Sentencing Derek Chauvin

Now that Derek Chauvin has been found guilty of murder, what happens next? Sarah flies ...

By

Now that Derek Chauvin has been found guilty of murder, what happens next? Sarah flies solo on today’s podcast in an interview with former United States Attorney in the Office for the Eastern District of Virginia Zach Terwilliger to talk about just that. Sarah and Zach break down all of the legal jargon you may hear about this case and explain what to watch out for next in Derek Chauvin’s sentencing. Plus, Zach offers some advice to all of the wannabe federal prosecutors out there.

Show Notes:

–Zach Terwilliger Bio Page

–Judge in Chauvin case talking about Maxine Waters

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (12)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Missi McMorries

    Sarah, I thought this was a great podcast with one very glaring exception. You referred to the Slager prosecution without once mentioning the victim. His name was Walter Scott. It is important to say his name.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Larry O

    Y'all missed that Minnesota has a 2/3s law. Love you guys, but that's an enormous part of sentencing in Minnesota.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Bennet

    Don’t tell Jonah, he is my spirit animal. David is my guiding light to be a better human. Steve is wise, period. Please keep doing what you’re doing. I will keep paying for it. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Jason Gibson

      And Sarah? Rock Star? Secretly the most powerful member of the fantastic four? Not unlike sue storm

      Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Bennet

    Sarah

    You are a great interviewer. My wife is a criminal defense attorney. I truly appreciate the way you do your job.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Bennet

    Sarah

    You are a great interviewer. My wife is a criminal defense attorney. I truly appreciate the way you do your job.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

    I'm not admitted in MN, only in TX; and my personal experience in criminal law is limited to the year I spent clerking on the Fifth Circuit (1980-1981) and some pro bono appellate work thereafter. But that's plenty enough experience for me to ask, somewhat incredulously in this instance:

    What about the motion for new trial?

    That is going to precede sentencing. It definitely is going to precede any appeal, and the appeal is going to be limited to the issues complained about in the motion for new trial.

    The trial judge is quoted in the press as suggesting that there may be a sentencing hearing in the next eight weeks. That makes sense, not only because there will need to be pre-sentencing investigation and a report compiled and briefing thereupon, but because of Rule 26.04(3) of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure, which reads: "Notice of a motion for a new trial must be served within 15 days after a verdict or finding of guilty. The motion must be heard within 30 days after the verdict or finding of guilty, unless the time for hearing is extended by the court for good cause within the 30-day period." Link: https://casetext.com/rule/minnesota-court-rules/minnesota-rules-of-criminal-procedure/rule-26-trial/rule-2604-post-verdict-motions

    Such motions for new trial are almost universally made — again, they're an absolutely essential prerequisite for an appeal from a criminal conviction, in either the federal or state systems — and they're routinely denied. But not always!

    And what’s not routine is a trial judge who’s already made, on the record, the observations that this trial judge has made about an out-of-state congressperson giving the defendant possible appellate grounds. Those grounds will be tested again before that trial judge, via the motion for new trial, before sentencing. So, too, will be a number of other alleged errors by the trial judge, including his denial of a continuance motion and a renewal of the change of venue motion, after the City weighed in with its pronouncement of Chauvin’s guilt by loading up wheelbarrows full of cash for Chauvin’s family during the jury selection. If the trial judge changes position on any of these rulings, there could well be a new trial granted without the case ever seeing the inside of the appellate courts, and with no sentence being determined.

    Respectfully, y'all have dropped a stitch here, and it's a potentially important one. Indeed, the ruling on the motion for new trial is the next potential flash-point that could result in more violent rioting. Do I think it's LIKELY that the motion for new trial will be granted? It never is, and isn't here. Is Chauvin's motion for new trial likely to be much stronger than the average one, and could this be one of the rare exceptions when a trial judge, after further reflection than was possible mid-trial, indeed reverses himself on an important ruling that results in a new trial, rather than sentencing and appeal? Yes, indeed, this could be that.

    This will not be a pro forma motion for new trial.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Victor Clairmont

      If a new trial was granted, expect hell to break loose.

      Which is sad, in a different way.

      Collapse
  7. Mark Moromisato

    I was hoping for a more dispassionate assessment of the verdict and sentencing. It's as though we have to couch analysis in emotion and personal outrage to inoculate ourselves from ad hominem criticism before giving an opinion relevant to the facts of a case. It's tedious and exhausting. I listened to over half of the podcast before giving up and deleting the download. I thought that the subscriber-based business model would spare us of most of this. Maybe I expected too much.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Kevin Johnson

    I loved this podcast. Really informative. I laugh to hear you continually cite the “others” controversy about a given law. I don’t doubt your lawyerly black magic (paraphrasing Jonah) that the issue is real. But walking on the beach I wondered: does that mean that the golden rule “do unto others...” means “do whatever the F you want...just to one person at a time!” Hilarious.

    I was bummed to hear the distinguished guest say he felt unqualified to discuss the issue of where policing goes post Chauvin verdict...because he is a white male. The Critical Race Theory hysteria is making it required for people in public positions to parrot the obscene and racist ideology that people are essentially, if not entirely, defined by their skin color (or other “oppressed/oppressor” marker. How can this be respectable language after the civil rights movement?

    And on “consent decrees” as federal oversight of local police, your guest gave a cogent explanation of pros and cons...with a giant omission. When he says “if they find improper procedures...” he leaves out that this administration, like the Obama administration, has decreed that any disparity in outcomes from the percentage of the population proves discrimination. Stops by police can’t be measured against the percentage of suspects which victims identify by race, sex, etc., but rather by percentage of the overall population. Police are supposed to ignore stats showing that a wildly disproportionate number of victims of violent crime are minorities, and many live in minority neighborhoods. And they must ignore that a highly disproportionate number of homicide perpetrators are minorities, as are their victims. An “inquiry” based on Critical Race Theory assumptions will always find “discrimination”. This will discredit evidence of the real problems with stereotyping and excessive force which exist and might be documented by an inquiry without wild prejudice. Thanks

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Pastorfbt

    One of the best guests you've had. Precise and informative.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Gary Robbins

    I started to listen, but when I heard the new bumper music I turned it off.

    Collapse