3rd-degree murder is 100% the correct charge to get proper #JusticeForGeorge, assuming you actually want a conviction (which I sure as fuck do). Allow me, a lawyer, to explain why. (Thread)

The core thing you need to understand is the concept of “mens rea,” which is fancy Latin for “guilty mind.” It is the defendant’s mental state as an element of the crime, and one of the things that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to convict.

Generally speaking, mens rea is the primary element that distinguishes one type of homicide from another. There are other elements as well, but that’s not what we need to understand why the prosecutors brought 3rd-degree murder, not 1st or 2nd.

The first kind of mens rea is “intent,” which l the law breaks down further into “general intent” and “specific intent.”

General intent focuses more on whether you meant to perform the *act.* For example, whether you intended to hit someone.

There is also, however something called “specific intent.” This looks at not only whether you meant to perform an act but also your *purpose* in doing it. For example, whether you intended words (which you meant to say) to intimidate someone into not testifying.

We also have lesser mental states. For example, “recklessness” is where you don’t mean to do something but are aware of the possible consequences of your actions and do it anyway. For example, a drunk driver didn’t mean to hit someone but recklessly got behind the wheel.

Similarly, there’s “negligence,” which is basically recklessness without awareness: you did something without being aware of the possible consequences but you fucking *should have* been aware of them.

A “strict liability” crime just means one without a mens rea element.

Finally, there’s “depraved mind,” which sits somewhere between recklessness and intent. It’s where you are aware of the possible consequences of your act but just don’t give a fuck. It’s a not just a reckless act, it‘s something that exhibits utter disregard for human life.

With an understanding of mens rea, let’s look at MN’s homicide laws.

There is simply no way to charge Chauvin with 1st- or 2nd-degree murder and have any real hope of a conviction because you can’t prove the kind of mens rea required for either.

In MN, both 1st and 2nd degree murder require the prosecutor to prove specific intent to cause death. 1st degree requires an additional element of premeditation—classic cold-blooded murder, the kind you plan in advance. This one was never going to happen.

But for either 1st or 2nd degree, you would need to show that, when Chauvin kept his knee on Floyd’s neck, he was specifically intending to cause death. Not inflict pain or suffering. Not humiliation or subjugation. Not even to cause serious injury. The purpose needs to be death

Now, it is technically possible that you could make the case that Chauvin specifically intended to kill Floyd for 2nd-degree murder. But it’s a tough sell at best. You have to overcome reasonable doubt that Chauvin didn’t mean to actually kill him, just hurt him.

3rd-degree murder, on the other hand, is depraved mind murder. And it fits the facts like a glove. For 3rd, it doesn’t matter whether or not Chauvin meant for Floyd to die. What Chauvin *meant* to happen is largely irrelevant to the analysis. Instead, we look at his awareness.

The prosecutor can easily show that Chauvin was well aware of the potential consequences of his actions because Floyd motherfucking *told* him “I can’t breathe.” And the fact that he just kept his knee on even after Floyd was out shows the kind of extreme indifference we need.

Hell, I would go so far as to call this a textbook case of third-degree (depraved mind) murder. Chauvin’s conduct exhibited utter disregard for Floyd’s life; he simply did not give a fuck what holding his knee down on Floyd’s neck might do to the poor man.

And let’s also not diminish the gravity of a 3rd-degree murder charge. Third-degree murder is *murder.* It carries a maximum sentence of 25 years. Is it life? No. But 25 years is probably at least 1/4 of Chauvin’s life expectancy. Probation, this is not.

Also, let’s briefly talk about manslaughter. The media isn’t specifying whether it was 1st or 2nd degree, and the case doesn’t appear to be up on the court’s online system yet, so this is going to be a lot more general.

Depending on the specific degree, manslaughter is more or less the same thing, just with either a reckless or negligent mens rea. It’s a little more nuanced because the relevant subdivision of the 1st-degree statute incorporates the 5th-degree assault statute. But close enough.

The reason that they are charging manslaughter here in addition to murder is to have a backup. Manslaughter is a “lesser included offense” of murder. Essentially, this means that you can’t be sentenced for both bc the lesser is a circle inside the Venn diagram of the greater.

It does, however, present the jury with the opportunity to still convinct Chauvin of manslaughter if they don’t find that his mens rea reached the “depraved mind” required for the murder charge.

This is also absolutely the correct call. Freeman clearly learned from the botched Philando Castille trial. There, the prosecutor went for broke with 2nd-degree murder (which was also the wrong charge, as 3rd was an infinitely better case for similar reasons as I’ve described).

They couldn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer had specific intent, so the jury acquitted. And since they didn’t submit any lessers, that was the end of that. Double jeopardy and goodbye.

Had they submitted 3rd-degree murder or manslaughter, the jury might very well have convicted Castille’s killer on one of those.

Now, my prosecutorial experience is limited to a summer internship back in law school, but not submitting lessers always baffles me.

The theory is that it confuses the jury or gives them a chance for mercy or a compromise verdict.

Bullshit, IMO.

If you have a case—like this or Castille—where acquittal is an unacceptable outcome, you’d better not be going all or nothing. Because. You. Might. Get. Nothing.

So tl;dr:

- You can’t establish specific intent needed for 1st- or 2nd-degree murder

- 3rd-degree fits the facts perfectly bc Chauvin acted with textbook depraved mind

- Manslaughter is the backup plan, which is good to have

And that’s enough for tonight. Convict the bastard.

Update: I found a copy of the complaint. So they’re charging him with 2nd-degree manslaughter, under a subdivision using a negligence mens rea.

These two paragraphs from the complaint explain exactly why they are charging what they are charging. The key takeaways:

(1) No preliminary evidence of strangulation but rather death caused by a combination of Chauvin’s conduct and underlying conditions.

(2) Police, like Chauvin, are trained that what he did is inherently dangerous.

So basically, (1) means that they don’t have evidence to prove specific intent. But (1) combined with (2) means that they don’t need to because they can establish depraved mind or negligence.

The beauty of a non-intent mens rea here is that it doesn’t matter whether Floyd died of strangulation or of the combination of restraint and his underlying conditions. The focus is on Chauvin’s awareness of the *danger* of what he was doing.