Three former Minneapolis police officers who were present during the arrest of an unarmed black man have been charged in connection with his subsequent death.
The charges were announced at a press conference Wednesday by Hennepin County District Attorney Mark Freeman and Minnesota State Attorney General Keith Ellison.
Court records obtained by a local news station revealed Thomas Lane, 37; Tou Thao, 34 and Alexander Kueng, 26 were each charged with one count of unintentionally aiding and abetting murder and one count of intentionally aiding and abetting manslaughter.
The charges stem from last week’s arrest of George Floyd, a Minneapolis resident who was accused by a deli employee of attempting to make a purchase with counterfeit money.
One officer, 44-year-old Derek Chauvin, was captured on video kneeling on Floyd’s neck during the arrest. Throughout the video, Floyd could be heard telling the officers he was in pain and unable to breathe.
Floyd’s lifeless body was placed on an ambulance stretcher and removed from the scene of the arrest. Video of the incident, first posted to Twitter, sparked a national outcry and led to days of protests in major cities across the country.
Last Friday, Chauvin was charged with third-degree murder and third-degree unintentional manslaughter. On Wednesday, prosecutors added a second-degree murder charge against the officer.
Earlier this week, defense attorney Mark Reichel told FOX40 News he anticipated charges against the other three officers captured on cellphone videos during Floyd’s arrest.
On Wednesday, Mark said the additional second-degree charge is a more-serious offense that could carry a lengthier prison sentence, adding that prosecutors may have more evidence proving Chauvin’s intent.
“Second-degree murder charge means [Chauvin] intended the killing at some point,” Mark told FOX40 News. “Second-degree murder in Minnesota means there was a use of force and he intended to cause bodily harm, serious bodily harm, and during it someone died.”
Mark said it was unlikely prosecutors would have prevailed in court with a third-degree murder charge because Minnesota law requires proof that a person killed more than one individual during the incident.
“Had the case stayed with the county attorney and stayed as third-degree murder, [the officer] likely would have won the case,” Mark said.
One week after an unarmed Minneapolis man died during a police encounter, community members and activists continue calling for charges against three officers who were connected to the incident.
Former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin is the only person so far to faces charges in connection with the death of George Floyd, an unarmed black man whose arrest made international headlines following his death.
A bystander to the arrest captured cellphone video showing Chauvin kneeling on Floyd’s neck during the arrest. Multiple times, Floyd could be heard telling Chauvin and other officers on scene that he was in pain and couldn’t breathe.
Floyd’s lifeless body was placed on a stretcher and taken away from the scene in an ambulance, the video shows. He was pronounced dead a short time later.
Chauvin was arrested last Friday and booked into jail on charges of manslaughter and third-degree murder. But three other officers at the scene — Thomas Lane, J.A. Kueng and Tou Thao — have not been criminally charged in connection with Floyd’s death.
Sacramento criminal defense attorney Mark Reichel told FOX40 News on Tuesday he believes charges against the other three officers are forthcoming, and it’s simply a matter of time before prosecutors in Minnesota announce them.
“Once you’re aware a crime is being committed, if your presence is enough to prevent it from being stopped, you can be charged as an accomplice,” Mark said.
The three officers could be charged with accomplice liability — also known as aiding and abetting — for having reasonable knowledge that Chauvin was committing a crime but failing to stop it. Eyewitness video captured at the scene showed at least one officer repeatedly telling bystanders to stay out of the street while he was standing mere feet away from Chauvin and Floyd.
The video evidence is likely going to be key in charging the other three officers with accomplice liability in the future.
“It’s going to come down to, what did you see? What did you hear? What did you know?” Mark said. “It’s my understanding they’re looking at the facts right now. Some of those facts are, when were they aware there was no pulse? When were they aware those other officers are saying, roll him over…to the right side?”
In a separate but related legal action, state officials in Minnesota filed a civil rights complaint against the Minneapolis Police Department. That complaint opens the door for state investigators to comb through nearly a decade of police cases connected to the department to see if there are additional civil rights violations.
Eyewitness video of police officer Derek Chauvin kneeling on the neck of George Floyd sent shockwaves throughout the United States and sparked demonstrations in major cities across the country, including an organized protest in Sacramento’s Oak Park neighborhood on Friday.
Their message: Police need to be held accountable for their actions and brought to justice.
It’s extremely rare for police officers to be charged when a person dies as the result of a law enforcement encounter. In Sacramento, similar protests were sparked after police officers shot and killed Stephon Clark, a 23-year-old black man who was not armed when he was confronted by officers.
After a year-long investigation, Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert declined to file charges against the officers involved in the Clark case.
“There was no justice or accountability for my brother,” Stevante Clark, the brother of Stephon Clark, said at Friday’s rally, according to a report. “I think we have to wait to see how this plays out to see if George Floyd gets justice because at the end of the day, transparency with accountability means nothing.”
So why aren’t more law enforcement officers charged when people die during police encounters?
“The main reason is no prosecutor, for political reasons and to get reelected, ever wants to lose a high-profile case,” Sacramento criminal defense attorney Mark Reichel told FOX40 News. “It’s better to not bring it than to lose a high-profile case and, obviously, officer-involved killings are always high-profile.”
Prosecutors typically bring cases they feel they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, legal experts say, and juries are typically more likely to believe police officers acted out of self-defense or a sense of danger when presented with conflicting evidence or testimony.
But the video evidence in George Floyd’s death showed precisely the opposite. The videos published earlier this week didn’t just triggered protests — they also led to calls for an investigation and charges from law enforcement groups across the country.
That evidence, prosecutors in Minneapolis said, was key in bringing charges against Chauvin.
“This is by far the fastest that we’ve ever charged a police officer,” Mike Freeman, the top prosecutor in Hennepin County, Minnesota, said at a press conference.
Late Friday afternoon, U.S. Attorney William Barr said the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation were also investigating whether Floyd’s civil rights were violated.
“Both state and federal officers are working diligently and collaboratively to ensure that any available evidence relevant to these decisions is obtained as quickly as possible,” Barr said.
A Department of Justice attorney sent two letters to officials in California warning that elements of their stay-at-home orders may impede on constitutionally-protected freedoms as well as federal law.
The letters were penned by Eric S. Dreiband, an Assistant Attorney General working in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. His latest communication with officials in California came on Friday when Dreiband sent a letter to Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti.
In the letter, Dreiband warned that Garcetti’s comments over an extended coronavirus-related shelter-at-home order could be “unlawful,” noting that the mayor’s plan appeared to be “arbitrary.”
A letter sent by DOJ attorney Eric Dreiband to Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti on Friday.
Dreiband’s letter, first reported by the Los Angeles Times, took aim at comments made by Barbara Ferrer, Los Angeles County’s top public health official, on a national morning news program. During the show, Ferrer said Los Angeles County would likely “never be completely open” until a vaccine or cure for the novel coronavirus COVID-19 was available.
Though Garcetti later clarified Ferrer’s comments, Dreiband said the Justice Department was “concerned about what may be an arbitrary and heavy-handed approach to continuing stay-at-home requirements.”
Garcetti has warned Los Angeles may remain partially closed for at least several months. As of Saturday, more than 2,000 deaths have been attributed to the-fast spreading novel coronavirus.
In March, businesses throughout California were closed following a statewide shelter-in-place order issued by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The governor’s plan followed several similar orders issued by a handful of California counties hit hardest by the virus.
Under the order, certain businesses deemed “essential” were allowed to remain open under modified conditions, including a requirement that these businesses employ social distancing practices. Grocery stores continued to operate, as did dine-in restaurants, though the latter was limited to delivery and pick-up orders.
Other non-essential businesses, including nail salons, barbershops and movie theaters were closed. Recreation areas including state parks and lakes were also closed.
For churches and other places of worship, the governor’s shelter-in-place order triggered a divergence from mass gatherings. While some churches offered services online by drive-through, others flaunted the governor’s order, with police intervening in some cases.
Other churches sued, saying the governor’s order infringed on their constitutional freedom to assemble and worship.
In mid-May, Newsom unveiled a four-step plan to reopen businesses and other operations throughout California. The state is currently allowing some counties to operate in the second phase of the plan, which re-opens dine-in restaurants and shopping malls who adopt more-rigorous “social distancing” guidelines.
But Phase 2 does not apply to churches, which continue to be closed throughout the state. Earlier this week, Dreiband sent a letter to Newsom and Xavier Becerra, the state’s attorney general, warning that the state’s categorization of churches as non-essential likely created an illegal double standard.
“Religious gatherings may not be singled out for unequal treatment compared to other non-religious gatherings that have the same effect on the government’s public health interest absent the most-compelling reasons,” Dreiband wrote.
Speaking to CBS13 News, civil litigator Mark Reichel said DOJ attorneys may have a case against state officials if they decide to pursue that issue in court.
“Until a federal judge says the churches have to open, the governor can still keep them close,” Mark said, adding that state officials aren’t required to respond to the letter until a lawsuit is brought.
For decades, certain signs affixed to stop signs and other traffic fixtures were installed with the intention of giving would-be criminals food for second thought.
The signs warned of a neighborhood watch, a type of grassroots organization where civilians band together to keep an eye out for graffiti, vandalism and petty crimes.
With roots dating back to the 1960s, neighborhood watch groups were embraced by law enforcement agencies as effective ways to deter crime and help solve cases. But in the era of social media, neighborhood watch groups no longer involve monthly meetings at the house down the street — now it’s as simple as logging on to Nextdoor or uploading Ring doorbell camera footage to a community Facebook group.
In some cases, these groups are hyperfocused on a single event. Such was the case earlier this year when two Facebook groups were launched following the disappearance of 11-year-old Roman Lopez from Placerville.
Roman was living with his biological father, step mother and seven other children when he disappeared from his home. His body was found the next day, and police labeled the death as “suspicious.”
But despite the FBI’s involvement in the case, no suspect has been identified, and police are still trying to figure out what happened.
Anxious residents in Placerville have turned to each other on Facebook to help piece together clues and solve the mystery of Roman’s death. One Facebook group quickly swelled to over 6,000 participants as word of the case spread across the country, CBS13 reported.
Kristin Jabs, an administrator of one of the groups, said she simply wanted to help after learning about Roman. She now speaks publicly on the family’s behalf, acting as a liaison between reporters and family members.
Jabs acknowledges people post their own theories about what happened, which can include pointing fingers at other people, something attorney Mark Reichel said could present certain legal liabilities.
Mark said a person can sue for slander if they are damaged or harmed by what another person posts in a Facebook neighborhood watch group, but he also says those type of slander cases can be difficult to prove.
“To prevail on it, you have to have some real evidence that there is some damage to your reputation,” Mark told CBS13.
It could also have implications on the outcome of criminal cases if police do identify and arrest a suspect, Mark warned, adding that certain information posted to social media could taint a jury pool.
But Mark acknowledges that social media can be a good source of information, including what everyday citizens and community members think happened in a case.
“You can get honest observations, and I have in cases, just like that actually,” Mark said.
Defense attorneys representing clients who were convicted in criminal cases are moving to have those cases re-examined and convictions possibly thrown out due to one key element in each case: Tara Reade.
Reade, who also goes by the alias Alexandra McCabe, testified as an expert witness in several California criminal cases over the past decade, offering her experience as a survivor of spousal abuse.
Reade made international headlines in March after she accused presidential candidate and current senator Joe Biden of sexual assault. She repeated the allegation a few weeks later in an interview published by the New York Times. In both interviews, Reade claimed the assault happened while she was working as a campaign staffer at Biden’s Capitol Hill office in the early 1990s. (Biden, who is in the middle of a presidential campaign, denied Reade’s allegation earlier this month.)
As reporters worked through the details of Reade’s allegation, some journalists began fact-checking her time at Biden’s office. Reporters with the PBS NewsHour spoke with more than six dozen people who once worked for Sen. Biden. While some staff members admitted Biden was a “toucher” who sometimes made them feel uncomfortable, no one interviewed by the news organization said Biden had sexually harassed or assaulted them, and all of the former staffers were adamant they had not heard rumors about Biden harassing or abusing others until Reade went pubic with her accusation.
When questioned about her degree status, Reade told reporters she graduated under a special arrangement with Antioch University’s chancellor following a legal name change. An unofficial transcript from Seattle University, where Reade received a separate degree, listed Antioch University as a prior degree-granting institution, according to one report.
That could prove problematic after Reade said, under oath, that she received a degree from Antioch University while testifying as an expert witness in dozens of cases brought in Monterey County, California. Defense attorneys there are now combing through cases connected to Reade’s testimony to see if they can be re-opened based upon these new media revelations.
In one case, Reade not only swore under oath that she received a degree from Antioch University but also claimed to be currently working as a substitute teacher. Employment records obtained by the Times showed she was actually working as a staff assistant.
During the trial, defense attorney Roland Soltesz objected, saying Reade’s work experience didn’t qualify her as an expert witness. The judge overruled the objection. Soltesz’s client was sentenced to several life terms after being convicted of attempted murder, armed robbery and arson, the Times said.
Now Soltesz is seeking to have that case, and possibly others, re-examined.
“People have been convicted based upon this, and that’s wrong,” Soltesz told the newspaper.
While making a false statement during sworn testimony in court is a crime, prosecutors must prove that the person who made the false statement did so with knowledge and intent to deceive. Those elements can be difficult to prove, legal experts say.
But defense attorneys could have an easier time pursuing a reversal of a verdict if they can show that Reade exaggerated her education and employment history — qualifications that once earned her a spot in the witness stand.
“An expert can only testify in certain circumstances,” Sacramento criminal defense attorney Mark Reichel told the New York Times. “One of them is that they have expertise above the regular person. The jury is entitled to hear your qualifications.”
Inauthentic qualifications by an expert witness not only undermines the criminal justice system, it opens the door for a conviction to be overturned. If that happens, some cases may be remanded for a new trial, while other defendants could be set free.
In an interview with the Times, Berkley Brannon, the chief deputy assistant district attorney for Monterey County, said his office would work to contact district attorneys about cases in which Reade testified if it could be proven that she did not earn a degree as she claimed under oath.
“That would absolutely be of concern to us, and it’s something that the defense attorneys would need to know about,” Brannon said. “We don’t want people that we call lying about anything.”
Click/tap to read the letter sent by the Department of Justice to Gov. Gavin Newsom.
The U.S. Department of Justice has informed California Gov. Gavin Newsom that his state’s COVID-19 phased recovery plan may violated constitutional protections because it groups churches and other places of worship in a later phase compared to sit-down restaurants, shopping malls and other businesses.
In the letter, a copy of which is available here, DOJ attorneys acknowledged Newsom’s need to protect the health, safety and welfare of California residents, but said the “California Reopening Plan” may infringe on certain religious freedoms.
The letter paraphrases an earlier statement issued by U.S. Attorney General William Barr in which he wrote that “government may not impose special restrictions on religious activity that do not also apply to similar non-religious activity.”
“Religious gatherings may not be singled out for unequal treatment compared to other non-religious gatherings that have the same effect on the government’s public health interest absent the most-compelling reasons,” the DOJ’s letter said.
The letter, dated May 19, was signed by Eric Dreiband, the Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Decision. U.S. Attorneys representing each of the four federal districts in California were listed as co-signers. The letter was sent to Newsom via California Attorney General Xavier Becerra on Tuesday.
California has put in place a four-phase system for reopening certain public businesses and other institutions following a state-wide shutdown in mid-March due to the coronavirus pandemic. State officials have given nearly three dozen counties the green light to enter “Phase 2” of the plan, which allows for sit-down restaurants and some retailers to re-open, assuming those businesses adhere to “social distancing” practices.
Barbershops, nail salons and gyms are grouped into “Phase 3” of the plan, as are churches and other places of worship. No county has applied to enter that phase of re-opening as of Wednesday evening.
Reaction to the governor’s plan has been mixed, with some churchgoers telling local news outlets they intend to continue worshipping from a distance.
But others have complained about Newsom’s plan since it was enacted. Several lawsuits have been filed in federal court seeking to overturn the closure, while other lawsuits have asked to reclassify places of worship as “essential services,” a tier of organizations that has been given priority for reopening.
Speaking to CBS13 News, civil litigator Mark Reichel said DOJ attorneys may have a case against state officials if they decide to pursue the issue in court.
“Until a federal judge says the churches have to open, the governor can still keep them close,” Mark said, adding that state officials aren’t required to respond to the letter until a lawsuit is brought.
