From 2019: Mixed prosecutorial history of Hennepin County prosecutor Freeman

[Mike 03]

MPRNews

Hennepin County prosecutor Freeman to enter alcohol treatment
Jon Collins and Riham FeshirSt. Paul May 17, 2019 8:12 p.m.

Excerpts:

The day before, Freeman had been attending a crime prevention meeting in Minneapolis where he acted erratically, according to reporting from the Star Tribune. The paper cited sources who said Freeman told the audience he wasn't afraid to charge anyone, including cops
.

The newspaper reported there was apparently a moment where Freeman slapped a police squad car and said something along the lines of, "Thanks for not shooting me."

The reference was to a key issue in the trial of ex-Minneapolis police officer Mohamed Noor, who was recently convicted of murder and manslaughter in the 2017 shooting death of 911 caller Justine Ruszczyk.

...

The case and conviction were extraordinary. Prosecutors and police officers are typically allies in criminal cases. This was the first time a police officer in Minnesota has been convicted of murder for shooting someone while on duty.

...

Freeman has been in the spotlight a lot over the past few years with several high-profile shooting cases. In 2016, Freeman chose not to press charges against two Minneapolis officers in the shooting death of Jamar Clark, concluding that the use of force by the officers was justified.

He faced backlash from activists and community members who believed those officers should've faced criminal charges.

Much more: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/05/17/mike-freeman-hennepin-county-attorney-alcohol-treatment-leave

Does anybody understand Michael Freeman's comments today:

“I will say this, that the video is graphic, & horrific & terrible and no person should do that. But my job in the end is to prove that he violated a criminal statute, and there is other evidence that DOES NOT SUPPORT A CRIMINAL CHARGE.” Michael Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney

What evidence does not support a criminal charge? What did I miss?

Moments ago I heard a former prosecutor on MSNBC call these comments ridiculous. He said the perpetrators of this crime could be arrested today without controversy based on the videotapes alone and the evidence presented to a grand jury.

[Solly Mack]

1. I wasn't impressed with him at all.

Things he said? Not the least bit reassuring.

[DURHAM D]

2. Obviously Freeman loves the camera.

I would like to understand the standards for charging.

Any attorneys around?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. In order to charge the officer with first degree murder,

the prosecutor would have to believe he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer "cause(d) the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent to effect the death of the person or of another." The courts have analyzed these requirements as follows:

To premeditate is “to consider, plan or prepare for, or determine to commit, the act referred to prior to its commission.” Minn. Stat. § 609.18 (1998); see also State v. Buchanan, 431 N.W.2d 542, 547 (Minn. 1988) (“Premeditation indicates a preexisting reflection and deliberation involving more than a mere intent to kill.” (quotation omitted)). The supreme court has long recognized that no specific period of time for deliberation must be shown to establish premeditation. State v. Moore, 481 N.W.2d 355, 361 (Minn. 1992); see also State v. Voorhees, 596 N.W.2d 241, 253 (Minn. 1999) (“[P]remeditation can be formed instantaneously.”), aff’d, 627 N.W.2d 642 (Minn. 2001).

First-degree murder requires “caus[ing] the death of a human being with premeditation and [] intent to effect
the death of the person or of another.” Minn. Stat. § 609.185 (a) (1) (2014). Criminal intent “means that the actor either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified or believes that the act, if successful, will cause that result.” Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 9(4) (2014). “‘Premeditation’ means to consider, plan or prepare for, or determine to commit, the act referred to prior to its commission.” Minn. Stat. § 609.18 (2014). “Because intent and premeditation are states of mind, they are generally proved only by inferences drawn from a person’s words or actions in light of all the surrounding circumstances.” State v. Andrews, 388 N.W.2d 723, 728 (Minn. 1986). Intent is “determined from all the objective facts and circumstances.” State v. Whisonant, 331
N.W.2d 766, 768 (Minn. 1983).

In Minnesota, first degree murder must be charged by means of a grand jury indictment. Typically, in order to make an arrest the charge in the criminal complaint would be for a lesser offense, and then the first-degree murder charge would be submitted to the grand jury. The prosecutor initially would have to have enough evidence to persuade a grand jury that the elements of premeditation and intent were present. In order to convict, a trial jury would have to be able to infer through the evidence (the video and the witness' statements, since the cops have pled the 5th and won't talk) that the cop had intended to kill Lloyd and had premeditated doing so, even if for only an instant. If the prosecutor does not believe these elements can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt he could charge the lesser offenses of 2nd degree murder or one of the forms of manslaughter.

[DURHAM D]

5. Thank you.

I can see why there is a problem with 1st degree.

What can you tell me about the challenges for the U.S. Attorney?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. The feds are investigating whether there was a civil rights violation.

There is no federal statute for murder, except for a few specific circumstances. It’s a federal crime when a person who is acting under “under color of any law” (that is, under governmental authority) violates another person’s civil rights “willfully” (18 U.S.C. § 242). The word “willfully” in the federal statute means that the defendants must have had a “specific intent” to deprive the victim of a particular federal right. So the feds have the same burden of proving the cop's intent beyond a reasonable doubt - that is, whether he intended to deprive George Lloyd of a particular federal right. This statute is often used to prosecute police misconduct such as false arrest or, as in this case, excessive force. As with the potential murder charge under state law, the cop's intent would have to be inferred from the other available evidence since the cops aren't talking.

[Mike 03]

7. Thank you.

So the analyst on MSNBC was mistaken to say any officers could be arrested "today" because this case has to go before a grand jury first.

I'm not convinced that establishing premeditation would be so difficult in this instance.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. There could be an arrest if by a complaint alleging a lesser offense,

but there might be tactical reasons for not doing that. The involvement of the FBI is probably part of the decision, since they usually get first dibs on any evidence.

[rusty fender]

3. He had no problem charging

a black officer who shot a white woman with murder, but can’t bring himself to charge a white cop with murdering a black man. Racist much?

[Progressive Jones]

6. Cowardice. That is the only reason. He's afraid of the Murder Pigs. nt