Thread by @JohnFPfaff

In case anyone wondered what Chauvin judge was talking about at the end when he talked about "Blakely":

The statutory max for 2nd degree murder in MN is 40 yrs, but MN has fairly strict sentencing guidelines, which set the default at 12.5 yrs.

Takes some work to something more.

It used to be judges operating under guidelines like MN's could do some post-trial fact-finding. If they found aggravating facts, they could impose above-the-default sentences. If they didn't find them, they couldn't.

In Blakely v Washington, SCOTUS threw a wrench into this.

The details of case itself, and the somewhat chaotic and at times infuriating cases that got to it, aren't so important (tho I wrote my dissertation on it, so... if you want them...).

What matters is that it declared judicial fact-finding like MN's unconstitutional.

Post-Blakely, if state guidelines said that certain facts HAD to be found to impose a higher sentence, then those facts had to be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt (before judges found them by something less).

That's what is happening here.

MN has filed its intent to prove aggravating factors: mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/me…

So in a few weeks, there will be a mini-trial to determine if these facts exist. If the jury says they do (and if there aren't offsetting mitigators), the judge CAN, if he wants, go above 12.5 yrs.

Finding the aggravators doesn't COMPEL the judge to impose the tougher sanction. But they give him the option to impose any sentence up to the statutory maximum.

(The defense will surely push for a downward departure too.)

So that's the "Blakely" hearing mentioned at the end.

Ah, didn't catch this part. Guessing his lawyers are thinking that if the jury convicted this quickly, they aren't his friend, and maybe he has a better chance with a judge.

There's data to back this up.

mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/me…

Sentencing juries--which exist in a handful of states--are thought to be distinctly harsher than judges.

Which makes sense: judges see a wider range of cases, making any defendant's case seem far more "normal" to the judge than to the once-in-a-lifetime juror.