On April 20, a jury convicted former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin of second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. The trial of Chauvin, the former officer who killed George Floyd, commenced on March 29. 

The second-degree murder conviction could land Chauvin up to forty years in prison, while a third-degree murder conviction could result in up to twenty-five years and a second-degree manslaughter conviction up to ten years. However, Chauvin has no criminal record, meaning that his sentence is likely to be less than the maximum. Chauvin’s sentence hearing will begin in eight weeks. 

According to Social Studies Teacher Kimberly Leegan, the extremely publicized nature of the murder and the case itself made this jury selection process much more intricate and complicated. “When a case is like this, normally [jury selection] panels are called in a couple hundred at a time,” Leegan said.

Ultimately, a group of fourteen male and female Black, white and mixed race jurors of all ages were selected from these hundreds of candidates.

Attorney General Keith Ellison led the prosecution, Attorney Eric Nelson led the defense team, and the judge that presided over the case was Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill. 

The prosecution focused on proving that the use of force by Chauvin was excessive, as well as that the fact that this use of force resulted in his death, and more specifically the murder, of Floyd. One of the most significant pieces of evidence used in the prosecution’s case was the nine-and-a-half-minute-long video of Floyd struggling as Chauvin kneeled on his neck.

“Believe your eyes,” said prosecutor Steve Schleicher during his closing argument. “Unreasonable force, pinning him to the ground — that’s what killed him. This was a homicide.” 

The prosecution also included emotional testimonies from 17-year-old Darnella Frazier and Charles McMillian, who both witnessed the murder of Floyd. In addition, Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo testified against Chauvin, stating that he does not condone Chauvin’s actions against Floyd, as they do not reflect the department’s ethics and values. 

On the other hand, the defense was focused on convincing the jurors that Floyd’s death was not caused by Chauvin and that the level of force used was appropriate. Nelson argued that “a reasonable police officer” would have responded the same way that Chauvin did because of how the situation escalated. In their case, the attorneys presented evidence and testimonies to show the jurors the potential impacts of external factors, such as drugs, on Floyd that could have resulted in his death. 

In the defense team’s closing argument, Nelson said, “It’s not the proper analysis. Because the 9 minutes and 29 seconds ignore the previous 16 minutes and 59 seconds [of interaction between Floyd and the police]. It completely disregards it. It says in that moment, at that point, nothing else that happened before should be taken into consideration by a reasonable police officer. It tries to reframe the issue of what a reasonable police officer would do.”