A painting by George Freud.
- Thomas Lane, J Kueng and Tou Thao are scheduled to stand trial in March next year.
- They face charges of aiding and abetting second-degree murder and manslaughter in the murder of George Floyd.
- Three former police lawyers said The public interview caused some witnesses to refuse to testify for the defense.
The three former Minneapolis police attorneys accused of the death of George Floyd have asked the judge to ban the live broadcast of their upcoming trial, saying that if the proceedings are broadcast live, some witnesses will not Will testify.
The lawyers for Thomas Lane, J Kueng and Tou Thao made a request that was completely different from their earlier request to broadcast the trial publicly, but they were opposed by prosecutors and news media including the Associated Press.
Lane, Kueng and Thao plan to stand trial in March next year for aiding and abetting second-degree murder and manslaughter in Floyd’s death in May 2020.
Their co-defendant, Derek Chauvin, was found guilty of murder and manslaughter in April after weeks of proceedings, marking the first full live broadcast of a criminal trial in Minnesota.
Read also | The doctor told the court that George Freud died of “hypoxia”
Before Chauvin’s trial, the lawyers of all four asked for a broadcast of the trial, but Lane and Kueng recently withdrew. Their lawyers stated that the “global propaganda” of Chauvin’s trace TV report “smashed” their clients to get a fair trial. s right.
Attorneys Earl Gray and Tom Plunkett stated that the public interviews caused some witnesses to refuse to testify for the defense and pointed out that one witness in Chauvin’s trial was harassed and another witness faced professional review.
They wrote:
The cameras of the Chauvin court took us to a dangerous passage where people were prevented from testifying in defense because they were afraid of the anger of the crowd.
Thao’s lawyer, Robert Paule, said in court on Thursday that he would file a motion to oppose it along with two other police officers.
Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill presided over Chauvin’s trial and is dealing with the case of three other police officers. He said he will make a ruling on the live broadcast later.
Minnesota court rules generally prohibit the use of cameras in criminal trials unless both parties agree. In spite of the prosecutor’s initial objections, Cahill ordered the trial to be broadcast live because of global interest in the case and the pandemic that has limited courtroom space. The live broadcast was widely praised and prompted the state to consider expanding its rules for broadcasting future court proceedings.
Prosecutors initially opposed livestreaming Chauvin’s trial, but now say it is the right move-to protect everyone involved during the pandemic, allow meaningful public access and let people watch the fair management of the justice system.
They also supported the live broadcast of the second trial, saying that the defense’s claim that audio and video reports would prevent them from obtaining a fair trial is unconvincing. They said that there is no concrete evidence that any witnesses refused to testify in defense-if so, unwilling witnesses may be forced to appear in court.
The prosecutor wrote: “In fact, if defendants have difficulty finding expert witnesses—and there is no evidence that they cannot obtain expert witnesses—then this difficulty is the product of their overwhelming guilt.”
The lawyers of the Media Union also stated that the court should allow audio and video reporting, and that even if the trial is not broadcast on TV, witnesses will still face publicity and censorship because their names and testimony content will be reported. The Media Union argued that some witnesses were not worried about the live broadcast, but simply did not want to have contact with the defendant.
Media lawyers also argued that banning cameras means that the public cannot fully monitor what is happening.
Read also | Former policeman Derek Chauvin sentenced to 22 and a half years for killing George Freud
Minnesota defense attorney Brock Hunter stated that banning cameras will not protect the identities of witnesses, because “whether they testify on live broadcasts or are quoted in the news, they will be publicly identified and face potential strong opposition.”
In other motions filed on Thursday, Gray waived the state’s request for all reports on the use of force since July 2016, in which another police officer intervened in the use of force by a colleague because he was moving from the city. Hunt them down. When testifying against Xiao Wan’s trial, officials often mentioned the intervention duties of officials.
Cahill also heard the arguments of a defense motion on Thursday that claimed that a potential expert witness in the state forced the testimony of Dr. Andrew Baker, a Hennepin County forensic doctor, that the state has denied. After the New York Times reported that Shavin was prepared to plead guilty a few days after Freud’s death, he also considered a defense request against sanctions. Many lawyers from the Attorney General’s Office and the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office have submitted affidavits stating that they are not the source of the leaked information.
Shavin was sentenced to 22.5 years in prison. All four former police officers also face federal charges alleging that they violated Freud’s civil rights.
Don’t miss a story. Choose from our newsletter Send the news you want directly to your inbox.
