Trial judge improperly refused to reinstate third-degree murder charge against Derek Chauvin, court rules

MINNEAPOLIS — The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Friday that a trial judge was wrong to refuse prosecutors’ request to add third-degree murder against former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, who is scheduled to go on trial Monday in the killing of George Floyd.

The court ruled that its Feb. 1 decision in an unrelated third-degree murder case set precedent that should apply to Chauvin’s case. The court overturned a ruling by Hennepin County District Judge Peter Cahill that rejected charging Chauvin with the count, and sent the prosecution’s request back to him for reconsideration.

“A precedential opinion of this court has immediate precedential effect,” wrote Court of Appeals Judge Michelle Larkin. “… Although parties, attorneys, district court judges, and the public may disagree with this court’s precedential decisions, district courts are bound to follow them. If it were otherwise, there would be uncertainty in the law and the integrity of our judicial system would be undermined.”

The ruling comes as Chauvin prepares to go on trial next week on seconddegree murder and manslaughter charges, and four days after the Court of Appeals heard oral arguments from prosecutors and Chauvin’s attorney, Eric Nelson, on the issue. It’s unclear what impact, if any, the ruling could have on the trial’s start date, although legal scholars said a delay is possible.

Cahill previously ruled that he did not have to reinstate the charge because the Court of Appeals’ February decision was not yet precedent due to a possible review of by the Minnesota Supreme Court.

“My head is spinning,” said Richard Frase, University of Minnesota law professor and co-director of the Robina Institute for Criminal Justice. “I’ve been a lawyer for 50 years and a Minnesota lawyer for 44 years and I’ve never seen a situation like this.”

Veteran attorneys and legal scholars have said adding third-degree murder to the case could be a strategic move by Attorney General Keith Ellison’s office, which is leading the prosecution, to give jurors more opportunities to convict Chauvin. The charge could be viewed by jurors as a middle ground, and also allows the prosecution to present multiple theories of its case based on the different legal elements that must be met to convict on the respective charges, some said.

Reinstating the charge could also serve as a bargaining chip in plea negotiations, Frase said.

“We believe the Court of Appeals decided this matter correctly,” Ellison said in a written statement. “We believe the charge of 3rd-degree murder, in addition to manslaughter and felony murder, reflects the gravity of the allegations against Mr. Chauvin. Adding this charge is an important step forward in the path toward justice.”

Nelson declined to comment.

Frase and Joseph Daly, emeritus professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, said Nelson has some options: He could ask the Minnesota Supreme Court to review Friday’s ruling, or, in the event that the charge is reinstated, he could ask Cahill to postpone Chauvin’s trial on the grounds that his client’s constitutional rights to due process will be violated if he doesn’t receive more time to prepare for the new count.

“Everybody wants to get this right,” Frase said. “I would expect the Supreme Court would do something about this … to let the trial judge know what to do.”

According to Daly, Cahill could decide whether to reinstate third-degree murder based on prior court filings from the prosecution and defense. He could also call a hearing on the matter over the weekend to hear arguments from both sides, or, address the matter Monday before jury selection begins at 9 a.m.

Cahill is likely interested in hearing new arguments from Nelson, Daly said, because of the last two lines of the Court of Appeals’ ruling: “On remand, the district court has discretion to consider any additional arguments Chauvin might raise in opposition to the state’s motion. But the district court’s decision must be consistent with this opinion.”

“I certainly would want to hear any additional arguments that Chauvin might raise,” Daly said. “Eric Nelson can make a very strong argument that it does violate due process of law.”

Chauvin had been charged with thirddegree murder, but Cahill dropped the count in October, writing that Chauvin and his three colleagues had targeted Floyd and no one else.