While the guilty verdicts are rational and defensible, the speedy nature of the decision could lead to problems for prosecutors in the appellate process.
Share this story
Former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin is led away in handcuffs after a jury found him guilty on all counts in the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minn., April 20, 2021, in this courtroom sketch.
Jane Rosenberg/Reuters
Derek Chauvin has been convicted on all three counts.
For those who’ve watched the Chauvin trial, the only quick verdict that seemed rationally possible was a verdict of guilty. While I’ve been more skeptical than most commentators about the intent proof on the two murder counts (felony murder and depraved-indifference homicide), I thought the evidence on the manslaughter count — “culpable negligence,” for which it is unnecessary for prosecutors to prove criminal intent — was daunting.
About the Author
Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at National Review Institute, an NR contributing editor, and author of Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Derek Chauvin has been convicted on all three counts.
For those who’ve watched the Chauvin trial, the only quick verdict that seemed rationally possible was a verdict of guilty. While I’ve been more skeptical than most commentators about the intent proof on the two murder counts (felony murder and depraved-indifference homicide), I thought the evidence on the manslaughter count — “culpable negligence,” for which it is unnecessary for prosecutors to prove criminal intent — was daunting.
By continuing, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.
About the Author
Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at National Review Institute, an NR contributing editor, and author of Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments