Judge denies protection motion for acquittal in Chauvin trial

On April 14, previous Minneapolis Law enforcement officer Derek Chauvin’s defense lawyer claimed the point out had “unsuccessful to create adequate evidence” to prove its scenario. Decide Peter A. Cahill denied the movement.

Video Transcript

ERIC NELSON: At this level, the defense moves pursuant to Minnesota rule of legal course of action 26.03, subdivision 18 [INAUDIBLE] a person for judgment of acquittal in this distinct situation. I am guaranteed that the court docket is incredibly familiar with the lawful criteria applicable in this scenario. The courtroom wants to check out the proof as offered in the mild most favorable to the point out.

At this point, Your Honor, the defense admits that the state has unsuccessful to current ample evidence, even in the light most favorable to the condition, to create two of the principal troubles or arguments in this particular situation– the use of pressure and no matter whether the use of power was reasonable, as effectively as the lead to of demise of Mr. Floyd.

The condition has basically released doubt in the context of supplying multiple thoughts from several specialists, all of which look to contradict every single other. And, for that explanation, we would request the state to– or, excuse me, check with the court docket to grant the motion for judgment of acquittal

STEVE SCHLEICHER: The point out opposes the defendant’s movement for a judgment of acquittal. The evidence taken in the mild most favorable to the state as we have presented it establishes all of the elements of all of the crimes charged. It negates the defense of fair use of force. The situation is not no matter whether there are inconsistencies, minor inconsistencies in what witnesses say. The difficulty is whether, taken as a entire, the point out has proved its scenario.

PETER A. CAHILL: I’m going to deny the defense movement for judgment of acquittal. I would take note the normal, compared with a jury which has to make your mind up no matter if the situation has been tested beyond a sensible question, and, in doing so, should presume the defendant innocent.

The court’s responsibility, at this level, is to appear at all the evidence in a light most favorable to the point out. And even when there are inconsistencies– important or small– between witnesses, the jury is free to believe that some and not the some others.

And when viewing a established of specifics in a mild most favorable to the point out, they could give their best excess weight to those witnesses who build that the use of power was unreasonable and that the trigger of dying was positional asphyxia or deficiency of oxygen– on the other hand, the condition wishes to characterize it. But, most importantly, that it was brought about by the defendant. That is viewing the evidence in the mild most favorable to the state. It is crystal clear that that has been founded. And so, primarily based on that typical, the motion for judgment acquittal is denied.