Sorry, from what I read I thought that situation, the multiple experiences and accounts of him being aggressive towards minorities, could be brought up by the State as aggregating factors. He waived having the jury decide that, now the Judge will weigh the factors presented by both sides; I didn't take that to mean that the club situation would not be brought up at all, it may not be, but that's what I thought of it all.
I thought it might be brought up, especially so since it was not brought up during the trial, much like in some other cases where prosecution tries to bring up past violent crimes by the defendant that the jury didn't know about before rescuing a verdict. I may be wrong, I was just curious what others thought of the situation anyway, because there's good conversation fostered here. At first the club stuff sounded almost like fringe conspiracy stuff to me but after seeing that shortly after this terrible event, former employees and the club manager came forward with very similiar accounts, and it really got me thinking about if DC knew who GF was after he arrived on scene. We may never know for sure but I was just curious what others thought
Can the judge bring into what was not in evidence through the post trial investigation to make even worse for him? hmmm, interesting! You may be on target for such!
----
It wasn't brought up by the state that I see. Can you link to such that I've highlighted vs. the State not including? Thanks! As the judge may bring in even more... Could it be that the post trial investigation brings in such that was not in evidence??? VERY interesting...... indeed! Thanks!
BRB to do an ETA what State submitted... but if you can do a link for what you are thinking... great addition to threads (the state perhaps did not do as he wasn't called on for it per statutes?)
Lemme BRB to add....
Found it ETA:
This was the state's original submission for upward sentencing - filed August 28, 2020, for FIVE aggravating factors...
https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgo...s/27-CR-20-12646/NoticebyAttorney08282020.pdf
State's proposed jury interrogatories - filed October 12, 2020, for aggravating factors (Moot now due to Blakely waiver, but of interest as the judge perhaps will have this train of thought when he decides vs the jury)
https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgo...-CR-20-12646/ProposedInstructions10122020.pdf
State Response to judge's request to expound on 2 of the aggravating factors - filed October 12,
https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/Briefs10122020.pdf ("At the September 11 hearing, the Court asked the State for additional briefing addressing the following questions: (i) Whether the particular vulnerability of the victim justifies an upward sentencing departure when the defendants are responsible for creating the victim’s vulnerability; and (ii) Whether a defendant’s abuse of a 2 position of authority supports an upward sentencing departure even if there is not a pre-existing relationship of trust between the defendant and the victim. ......")
COURT ORDER stating probable cause exists to submit all the interrogatories proposed by the State and that State can argue all 5 aggravating factors at sentencing .
https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgo...Cases/27-CR-20-12646/BlakelyOrder01262021.pdf
ETA List of mitigating factors listed by State to the court above:
1. George Floyd, the victim, was particularly vulnerable because officers had already handcuffed him behind his back and then placed him chest down on the pavement, and Mr. Floyd clearly and repeatedly told the officers he could not breathe. Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.D.3.b(1); State v. Givens, 544 N.W.2d 774, 776 (Minn. 1996).
2. Mr. Floyd was treated with particular cruelty. Despite Mr. Floyd’s pleas that he could not breathe and was going to die, as well as the pleas of eyewitnesses for Defendant to get off Mr. Floyd and help him, Defendant and his codefendants continued to restrain Mr. Floyd. Defendant kept his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck to hold him prone on the ground for approximately nine minutes, during at least four minutes of which Mr. Floyd was motionless. This maneuver inflicted gratuitous pain on Mr. Floyd. Those eyewitnesses, of whose presence Defendant was aware, had to watch Mr. Floyd die. Defendant also did not provide Mr. Floyd with any medical assistance and discouraged the efforts of others to provide such assistance. Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.D.3.b(2); State v. Hicks, 864 N.W.2d 153, 159-60 (Minn. 2015); Tucker v. State, 799 N.W.2d 583, 587-99 (Minn. 2011); State v. Smith, 541 N.W.2d 584, 590 (Minn. 1996); State v. Harwell, 515 N.W.2d 105, 109 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994).
3. Defendant abused a position of authority, as he was a licensed police officer in full uniform who, in conjunction with other officers, took full custody of Mr. Floyd. State v. Lee, 494 N.W.2d 475, 482 (Minn. 1992).
4. Defendant committed the crime as part of a group of three or more offenders who all actively participated in the crime. Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.D.3.b.(10).
5. Defendant committed the crime in the presence of multiple children, and Defendant’s criminal conduct was witnessed by children. Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.D.3.b(13); State v. Profit, 323 N.W.2d 34, 36 (Minn. 1982).
