Derek Chauvin’s attorneys ask the court on Monday for three things: overturn his conviction, grant him a new trial or return the case to a lower court so he can be resentenced, according to ABC News.
Last year, Chauvin was found guilty of all three charges in the death of George Floyd, sentenced to 22.5 years in prison and also pleaded guilty to violating Floyd’s civil rights in federal court.
In June 2021 when Chauvin was sentenced, he also requested a new trial but was denied.
From ABC News:
In a 72-page court filing, Chauvin’s lawyers said that pretrial publicity, jurors’ concerns for their safety, the potential for riots to break out if Chauvin was acquitted and physical threats to the courthouse prevented Chauvin from getting a fair trial.
“The overwhelming media coverage exposed the jurors — literally every day — to news demonizing Chauvin and glorifying Floyd, which was more than sufficient to presume prejudice,” the court filing said.
The lawyers added, “However, the real problem is the jurors expressed concern for (i) they and their families’ personal safety and (ii) riots breaking out in the event they acquitted Chauvin.”
The court filing argued that a change of venue, which was previously denied by the lower court, was necessary in this case.
Chauvin’s attorneys also argued for his sentence to be lowered from the 22.5 years he received in June 2021, arguing that Chauvin, who did not have a criminal history before this case, should’ve received 12.5 years, according to ABC News.
His attorney’s also argued that Chauvin had the right to “touch” Floyd and under Minnesota law, cannot be convicted of murder.
More from ABC News:
Later, the attorneys claimed that “in order for a police officer to be convicted of murder, Minnesota statutes require the officer to be using ‘deadly force’ — force one knows will cause either death or ‘great bodily harm.’ Putting your knees on the back of a suspect does not create a ‘substantial risk of causing, death or great bodily harm.’”
The court telling the jury that “it is not necessary for the State to prove that [Chauvin] intended to inflict substantial bodily harm” is a “material misstatement of the law,” Chauvin’s attorneys argued.