State v. Chauvin, side by side

Hennepin Cty. Dist. Ct., Minn. · No. 27‑CR‑20‑12646 · D. Minn. · No. 0:21‑cr‑00108

Side by Side Case Argumentation

1What killed George Floyd?

Prosecution

The restraint. Held face down with a knee on his neck, he couldn’t get enough oxygen, and he died of it. “Believe your eyes. What you saw, you saw.”

Defense

His heart, under strain. Heart disease and an enlarged heart, with fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system, and the stress of the struggle. None of the “telltale signs of asphyxiation” were there.

CourtThe jury found his actions caused the death. The medical examiner ruled it a homicide by “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression,” with heart disease and drugs as other conditions.

Tr. Closing, 37:55 · Tr. Defense opening, 20:39 · 22:01 · Ct. App. opinion p. 5

Detailthe argument, what it rests on, where it is weak

Prosecution

The argument

Floyd died of a low level of oxygen. The prone position, the handcuffs, the knees on his neck and back and the hard street all squeezed the room he had to breathe. His death came on over minutes, not suddenly. Heart disease and drugs were there, but the law asks only whether the restraint was a substantial causal factor, and it was.

Rests on

Dr. Martin Tobin’s frame-by-frame reading of the videos. Three more doctors who said the same, a forensic physician, a retired medical examiner and a cardiologist, and a toxicologist who said overdose victims rarely have the breakdown product of fentanyl that was in Floyd’s blood. The medical examiner’s ruling of homicide.

Tr. Tobin · Star Tribune, day-by-day recap

Authority

The jury instruction on causation, that other causes don’t excuse him unless one alone caused the death.

Where it is weak

The autopsy found no injury to the neck and nothing that pointed to strangulation, and the first complaint quoted the medical examiner saying so. The medical examiner himself didn’t call it asphyxia. He said the restraint was more than Floyd’s heart could take. The oxygen case was built mostly from video.

Complaint, May 29, 2020 p. 3 · Jury instructions p. 4

Defense

The argument

The medical examiner found none of the physical signs of asphyxia. What he did find was severe heart disease, a heart far heavier than normal, fentanyl and methamphetamine, and a tumor that can release adrenaline. Those, under the stress of the arrest, explain a sudden fatal heart rhythm. If drugs caused the death during a restraint, it’s “the natural consequence of the deceased’s actions,” not of the restraint.

Rests on

Dr. David Fowler, a former chief medical examiner of Maryland. The autopsy and the toxicology reports. Pills with Floyd’s saliva on them found in the squad car.

Tr. Defense closing, 02:28:55 · NPR, Apr 19, 2021 · Autopsy report pp. 12–24

Authority

The same causation instruction, and the State’s burden to prove cause beyond a reasonable doubt.

Where it is weak

The medical examiner himself ruled it a homicide and said the restraint and the neck compression were “just more than Mr. Floyd could take.” Fowler didn’t count a lack of oxygen at all, which put him against every doctor the State called.

Star Tribune, day-by-day recap

Logic chainhow the reasoning runs, and where it breaks

Test
Were his actions a substantial cause of the death, whatever else contributed?
Prosecution
Five doctors say a lack of oxygen from the restraint killed him.
The autopsy

No neck injury is needed to stop someone breathing. The video shows it.

The autopsy

No signs of asphyxia were found, and his heart and the drugs were enough.
Defense
An overdose during a restraint is the result of what Floyd took, not of the restraint.
Where it lands
The jury found he caused the death. Settled at trial, and argued again in his petitions.

2Was it a drug overdose?

Prosecution

No. Floyd was talking, crying out and breathing at a normal rate right up until he lost consciousness under the restraint, which isn’t how a fentanyl overdose looks. He’d used opioids for years, so he had a tolerance, and the fentanyl in his blood was partly broken down. “That’s not common sense. That’s nonsense.”

Defense

It was likely, at least in part. His blood held 11 nanograms of fentanyl per milliliter, a level that has killed people, along with methamphetamine. The medical examiner told prosecutors that if Floyd had been found dead at home with no other cause, calling it an overdose would have been “acceptable.”

CourtThe jury found Chauvin’s actions caused the death. The medical examiner ruled it a homicide, not an overdose, and listed the drugs only as other significant conditions. Before trial, the judge called the overdose theory “speculation” that couldn’t defeat the charges at that stage.

Tr. Closing, 43:05 · Defense memorandum, Aug 28, 2020 p. 22 · Order of Oct 21, 2020 pp. 44–47

Detailthe argument, what it rests on, where it is weak

Prosecution

The argument

A fentanyl overdose slows a person’s breathing until they drift off, and Floyd did the opposite. Just before he lost consciousness he was breathing 22 times a minute, the top of the normal range, where fentanyl would be expected to cut the rate by about 40 percent. He wasn’t snoring or nodding off. He was saying he couldn’t breathe. The drugs were there, but they didn’t kill him.

Rests on

Dr. Martin Tobin’s count of Floyd’s breaths on the video. A toxicologist who said overdose victims rarely have norfentanyl, the breakdown product of fentanyl, in their blood, as Floyd did, and that his methamphetamine level was lower than in about 94 percent of the drugged-driving cases he compared it to. Dr. Bill Smock: “That is not a fentanyl overdose. That is someone begging to breathe.” A cardiologist who said Floyd didn’t die of an overdose.

Tr. Tobin, 00:33 · Star Tribune, day-by-day recap

Authority

The causation instruction. Even if the drugs played a part, they clear him only if they alone caused the death.

Where it is weak

The level, 11 nanograms per milliliter, is in the range that has killed people, and a passenger testified that Floyd fell asleep in the car before the police came, which the defense called a sign of fentanyl.

Defense memorandum, Aug 28, 2020 pp. 22–23 · Tr. Hill

Defense

The argument

Before trial the defense said Floyd “most likely died from an opioid overdose,” or from fentanyl and methamphetamine together with his heart disease. He’d been addicted for years, and he fell asleep in his car minutes before the police came. At trial Nelson argued that if drugs caused a death during a restraint, it’s “the natural consequence of the deceased’s actions,” not of the restraint.

Rests on

The toxicology: fentanyl at 11 nanograms per milliliter and methamphetamine at 19. The medical examiner’s remarks to prosecutors. Pills found in Floyd’s car and in the squad car, the remains of one with his saliva on it. A May 2019 arrest in which he put drugs in his mouth as police approached.

Autopsy report pp. 12–24 · Defense memorandum pp. 22–23 · Tr. Defense closing, 2:28:55 · NPR, Apr 19, 2021 · Order of Mar 24, 2021 p. 3

Authority

The rule on a superseding cause: a defendant isn’t guilty of a death that something else alone caused.

Where it is weak

No doctor at trial said Floyd died of an overdose, not even the defense’s own. Dr. Fowler said his heart gave out, with the drugs as one of several factors. The medical examiner said in the same meeting that he was “not saying” fentanyl killed Floyd, and ruled it a homicide, and a review by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner agreed with him. A clip in which Floyd seemed to say “I ate too many drugs” turned out, played at length in court, to be “I ain’t do no drugs.”

Order of Oct 21, 2020 pp. 29, 47 · Star Tribune, day-by-day recap

Logic chainhow the reasoning runs, and where it breaks

Test
Did the drugs alone cause the death, so that the restraint wasn’t a substantial cause?
Defense
Eleven nanograms of fentanyl has killed people, and he’d taken drugs that day.
The breathing

A normal rate of 22 a minute, where fentanyl slows it.

The breathing

He nodded off in the car, a sign of fentanyl.
Prosecution
A user with a tolerance, partly broken-down fentanyl, and no doctor who called it an overdose.
Where it lands
The jury found the restraint caused the death. Rejected at trial, and never accepted by a court since.

3Was the force reasonable?

Prosecution

No. Whatever force was needed to get control ended once Floyd was handcuffed, face down and not resisting. Keeping a knee on his neck after that, past his last words and past the point he had no pulse, wasn’t policing.

Defense

Yes. A reasonable officer would weigh “the previous 16 minutes and 59 seconds,” the struggle three officers couldn’t win, and a growing, angry crowd. Holding him prone until the ambulance came was what officers are trained to do.

CourtThe jury found the force wasn’t authorized. In his federal plea he admitted it became “objectively unreasonable and excessive” no later than the moment the officers decided not to tie Floyd’s legs.

Tr. Closing, 18:29 · Tr. Defense closing, 54:53 · Plea agreement p. 4

Detailthe argument, what it rests on, where it is weak

Prosecution

The argument

The department’s own policy and training say force must stop when resistance stops, a person held prone must be rolled into the recovery position, and an officer must give aid. Chauvin did none of it. “This was not an accident,” and it wasn’t the department’s training either.

Rests on

Chief Medaria Arradondo, the head of training, the department’s use-of-force trainer and medical coordinator, and two outside experts, one of them a Los Angeles police sergeant.

Tr. Arradondo · Tr. Closing, 19:47 · Star Tribune, day-by-day recap

Authority

Minnesota’s law allowing an officer only reasonable force to make an arrest. The U.S. Supreme Court’s test in Graham v. Connor (1989), objective reasonableness in all the circumstances.

Where it is weak

The department’s use-of-force trainer agreed under cross-examination that in a training photo of prone handcuffing, the officer could keep his knee and shin where they were once the person was handcuffed, if circumstances called for it, though officers are warned to mind the neck.

Tr. Mercil, 02:08

Defense

The argument

The force has to be judged “at the precise moment” it was used, from what the officer knew then, not with the doctors’ hours of video review. Floyd had fought three officers, and the crowd drew the officers’ attention away from him. Kneeling across a person held prone to wait for paramedics is a trained way to control someone, part of what the department calls the maximal restraint technique, and his use-of-force expert said it wasn’t force at all.

Rests on

Barry Brodd, a retired police officer who taught use of force for 35 years. The body-camera video of the struggle at the squad car. Training images showing knees on the backs of people being handcuffed.

Tr. Brodd · Tr. Defense closing, 18:22 · Tr. Mercil

Authority

Graham v. Connor, and its warning against judging an officer “with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Minnesota’s law letting an officer use “all necessary and lawful means” against someone resisting arrest.

Where it is weak

Seven officers and experts, the police chief among them, said the opposite. His own federal plea admits the force became unreasonable and excessive while it was still going on.

Ct. App. opinion pp. 33–36 · Plea agreement p. 4

Logic chainhow the reasoning runs, and where it breaks

Test
What would a reasonable officer have done at that moment, knowing what he knew?
Prosecution
Once Floyd was handcuffed and still, any reasonable officer would have stopped.
The time

Nine minutes and 29 seconds, most of it after Floyd went quiet.

The time

Sixteen minutes and 59 seconds before that count too.
Defense
The struggle and the crowd made it reasonable to hold him until help came.
Where it lands
The jury said the force wasn’t authorized, and his own federal plea says it became unreasonable.

4Can a police officer commit felony murder by using force in an arrest?

Prosecution

Yes, when the force is unreasonable. The law only allows reasonable force, so force beyond that is an assault like anyone else’s, and a death caused by it is murder. He “says the quiet part out loud” by arguing officers can never be convicted of assault.

Defense

No. Officers are “duty bound to ‘assault’ suspects resisting arrest,” so using assault as the felony turns murder into a crime of “strict liability” for police, with no need to prove any intent to harm.

CourtYes. The Court of Appeals held that an officer can be convicted of second-degree felony murder for a death caused by unreasonable force that amounts to third-degree assault. The decision is binding law in Minnesota.

State’s appeal brief p. 20 · His appeal brief p. 65 · Ct. App. opinion p. 2

Detailthe argument, what it rests on, where it is weak

Prosecution

The argument

Felony murder here needs an assault, and an assault needs only the intent to use the force, not to cause the harm it causes. An officer who uses force the law allows commits no assault. An officer who uses force past what the law allows does, and the jury found he did.

Rests on

The statute allowing officers reasonable force, and the jury’s finding that his wasn’t.

State’s appeal brief p. 20 · Ct. App. opinion pp. 26–27

Authority

Minnesota’s assault and felony-murder laws, and the Minnesota Supreme Court’s ruling that assault of this kind is a general-intent crime.

Where it is weak

It means an officer can be convicted of murder without having meant to hurt anyone, which is the point the defense pressed.

Defense

The argument

Every arrest involves force an officer means to use, so every officer intends the physical act. If that’s enough for assault, and assault is enough for murder, an officer whose arrest ends in a death can be convicted without the State proving he meant any injury. The legislature didn’t mean that, and strict-liability crimes are disfavored.

Rests on

The jury instruction that the State didn’t have to prove he meant to cause substantial bodily harm.

His appeal brief pp. 65–66 · Jury instructions pp. 5–6

Authority

Cases holding that crimes without a guilty mind are disfavored, and Graham v. Connor.

Where it is weak

His argument depends on officers being allowed whatever force they use. The law allows only reasonable force, and the court said that’s what keeps the crime from being strict liability.

Ct. App. opinion pp. 26–27

Logic chainhow the reasoning runs, and where it breaks

Test
Is unreasonable force by an officer an assault that can carry a felony-murder charge?
Defense
Officers must use force, so this makes them guilty without any intent.
The intent

Only the force has to be intended, as for anyone.

The intent

That turns murder into strict liability for police.
Prosecution
The law allows reasonable force only. Past that, an officer is like anyone else.
Where it lands
Decided. An officer can be convicted when the force is unreasonable. It’s now the law in Minnesota.

5Could he get a fair trial in Minneapolis?

Prosecution

Yes. This case was going to draw enormous publicity wherever and whenever it was tried, and the court did everything it could to seat a fair jury. Every juror who served said they could decide on the evidence.

Defense

No. The riots, the city’s $27 million settlement during jury selection, a courthouse “surrounded by barbed wire and soldiers,” and a congresswoman’s call to “get more confrontational” put jurors in fear of the result. The trial should have been moved, delayed or the jury locked away.

CourtNo mistake. Denying those requests is fine when the judge takes enough steps and checks that the jurors can be fair, the Court of Appeals held, and Judge Cahill did.

State’s appeal brief pp. 19–20 · His appeal brief p. 57 · Ct. App. opinion pp. 14–20

Detailthe argument, what it rests on, where it is weak

Prosecution

The argument

Moving the trial wouldn’t have helped, because no corner of the state had escaped the publicity, and waiting wouldn’t have either. What protects a defendant is the care taken in picking the jury, and here it was extraordinary.

Rests on

A long questionnaire sent months ahead. Jurors questioned one at a time. Extra strikes for the defense, 18 against 10. Jurors removed for cause the moment the settlement changed their view. The two seated jurors excused over it.

Ct. App. opinion pp. 16–17 · Venue order, Nov 4, 2020

Authority

The U.S. Supreme Court in Skilling v. United States (2010), that “prominence does not necessarily produce prejudice,” and the Minnesota Supreme Court’s State v. Blom (2004).

Where it is weak

The building was fortified, the city settled in the middle of selection, and one seated juror said her safety “really depends on how the trial” ends.

His appeal brief p. 58 · Ct. App. opinion p. 8

Defense

The argument

This is one of the rare cases where the atmosphere was so charged that prejudice should be presumed, without having to prove what any one juror thought. Jurors walked past soldiers and razor wire every day. A wrong verdict, as they’d have understood it, would have had consequences for the Twin Cities.

Rests on

The security around the courthouse, the National Guard, businesses boarded up, the settlement, officials calling the death a murder, and a leak about a failed plea deal before jury selection.

His appeal brief pp. 57–60 · Ct. App. opinion p. 9

Authority

Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966), Rideau v. Louisiana (1963) and Irvin v. Dowd (1961), the U.S. Supreme Court’s cases on trials overwhelmed by publicity.

Where it is weak

He finished jury selection with three strikes unused, which courts read as a sign a defendant accepted the jury, and every juror said they could be fair.

Ct. App. opinion p. 17

Logic chainhow the reasoning runs, and where it breaks

Test
Did the court do enough to make sure these jurors could set aside what they’d heard?
Defense
The atmosphere was so charged that prejudice should be presumed.
The jury

Questioned one by one, with extra strikes and removals.

The jury

Walked past soldiers every day, afraid of the result.
Prosecution
Moving or waiting wouldn’t have helped. Careful selection did.
Where it lands
Decided. The court took enough steps, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to look again.

6Did a juror hide views that should have kept him off the jury?

Prosecution

No. Juror 52 answered the questionnaire truthfully. What he said in interviews afterward doesn’t show he lied in jury selection.

Defense

Yes. He didn’t mention going to a march in Washington in August 2020 where Floyd’s family spoke, and after the trial he said he’d been pulled over by Minneapolis police “probably about 50 times” and saw a “chance to make history.” The court should at least have held a hearing.

CourtNo hearing was needed. The court found he answered truthfully, and that the other juror Chauvin named was an alternate who never deliberated.

Ct. App. opinion p. 10 · 20–23 · His appeal brief pp. 60–63

Detailthe argument, what it rests on, where it is weak

Prosecution

The argument

The questionnaire asked specific questions, and his answers to them were accurate. A juror isn’t dishonest for not volunteering things nobody asked about, and he said in selection that he could be fair.

Rests on

His questionnaire and his answers in jury selection.

Ct. App. opinion pp. 21–23

Authority

The Minnesota rule that a hearing on juror misconduct needs a real showing of misconduct first.

Where it is weak

His words after the trial were never tested under oath, because no hearing was held.

Defense

The argument

A juror who hid strong views about the Minneapolis police and took part in a protest about Floyd’s death couldn’t be impartial, and the only way to find out what he concealed was to question him under oath.

Rests on

The juror’s interviews after the verdict, and the march he hadn’t mentioned.

Ct. App. opinion p. 10

Authority

Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co. (1960), which set up the hearing, and the right to an impartial jury.

Where it is weak

He didn’t fully argue part of it in his brief, the court said, and he had three strikes left he could have used during selection.

Ct. App. opinion pp. 20–23

Logic chainhow the reasoning runs, and where it breaks

Test
Was there enough sign of misconduct to put the juror back under oath?
Defense
His interviews show views he kept back in selection.
His answers

True to what the questionnaire asked.

His answers

Silent about the march and the 50 stops.
Prosecution
Nothing he said afterward shows a false answer.
Where it lands
Decided. No hearing, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take the question.

7Was 22 and a half years the right sentence?

Prosecution

It should have been 30. He abused the trust of his badge, killed Floyd slowly and cruelly in front of children, and did it with three other officers.

Defense

It should have been probation, or at least a shorter term. In his mind he was “simply performing his lawful duty,” relying in good faith on his training, and a police officer’s authority had nothing to do with Floyd.

CourtJudge Cahill found four aggravating factors and relied on two, the abuse of trust and the particular cruelty, for 270 months. The Court of Appeals upheld it on the cruelty alone.

State’s memorandum, Jun 2, 2021 · Defense memorandum p. 11 · Sentencing order p. 4 · Ct. App. opinion p. 48

Detailthe argument, what it rests on, where it is weak

Prosecution

The argument

This was worse than a typical case of the crime in every way the guidelines count. Floyd begged for his life and was ignored, he was killed slowly, children watched, and an officer used the authority of his job to do it. That justifies doubling the top of the range, to 360 months.

Rests on

The trial evidence and the judge’s findings of four aggravating factors.

State’s memorandum, Jun 2, 2021 · Findings of May 11, 2021 pp. 3–5

Authority

The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines’ list of aggravating factors, which includes particular cruelty.

Where it is weak

No Minnesota case had applied “abuse of a position of trust” to a police officer, and the appeals court didn’t rely on it.

Ct. App. opinion p. 48

Defense

The argument

He had no criminal record, he was compliant on release, and he didn’t set out to commit a crime. His error was made “in good faith reliance” on his experience and training. An abuse of authority over Floyd doesn’t fit, because he didn’t put the handcuffs on him.

Rests on

His record, his conduct out on bond, and the training evidence.

Defense memorandum p. 11 · His appeal brief pp. 67–70

Authority

The guidelines’ rule that a departure needs “substantial and compelling” reasons, which he said the court didn’t have.

Where it is weak

The judge found the cruelty proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and the average sentence in Minnesota for the same crime with an aggravating factor and no record was 278.2 months, longer than his.

Sentencing order p. 21 · Ct. App. opinion p. 49

Logic chainhow the reasoning runs, and where it breaks

Test
Was this crime significantly worse than the usual one of its kind?
Prosecution
Cruel, slow, in front of children, and by an officer using his badge.
The factors

Four proved, two enough.

The factors

An officer’s authority had nothing to do with Floyd.
Defense
An error made in good faith deserves probation or less.
Where it lands
270 months, upheld. Cruelty alone carries it.

8Should the state case be reopened now?

Prosecution

Its answers to the petitions aren’t public. On the same points at trial and on appeal it said the medical experts were sound, the officers’ testimony about training was true, and the jury instructions were correct, and the courts agreed.

Defense

Yes. The State’s doctors testified from video, not medical findings. The police chief and two trainers misdescribed the training, and 57 officers say so. And the whole case was structurally flawed, handed to the wrong prosecutor and charged without a grand jury.

CourtThe second petition was denied on May 1, 2026: “None of the claims raised in this Petition for Post-Conviction Relief warrant relief.” Its appeal and the third petition are undecided.

Star Tribune, Dec 4, 2025 · MPR News, Aug 18, 2026 · Fox News, Jul 9, 2026

Detailthe argument, what it rests on, where it is weak

Prosecution

The argument

Its 2026 answers aren’t public. At trial and on appeal it defended each point now raised: the doctors’ testimony, the officers’ account of the training, and the jury instructions, which the appeals court found had no plain error.

Rests on

The trial record and the 2023 appeal.

State’s appeal brief pp. 19–21 · Ct. App. opinion pp. 27–33

Authority

The Knaffla rule, which keeps a petition from arguing again what was or could have been argued on appeal, and the judge applied it throughout.

Where it is weak

The officers’ statements about what was really trained, and the experts he now offers, haven’t been tested in a hearing.

Defense

The argument

The trial was a product of its moment. A court “removed from the hysteria of the day” can now see that the doctors read video instead of doing medicine, that officials testified falsely about training and nobody corrected it, and that the Attorney General had no lawful power to prosecute at all, so the conviction can’t stand.

Rests on

Affidavits from 57 current and former officers, a judge’s ruling in a separate defamation case that the department’s materials showed similar techniques, and outside forensic experts.

Star Tribune, Dec 4, 2025 · MPR News, Aug 18, 2026

Authority

The right to due process, and the rule that structural errors can’t be waived. He calls the governor’s order handing the case to the Attorney General “illegitimate.”

Where it is weak

The judge found most of the 2025 claims were or could have been raised on appeal. And Minnesota’s rules require a grand jury only for crimes that carry life in prison, which second-degree murder doesn’t.

Fox News, Jul 9, 2026 · Minn. R. Crim. P. 17.01

Logic chainhow the reasoning runs, and where it breaks

Test
Is there something new, or so basic it wasn’t waived, that undoes a final conviction?
Defense
The experts, the training testimony and the charging were all wrong.
What’s new

Nothing. It was argued, or could have been, before.

What’s new

57 officers’ statements, and a flaw in the charge itself.
Prosecution
Its answers aren’t public. The judge applied Knaffla.
Where it lands
One petition denied and on appeal, one pending.

9Should his federal guilty plea be undone?

Prosecution

No. He pleaded knowingly after a careful hearing, waived this kind of challenge, and admitted his actions kept Floyd from getting enough oxygen. The autopsy findings were aired at his state trial, and the same kind of testimony “was not persuasive to the jury.”

Defense

Yes. His lawyer never told him that a pathologist had concluded the tumor found at the autopsy, not Chauvin, caused Floyd’s death. Had he known, he “would not have pled guilty, and would have insisted on going to trial.”

CourtUndecided. The judge let his experts examine Floyd’s heart tissue and fluids, finding they “could support” the pathologist’s opinion, and has put the hearing off since January 2025 while the testing goes on.

Government response pp. 7, 11 · Motion to vacate p. 2 · Order, ECF 565 p. 3

Detailthe argument, what it rests on, where it is weak

Prosecution

The argument

His plea waived every later challenge except a claim that his lawyer failed him, and that claim fails. He told the judge under questioning that he understood what he was giving up. A lawyer isn’t ineffective for not passing on a theory the jury in his state trial had already heard and rejected.

Rests on

The plea agreement, the plea hearing transcript, and the state trial record.

Government response pp. 3–4 · Plea transcript p. 22

Authority

The waiver in his plea agreement, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s test for a lawyer’s failure, Strickland v. Washington (1984).

Where it is weak

The judge found good cause to let the testing go ahead over the government’s objection, and reminded it that “this matter is separate from Defendant’s state prosecution.”

Order, ECF 565 p. 3 · Order, ECF 567

Defense

The argument

A pathologist, Dr. William Schaetzel, wrote during the state trial that Floyd’s tumor released a surge of adrenaline-like hormones that led to heart failure. His lawyer had that and kept it from him while advising him to take the deal. That’s ineffective assistance, and it made his plea unknowing.

Rests on

Dr. Schaetzel’s email of April 2021, a second doctor’s report, and the autopsy’s description of the tumor.

Motion to vacate, ECF 544 · Schaetzel email p. 11 · Reply, ECF 562

Authority

Strickland v. Washington, and Hill v. Lockhart (1985), which applies it to guilty pleas.

Where it is weak

He admitted in his plea agreement that his actions impaired Floyd’s ability to get enough oxygen, and that his force became unreasonable. The medical examiner called the tumor incidental.

Plea agreement pp. 4–6 · Autopsy report p. 24

Logic chainhow the reasoning runs, and where it breaks

Test
Did his lawyer fall short, and would he have gone to trial if he hadn’t?
Defense
He’d never have pleaded if he’d known about the tumor theory.
The theory

Already heard at the state trial, and rejected.

The theory

Never tested, until the tissue is examined.
Prosecution
He pleaded knowingly and admitted the facts.
Where it lands
Undecided. Testing allowed in December 2024, and nothing public since.

Back to the case

Notes

How this was made, and what it leaves out

Source

Built from the record the trial court posts for this case: the complaints, the judge’s orders, the jury instructions, the verdict forms, the sentencing order, and the briefs on appeal. Then the Court of Appeals’ 2023 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court’s docket, and the federal case’s filings, read through the archive of federal court records on CourtListener. Each side is described in its own words in court or in its own filings.

The trial itself was never posted as a court reporter’s transcript, so words spoken in the courtroom are quoted from transcripts of the broadcast and cited by its clock. The court’s website sometimes refuses a request it takes for a robot, and a browser gets through.

Minnesota Judicial Branch, case page · Federal docket · Ct. App. opinion

What isn’t public

His petitions since 2024, the State’s answers to them, and the trial court’s orders on them aren’t on the court’s case page. The parts of these pages about them rest on news reports, and each one is cited. Neither are the trial exhibits. The results of the tissue testing in the federal case haven’t been made public.

The jurors’ names were released by the court in November 2021. These pages don’t use them. Jurors are known here by number, as they were in court.

Order of Oct 25, 2021 p. 3 · Star Tribune, Dec 4, 2025 · MPR News, Aug 18, 2026

Names and numbers

There are five numbers for how long he was held down, and each one belongs to someone. The first complaint said his knee was on Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds. The judge’s 2020 order said “more than nine minutes and twenty seconds.” At trial the State said 9 minutes and 29 seconds, and the appeals court used that. The judge’s sentencing findings said “more than nine minutes and forty seconds,” and his federal plea says about ten minutes. These pages say whose number they use.

People are named when they’re a party, a lawyer, a judge, or a witness who testified in public. The young witnesses aren’t named, except Darnella Frazier, whose video and testimony are public under her own name. The 14-year-old in the 2017 case isn’t named, as the federal record doesn’t name him.

Amended complaint p. 4 · Order of Oct 21, 2020 p. 29 · Ct. App. opinion p. 5 · Findings of May 11, 2021 p. 4 · Plea agreement p. 3

What this is not

Not legal advice, not a finding, and not a verdict. He stands convicted of second-degree murder in state court and of violating Floyd’s civil rights in federal court. What he argues in his petitions is reported here as his argument, and the courts haven’t accepted any of it so far.

The other three officers were tried, or pleaded, in cases of their own. These pages mention them only where they’re part of his. Where the record doesn’t reach, these pages say so and stop.

AP, Feb 24, 2022

Tell me what I got wrong

If something here is missed, misrepresented or unfairly portrayed, let me know. Point me at a filing or record and I will verify it on my end. I actively look to correct, improve and remain unbiased.

No account, no name, no email. The submission stores what you typed, your address and your browser string, to make abuse traceable and for nothing else.

Record reviewed through October 22, 2026. Nothing filed after that date is reflected here.

Terms

Plain English

Words these pages use because the courts use them. Two courts convicted him, a state court and a federal one, and a few words belong to only one of them.

The courts

Hennepin County District Court: The state trial court for Minneapolis and the county around it. Judge Peter Cahill tried the case there. A different judge, Paul Scoggin, has heard his petitions since.
Minnesota Court of Appeals: The state court that hears appeals from trial courts. Three of its judges decide each case.
Minnesota Supreme Court: The state’s highest court. It chooses which appeals to hear, and it turned down his.
Federal court: The United States’ own courts, separate from the state’s. The federal case was in the U.S. District Court in St. Paul, before Judge Paul Magnuson.
Attorney General: Minnesota’s chief lawyer, elected statewide. Keith Ellison’s office took over the prosecution from the county prosecutor in May 2020.
Two prosecutions: A state and the federal government count as separate governments, so each can prosecute the same act under its own laws. That isn’t double jeopardy.

The paperwork

Complaint: The document that starts a criminal case in Minnesota. It lists the charges and the facts the prosecutor says support them. An amended complaint replaces it.
Grand jury: A group of citizens who hear the prosecutor’s evidence in private and decide whether to charge someone. Minnesota only requires one for crimes that carry life in prison, like first-degree murder, so this case started with a complaint instead.
Indictment: A charge brought by a grand jury. The federal case started with one.
Information: A charge a prosecutor files without a grand jury. In federal court that takes the defendant’s consent, which he gave for the 2017 count.
Docket: The court’s numbered list of everything filed in a case. Entry 42 is the forty-second thing filed.
Plea agreement: A written deal between a defendant and the prosecutors. He pleads guilty to some charges, and they agree on others to drop and on a range of sentence.
Broadcast transcript: A word-for-word record. The court reporter’s transcript of this trial was never posted, so these pages quote transcripts typed from the court’s own video feed and cite them by its clock.

The charges

Second-degree unintentional murder: Causing a death, without meaning to, while committing a felony. Here the felony was third-degree assault. This is the one count he was convicted and sentenced on.
Third-degree assault: Intentionally using unlawful force on someone, without their consent, that causes substantial bodily harm. He only had to mean to use the force, not to cause that much harm.
Third-degree murder: Causing a death by an act “eminently dangerous” to others, done with “a depraved mind,” without meaning to kill. Also called depraved-mind murder.
Second-degree manslaughter: Causing a death by culpable negligence, which means consciously taking a chance of causing death or great harm that an ordinary careful person would see.
Lesser offense: A crime contained in a more serious one. Minnesota law allows only one conviction for the same act, so the other two guilty verdicts were never entered as convictions.
Under color of law: Acting with the power of a government job, like a police officer on duty. The federal civil rights law makes it a crime to use that power to take away someone’s constitutional rights.
Aiding and abetting: Intentionally helping someone else commit a crime. The other three officers were charged that way.

How a case moves

Probable cause: Enough evidence to make it reasonable to believe a person committed the crime. It’s the bar a charge has to clear to go to trial, and it’s a lot lower than proof.
Venue: Where a trial is held. A defendant can ask to move it if publicity would make a fair jury impossible where the crime happened.
Continuance: Putting a trial or a hearing off to a later date.
Severance: Splitting one trial of several defendants into separate trials.
Sequester: Keeping jurors away from news and the public, sometimes in a hotel, so nothing outside the courtroom reaches them.
Jury selection: Questioning possible jurors one by one to find out if they can be fair. Also called voir dire.
Peremptory strike: Removing a possible juror without giving a reason. Each side gets a set number. Here the judge raised his to 18 and the State’s to 10.
Excused for cause: Removing a possible juror for a specific reason they can’t be fair, like having already made up their mind. There’s no limit on these.
Alternate juror: A juror who hears the whole trial but only deliberates if one of the twelve has to leave.
Anonymous jury: Jurors known in court only by number, their names kept from the public until the judge releases them.
Earlier incident: Evidence of something that happened before the case, which a jury may only use for a narrow purpose the judge sets. Minnesota calls it Spreigl evidence.
The Fifth: The right not to be a witness against yourself. A defendant who uses it doesn’t testify, and the jury is told it can’t hold that against him.
Rebuttal: Evidence or argument that answers the other side’s. The State goes last because it has to prove the case.
Beyond a reasonable doubt: The level of proof needed to convict. It means proof that leaves the jury firmly convinced, not proof beyond every possible doubt.
Unanimous: All twelve jurors agreeing. A verdict in a criminal case has to be.
Polling the jury: Asking each juror out loud, one at a time, if the verdict read is theirs.

What the jury had to decide

Substantial causal factor: The test for causing a death. His acts didn’t have to be the only cause, only a substantial one. Other causes don’t excuse him unless one of them alone caused the death.
Superseding cause: Something that comes afterward and breaks the chain, so that it alone causes the death. It’s the one way another cause can clear a defendant.
Authorized use of force: The defense the jury was told about. No crime is committed if a police officer uses reasonable force to make a lawful arrest, and the State had to prove his force wasn’t that.
Reasonable officer: How force is judged. The question is what a reasonable officer in the same situation would have done at the moment the force was used, not what the officer meant or what hindsight shows.
Prone restraint: Holding a person face down. Police training warns it can make it hard to breathe, and says to move the person onto their side once they’re under control.
Recovery position: Rolling a person onto their side so they can breathe more easily. The Minneapolis police’s own training said to do it.
Hobble: A strap that ties a person’s legs together. The officers talked about using one and didn’t.
Maximal restraint technique: The Minneapolis police method of strapping a struggling person’s legs and moving them off their stomach. The defense said what the officers did began as one. The State said the knee was no part of it.
Asphyxia: Death from not getting enough oxygen. The State’s doctors said the restraint caused it.
Paraganglioma: A rare tumor that can release adrenaline. One was found at the autopsy and called incidental, meaning the medical examiner didn’t think it played a part.

The sentence

Sentencing guidelines: Minnesota’s chart of how long a sentence should be for each crime, set by a state commission. A judge has to stay inside its range unless there are substantial and compelling reasons not to.
Presumptive sentence: What the guidelines call for. For this crime and no past record it’s 150 months, inside a range of 128 to 180.
Aggravating factor: A fact that makes a crime worse than the usual one of its kind, like particular cruelty. It has to be proved before a judge can go past the guidelines.
Blakely: A 2004 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that a jury has to find the facts behind a longer sentence, unless the defendant gives that up. He gave it up, so the judge decided them.
Upward departure: A sentence longer than the guidelines’ range. His was 270 months against a top of 180.
Concurrent: Served at the same time. His state and federal sentences run together, not one after the other.
Supervised release: A period after a federal prison term when a person lives under conditions the court sets, checked by a probation officer.

After the verdict

Motion for a new trial: Asking the trial judge to throw out the verdict and start over because something went wrong. It comes before any appeal.
Schwartz hearing: A hearing in Minnesota where a judge questions jurors about possible misconduct after a trial. He asked for one and was refused.
Direct appeal: The first appeal after a conviction, which looks only at what happened at trial. His was decided in 2023.
Petition for review: Asking the Minnesota Supreme Court to hear a case after the Court of Appeals has ruled. It turns most of them down.
Certiorari: Asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case. It takes very few, and turning one down decides nothing about the case itself.
Post-conviction petition: A way to challenge a state conviction after the appeal is over, usually with something that wasn’t in the trial record. It goes back to the trial court first.
Knaffla rule: Minnesota’s rule that a petition after the appeal can’t raise what was raised, or could have been raised, on appeal, with narrow exceptions.
Structural error: A mistake in how a case was run that’s so basic a court doesn’t ask whether it changed the result. His lawyer says the way he was charged is one.
Motion to vacate: The federal version of a post-conviction petition, under section 2255 of the federal code. His asks to undo his federal guilty plea.
Ineffective assistance: A lawyer’s work falling so far short that it denied the client a fair process. It’s the one kind of claim his plea deal let him bring later.
Stay: Pausing a case, or a ruling, until something else is decided.

The stamp on a ruling

Granted: The court said yes to the request on this card, whichever side made it.
Granted in part: The court gave some of what was asked for on this card and said no to the rest.
Denied: The court said no to the request on this card.
Reinstated: A charge that had been dismissed was put back, so the jury could decide it.
Guilty: The jury’s verdict, or his own plea in court. It becomes a conviction once the court enters judgment on it.
Affirmed: The court above agreed with the court below and left the conviction and the sentence as they were.
Dismissed: Thrown out without a ruling on whether the claims in it were right.