APRIL 8, 2021 – According to a report by The New York Times, soon after the death of Floyd George, Jr., Officer Knee-on-the-Neck offered to plead guilty to a third-degree murder charge and accept a 10-year prison sentence—if (a) the time could be served in a federal prison; and (b) federal civil rights charges would be dropped. The offer was made, apparently, because Chauvin thought the case against him was “devastating.” Other legitimate news outlets confirmed the report.
After someone commits some heinous crime and the world knows the person charged is guilty I’m often questioned by non-lawyer acquaintances, to-wit: “How could you defend someone you knew was guilty?” I began to think that shockingly few Americans are acquainted with foundational elements of living in a free society: 1. The presumption of innocence; and 2. Procedural due process.
Why a presumption of innocence is so essential to our system and why and exactly how everyone deserves her/his day in court is for another day. Here and now I’d like to imagine the conversation between Chauvin and his attorney just before that plea offer was made.
Let me first dispense with a disclaimer: I’m not an insider, and though I’m a lawyer, I’m not that kind of a lawyer, and I have no special expertise with regard to criminal law or procedure (awareness of the presumption of innocence—something I learned in seventh grade social studies—doesn’t count as “special expertise”). I’m opining here as John Q. Public who’s followed much but hardly all of the evidence so far admitted in The Trial.
I think the conversation between the defendant and his lawyer went something like this:
LAWYER: You’re screwed.
CHAUVIN: I know. That’s why I’m for a plea bargain.
LAWYER: And you understand, do you not, that given the authorities’ fear of Minneapolis going up in flames, no one, but no one in the DOJ, AG’s office, or Hennepin County Attorney’s office would ever dare enter into anything but an offer to plead guilty as charged and accept the maximum possible sentence?
CHAUVIN: Uh-huh.
LAWYER: So, since your legal fees are paid by the Police Officers Association, I’ll give this my best shot—the whole “reasonable doubt” program. You’re fully familiar with that defense strategy, are you not?
CHAUVIN: Uh-huh—I used to be a cop, remember. Countless times I saw you and your crim law buddies work a jury over “reasonable doubt.”
LAWYER: You never know with juries. Drag things out enough, haul in a sufficient number of expert witnesses, focus on details and blow them way out of proportion, and you’ve always got a run at “reasonable doubt.” I’m just telling you up front, the video that’s going to be played will make a damning impression.
CHAUVIN: That’s what people are saying. But I’ve seen you get guilty people off—total scum bags, all of ’em, so get me off!
LAWYER: If only you’d taken your knee off when people in the video started yelling at you.
(Remember to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.)
© 2021 by Eric Nilsson
