Transcript:
Court appearance Monday as new details emerge in the case against the other three officers present at George Floyd’s death. Attorneys for two of the former Minneapolis officers rejected accusations that their clients aided and abetted in Floyd’s killing, instead placing blame on senior officer Derek Chauvin, who allegedly ignored his younger counterparts.
Joining us now are Kenny Fang, an attorney and MSNBC legal contributor, and Enrique Latoison, a criminal defense attorney. Welcome to both of you. Kenny, we’ll start with you. One of the former officers, J. Alexander Kueng, had not yet completed his third full shift as a police officer when this arrest occurred. According to his attorney, he told fellow officers, as they were detaining Floyd, “You shouldn’t do that.” Another officer, Thomas Lane, was reportedly working his fourth day as a full-time officer when this occurred. His attorney told the court that they were required to call Chauvin ‘sir,’ given his 20 years of experience. What was my client supposed to do but follow what the training officer said? Is that much of a defense?
Kenny Fang: Well, it’s certainly a defense, but remember, you have to keep it in the context of when those words were provided. These statements were made at bail hearings. The bonds for these three officers charged with aiding and abetting former officer Derek Chauvin have now been set at $1 million, conditionally at $750,000. The defense attorneys are going to argue that their clients didn’t actually assist, help, or abet Officer Chauvin when he was committing unintentional second-degree murder. However, the challenge to whether that aiding and abetting charge will stand will likely come in the form of a motion to dismiss, which is predictable. There has to be accountability here for their actions or perhaps inactions. Historically, we’ve heard this defense before: “I was just following orders.” That argument has never resonated well when it comes to escaping culpability. So, we’ll see if a well-crafted motion to dismiss will help them with this aiding and abetting charge.
Interviewer: Let’s talk about one of those suspects, Thomas Lane. His attorney spoke out. Let’s listen.
Thomas Lane’s Attorney: I’m not claiming he was just following orders; I’m claiming that he thought what he was doing was right because he asked the training officer, “Should we roll him over?” twice. You have to have criminal intent for second-degree murder, and frankly…
Interviewer: Enrique, does the elevation of the murder charge make the case more difficult to prosecute? We’re talking about the elevation of the murder charge against Chauvin himself.
Enrique Latoison: Actually, in this particular circumstance, when you look at the video, the most disturbing part is the officer standing there looking down. He’s watching carefully, looking at Mr. Floyd the entire time his knee is on Floyd’s neck. It’s also important to remember that they had already called for medical help, and it was known that Mr. Floyd was already in medical distress at that time. When someone is in medical distress, and you’ve called for paramedics, the proper training is to ensure that person is safe while waiting for treatment. Instead, this officer kept his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck the entire time without moving. The EMT had to come over and remove him from Mr. Floyd. The assault was an intentional act, which leads to second-degree felony murder because the intentional act was the assault, and it resulted in death.
Interviewer: Kenny, I’ll pose a similar question to you. We’ve often heard that prosecuting officers is a very difficult task. Do you think that by elevating the charge from third-degree to second-degree murder for Chauvin and adding aiding and abetting to second-degree murder for the other officers, will it make their case more difficult?
Kenny Fang: Not from a substantive legal standpoint. It’s actually easier to prove second-degree unintentional felony murder than third-degree murder, which were the original charges. I think what’s going to happen here is you’ll see the other officers being severed from their cases, separating them from the main culprit, Derek Chauvin. You’re also likely to see an attempt to change the venue, although that’s virtually impossible. How can you find a jurisdiction that hasn’t heard about the George Floyd case or what these officers did? If it survives a motion to dismiss, you’re likely to see guilt by association when presenting this case to a jury. However, due to the increased exposure of police brutality and misconduct, it’s unlikely that it will be too difficult to obtain convictions.
Interviewer: That change of venue plan worked successfully for the cops in the Rodney King and Amadou Diallo cases here in New York, and no doubt they’ll try it again in this case. Kenny and Enrique, thank you both for your responses.
Contact Enrique Latoison
(610) 999-1439