Tamburino Talks Law: George Floyd case pre-trial decisions and Minnesota precedent

A Minnesota judge is about to make some key pre-trial decisions regarding the George Floyd case. One of those decision is if the defendants will have separate trials. Could clues to this decision come from another famous Minnesota case? The judge in the murder trial of Minneapolis Police Officer Jerry Hoff also had to determine if there would be separate trials.
We know conclusion that judge came to and also the general precedent in Minnesota courts. Listen to my fully analysis by clicking here Tamburino Talks Law or read my article below:

The prosecution in the George Floyd murder cases, the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office (AG), has motioned the trial court to join all four defendants in one trial rather than allowing separate trials for each accused. The defendants have objected to that motion and have argued that a joint trial would not be fair to each of them. The judge has not yet ruled on the "joinder" motion, so this would be a good point to briefly explain the issues at hand to the public.

First, any examination of Minnesota’s case law and judicial practice would confirm that Minnesota has a well-established legal preference for separate trials. The law attempts to ensure that individual defendants receive fair trials, i.e., the jury decides the evidence against them individually and not be convicted just because they have a co-defendant(s).

Second, our judicial history proves that separate trials are favored over joint trials. A prime example would be the four separate jury trials for the four men charged with killing Officer Jerry Haaf on September 25, 1992. Officer Haaf was brutally gunned down while at the Pizza Shack restaurant by four men who were part of a street gang and conspired together to kill a police officer. They found Off. Haaf at the restaurant eating pizza and they decided to kill him. Yet, even though the four men conspired with each other, belonged to the same gang, and planned out a murder amongst themselves, they all had separate jury trials.

Lastly, the AG will have to convince the judge that the four defendants in the Floyd case would not be prejudiced by having a joint trial. This will be difficult to do considering the facts that all four may have divergent defenses, dissimilar police training histories, and divergent experiences with each other. But stay tuned, because the court’s decision will likely be issued soon.

Comments

Tamburino Talks Law: Rollercoaster Last Days of Trump Administration - Pardons, Impeachment and Resignation?

Many predictions are being made about the rollercoaster final days of the Trump presidency. Could the president issue mass pardons? What are the implications of impeachment? And, could in a last minute move the president resign and be pardoned like President Nixon? Here is my take in Tamburino Talks Law

Tamburino Talks Law: Minnesota on New York State Travel Advisory List

Click Here to Listen to Tamburino Talks Law: Minnesota on New York State Travel Advisory List Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York recently added Minnesota to the list of approximately 22 states that are part of New York special travel advisories and quarantine rules. New York decided that any person traveling to New York from a state that has a positive Covid-19 testing rate in excess of 10%, or a number of positive cases exceeding 10 per 100,000 residents, based on a 7 day rolling average, must self quarantine for 14 days before they are allowed to travel freely within New York state. There are exceptions for essential workers (such as health care professionals), and for people who are simply traveling through New York and would only be in the state for less than 24 hours. The new rules also differentiate airline travel from non-airline travel. First, if you fly into any airport in New York...

Suspending Constitutional Rights During COVID-19

U.S. Attorney General William Barr is now asking Congress to suspend parts of the U.S. Constitution that guarantees all individuals the right to a speedy and fair trial, the right to bail, and the right to due process under the law. He makes this utterly absurd request under the guise of the Covid-19 emergency. He wants the chief judge of each federal district to be empowered to decide which people to hold indefinitely without bail or trial and continue all sorts of other hearings and trials both criminal and civil. Suspending such constitutional rights is completely unnecessary since our justice system can easily adapt (as we are seeing in many parts of the country today) to the new realities of physical distancing, limiting gatherings, dispensing with in-person contact visitation with inmates, and continuing trials and hearings for periods of time when necessary. In fact, here in Minnesota, our courts are adapting very well. We’re d...

Tamburino Talks Law

Search This Blog