Derek Chauvin Sentenced to 22.5 Years

Original Post Friday: Derek Chauvin will be sentenced today for the murder of George Floyd.

He could get life plus cancer and the public would say it's not enough.

Attorney Ben Crump will be on hand afterwards to give a press conference. He's beome as ubiquitous as Gloria Allred was a decade ago. Not my cup of tea.

Update: He got 22.5 years. His motion for a new trial was denied just before sentencing. The Judge issued a 20 plus page opinion explaining his sentence. You can read it here. Basically, it seems his guideline sentence was 11-12 years, and the judge said he had discretion to impose an upward variance, and because of the aggravating factors in the case, including Chauvin's extreme cruelty to George Floyd, he decided to do that. From the Washington Post: [More...]

Although a jury found Chauvin guilty on all three charges he was facing, Minnesota law dictates he will face sentencing only on the most serious charge: second-degree murder. State sentencing guidelines on that charge recommend 11 to 12 years in prison for someone with no criminal history. However, Judge Peter A. Cahill ruled that Chauvin qualifies for a longer prison sentence for treating Floyd with “particular cruelty.”

Update: the original of this post fell down the rabbit hole. I apologize to those of you who commented. Feel Free to do so again.

< Friday Open Thread | Bill Cosby Freed After Appellate Victory >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    If the feds pursue their separate case (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Peter G on Sun Jun 27, 2021 at 06:44:32 PM EST
    which is based not on a homicide theory but on an intentional violation of civil rights, albeit resulting in death, and if a jury convicts on that charge, there is a real possibility of a (concurrent) sentence of life without parole (and a theoretical risk of capital punishment). That statute, by the way, is part of the original Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended in 1874 to include some of the language of the 1871 Klux Act (which had created civil remedies, not crimes) -- statutes enacted by the Radical Republicans during Reconstruction to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment and destroy the original Klan. Apparently a sentence of the kind imposed in the state case is normally satisfied in 2/3 of the time imposed, that is, about 15 years (which I what I had guessed the sentence would be).

    I successfully avoided (none / 0) (#1)
    by McBain on Sat Jun 26, 2021 at 02:56:07 PM EST
    most of the Ben Crump press conferences for this case. My opinion of Gloria Allred changed just a little bit after the Netflix documentary, Seeing Allred, but I still try to avoid her.  

    I believe Chauvin could serve additional time if convicted in federal court.  That seems unfair.  As for this sentence, I hope he gets a new trial at some point.  First I want to see new trials for Scott Peterson, Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey.  

    Ben Crump (none / 0) (#2)
    by RickyJim on Sat Jun 26, 2021 at 03:17:08 PM EST
    Crump keeps insisting that black folks are treated differently from whites by the police for doing the same offenses, like resisting arrest.  I've been looking for the evidence of that to no avail.  I don't buy his claim that because there is so much more coverage in the media of confrontations of blacks with the police, white people get a pass for similar behavior.  However, his view is generally accepted in the black community.

    I have looked again for an update on the $100M lawsuit against Crump and others for allegedly substituting Rachel Jeantel for Brittany Diamond Eugene as a witness in the trail of George Zimmerman in 2013. There is a 2 hour video on Youtube that lays out evidence for that.  Unfortunately the filmmaker detracts from his presentation by occasionally mentioning his conspiracy minded ultra right political views.  However, on the face of it, the evidence seems to be quite believable and could be easily checked by a good reporter. It is strange that hasn't happened in such a celebrated case.  Contrast that with the NY Times recently sending out samples of Subway tuna sandwiches to DNA labs to investigate claims that the tuna is fake.

    In all, I don't find Crump a more worthy icon of the legal profession than say, Rudy Giuliani.

    Maybe Zimmerman made enough (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 26, 2021 at 03:57:43 PM EST
    off the Confederate flags and auctioning his "iconic" murder weapon that he doesn't need the money anymore.

    That's ridiculous (none / 0) (#4)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 27, 2021 at 07:32:51 AM EST
    "In all, I don't find Crump a more worthy icon of the legal profession than say, Rudy Giuliani."

    But a video of "evidence" from the guy claiming Paul McCartney is dead (and replaced by a double) and the tinfoil smears about Obama's parents is hysterically ridiculous.


    It Was Also Hysterically Ridiculous (none / 0) (#5)
    by RickyJim on Sun Jun 27, 2021 at 10:02:36 AM EST
    that Trayvon would spend hours talking and texting with Rachel Jeantel the day he died.  As the video points out, all of Trayvon's other girlfriends were slim and younger than him.  Just what does the use of the ad hominin instead of logic to prove your points get you?  It is quite possible that somebody kooky, like Joel Gilbert, is correct once in a while.  

    "Quite possible" - heh (none / 0) (#7)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 28, 2021 at 09:11:19 AM EST
    LOL!  Literally anything is "possible".  The Easter Bunny could be real.  Elvis could still be alive and in hiding (another one of his laughable conspiracy theories).  As far as teenagers talking/texting over the course of several hours in a day, there's nothing remotely "hysterically ridiculous" about that at all.  Anyone who claims otherwise obviously doesn't have a teenager or a clue about typical teen behavior and is just looking for the flimsiest bit of fake "evidence" to support their hysterical nonsense.

    BTW - Logic doesn't work against specious, tinfoil conspiracy theorists pushing moronic claims because they want to believe this kind of garbage.  You just point and laugh while they make fools of themselves.


    I Give Up With Yman (none / 0) (#8)
    by RickyJim on Mon Jun 28, 2021 at 10:06:38 AM EST
    If you check his Wikipedia entry, Gilbert in 2012 re-classified his work on Elvis and McCartney as "mockumentaries".

    Has anybody here bothered to actually absorb what is presented (phone and court documents) to show that the person on the phone with Trayvon was Diamond Eugene, a different person than Rachel Jeantel, who claimed on the stand that Diamond Eugene was her nickname?  And that at least Sybrina Fulton was definitely in on the deception?  I wonder why Matt Gutman, a TV reporter whose work on the case was attacked in the video, has not bothered to dispute these claims.

    This matter is important as is any perversion of justice.  The details of Obama's paternity or lives of rock stars is not.


    That wasn't "presented" ... (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 29, 2021 at 01:00:44 PM EST
    ... "in the court documents".  That was the conspiracy theorist connecting dots that exist only in his imagination.  If there was any real evidence one of his (multiple) attorneys would've presented actual evidence, not a laughable Youtube video from a guy who tried to walk back some of his other conspiracy theories after being publicly ridiculed.  Not sure if GZ's latest lawsuit has progressed much after his last attorney was suspended, but I'll gladly wager any amount that he loses that suit.

    BTW - As humorous as these Zimmerman rants are, they're off topic.


    Last I heard Zimmerman was looking (none / 0) (#9)
    by McBain on Mon Jun 28, 2021 at 10:39:54 AM EST
    for a new lawyer for his case.  I agree, it's strange no one I know of has bothered to look into these claims.

    Next year will be 10 years since Trayvon Martin's death.  Hopefully, there will another documentary that looks at all aspects of that case.  


    What was the result of the tuna test? (none / 0) (#10)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 28, 2021 at 02:31:13 PM EST
    The tuna was guilty. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by desertswine on Mon Jun 28, 2021 at 03:15:52 PM EST
    But Subway Claims (none / 0) (#12)
    by RickyJim on Mon Jun 28, 2021 at 03:26:02 PM EST
    that DNA testing is not valid on cooked tuna.

    Why do you insist in deflecting from the serious issue of determining if fraud was committed by the prosecution in the Zimmerman case?


    Speaking of deflecting.. (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 30, 2021 at 01:51:09 PM EST
    I could've sworn this thread was originally supposed to be about the Derek Chauvin case.