify that statement because he's dead. If she claimed Chauvin told her he didn't like Floyd, that would also be hearsay; it can't be verified because Chauvin is not required to testify at all.

Anyhow, its relevance is dubious because during the incident neither Chauvin nor Floyd said anything or behaved in a way suggesting they knew each other, and in any event motive doesn't have to be proved since Chauvin hasn't been charged with premeditated murder.

[rsdsharp]

7. I respectfully disagree, to an extent. What Floyd said might well be hearsay.

However, it could fall within an exception, such as an excited utterance. The fact that they argued wouldn’t be hearsay. First, it doesn’t necessarily require that the words be used in the testimony. Second, it wouldn’t be offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. For instance, if Floyd called Chauvin a bastard, it would be offered to show Floyd was angry, and argued with Chauvin, not that Chauvin’s parents weren’t married.

Finally, Chauvin’s statements would be statements against his interest, which are by definition not hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801D(2)2a. I’m sure that Minnesota has a virtually identical rule of evidence.

[Ocelot II]

9. Maybe so. The Minnesota rules are substantially the same as the federal ones.

What might have been hearsay is a statement by a witness repeating something Floyd had told her about Chauvin - "That guy wants to kill me," for example, though if a witness had seen or heard them arguing that wouldn't be hearsay. I agree that certain statements by Chauvin, had there been any (which isn't clear), could be admitted under rule 801. But I didn't take the time to analyze the issue in detail because the charges against Chauvin don't require proof of motive or premeditation and therefore wouldn't be relevant anyhow.

He's charged with second-degree felony murder, third-degree depraved mind murder, and second-degree manslaughter, none of which require evidence of a particular motive. Furthermore, the person who told the media last summer that Chauvin and Floyd didn't get along when they worked at the nightclub has since retracted that claim. So the evidence probably would have been excluded on the basis of relevance even if admissible under the hearsay rules. The prosecution would have mentioned it in the opening argument if they thought it was both useful and admissible.

[rsdsharp]

11. Good points.

[FBaggins]

3. None of the charges require prosecutors to prove intent

And thus any underlying motivation might become relevant on sentencing... but not at this point.

[Quemado]

4. Also, the man who said Lloyd and Chauvin worked together changed his story.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/george-floyd-derek-chauvin-nightclub-bumped-heads-changes-story/

So, there is some question as to whether the two knew each other. If there were no prior interactions, there is nothing to be brought up during the trial.

[stillcool]

6. The woman who owned the place...

said they did work there at the same time, but the cop worked outside, and George worked inside, and she did not the think the two would have had much contact.

George Floyd and officer who knelt on his neck had worked at same nightclub, former owner says
The club's former owner said it appeared to her that Chauvin, who worked off duty on security, “was always very nervous,” especially on the venue’s “urban nights.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/george-floyd-officer-who-kneeled-his-neck-had-worked-same-n1217976

[LetMyPeopleVote]

5. If Chauvin takes the stand, this may come up

The prosecution does not need to prove motive for the charges in this case. I love the fact that the state is putting on a very clean and clear case. If Chauvin takes the stand, this and the other cases of misconduct by Chauvin will be used

[Ocelot II]

10. It is extremely unlikely that he will testify.

Anyhow, if the prosecution intends to introduce evidence that Chauvin and Floyd knew and disliked each other they would have brought it up in the opening statement. It's just not relevant because the charges against Chauvin don't require proof of motive or premeditation; whatever the reason is that Chauvin behaved as he did doesn't make any difference wrt the charges against him.

[bluestarone]

8. Good question. Another one that i would like answered is

Why is the defense allowed to talk about Floyds past, BUT the prosecution is NOT allowed to bring up Chauvin's past? Don't make sense to me.