Thread by @AngiMaryssa

Defense also filed a memo opposing the upward sentencing departure.

Defense basically argued the exact opposite. Says Floyd was not particularly vulnerable bc he was over six feet tall, muscular, and weighed over 200 lbs; was able to prevent two officers from putting him in the squad; and "continued to struggle" on the ground. 🤦🏾‍♀️ Sigh

Defense compares this case to others where the victims were sleeping or were children, saying that is not the situation here.

Defense says chauvin's actions weren't "particularly cruel" bc state hasn't met its burden to show that they were. Says its not enough that bystanders observed the murder and that other cases show the bystanders should be related to or friends with the victim. Seems weak.

Defense still argues that Chauvin calling police was his way of providing medical assistance. I mean, it's so absurd. So even if you're actively killing someone, we should believe you aren't being cruel bc you are helping them bc you called the ambulance. 🤦🏾‍♀️

Defense argues there was no particular cruelty bc there was no gratuitous infliction of pain (pain not usually associated with the offense). This is peak lawyering 🤦🏾‍♀️ Defense argues that, bc pain is associated with felony murder (assault), the pain inflicted wasn't "gratuitous."

Defense actually writes that the assault of Mr Floyd "occurred in the course of a very short time."

Defense argues that Chauvin didn't abuse his authority bc cases using this factor are usually domestic abuse or criminal sexual conduct cases and defense isn't aware of MN cases where a police officer's position is an aggravating factor... 😑😑😑😑....

And you know WHY there are no cases!? Bc cases where police are actually convicted and this sentenced are RARE IN THIS STATE AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY so of course yall can't find a damn case. 🙃

Defense argues that the 4th factor, that Chauvin committed the crime with 3 others, doesn't apply bc the state has not proven the other 3 guilty yet (I.e. They haven't been convicted yet).

I could see this potentially being an issue. I think maybe the state could argue that proof someone committed a crime may be a different concept from the phrase "active participation." I'll be interested to see how this factor is analyzed by the court.

Finally defense argued the factor re children witnessing the crime doesn't apply bc there are no cases where children were merely bystanders and weren't in danger themselves. It is the weakest argument yet.

Just bc it hasn't happened in this specific way yet doesn't mean the factor doesn't apply.