IT’S BEEN ABOUT A YEAR SINCE THE
EU ESSENTIALLY BANNED
NON-ESSENTIAL VISITORS.
>>> WE’RE TURNING TO THE NEXT
STEPS IN THE TRIAL OF FORMER
MINNESOTA POLICE OFFICER DEREK
CHAUVIN
CHAUVIN.
LAST WEEK, HE WAS FOUND GUILTY
OF MURDERING GEORGE FLOYD.
HIS SENTENCEING IS SET FOR JUNE
16th.
MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL KEITH
ELLISON LED THE PROSECUTION, AND
HE IS LIVE WITH REACTION AND
WHAT WILL HAPPEN NEXT.
GOOD MORNING, SIR.
>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.
>> YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE NOT
CONVINCED THAT YOU WOULD
ACTUALLY WIN THIS CASE UNTIL YOU
HEARD JUDGE CAHILL ANNOUNCE THE
GUILTY VERDICT.
FAMILY THOUGHT IT WAS A SLAM
DUNK FROM THE BEGINNING BECAUSE
OF THE VIDEO.
WHY WERE YOU SO SKEPTICAL?
>> IF YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORY,
THERE’S AMPLE REASON TO DOUBT.
I MEAN, LOOK AT THE RODNEY KING
CASE.
DIDN’T THAT VIDEO SHOCK THE
WORLD?
WEREN’T WE CONVINCED, BASED ON
THE 57 BLOWS TO THAT MAN?
MORE RECENTLY, WALTER SCOTT,
ESSENTIALLY EXECUTED.
THE DISTINCT COURT JURY HUNG AND
DID NOT CONVICT.
ALTHOUGH, THAT WAS ON VIDEO.
IT TOOK FOUR YEARS FOR LaQUANAQU
McDONALD’S CASE TO COME FORWARD
AND PUT JASON VAN DYKE ON TRIAL
FOR THE EXECUTION OF THAT YOUNG
MAN.
THAT WAS ON VIDEO.
SO JUST BECAUSE THERE’S AMPLE
VIDEO DOES NOT MEAN YOU DON’T
HAVE TO PUT ON A VERY ROBUST,
THOROUGH, COMPREHENSIVE CASE.
SO WE ACTUALLY APPROACHED THE
CASE AS IF WE DIDN’T HAVE THE
VIDEO, AND THEN WHEN WE PUT THE
VIDEO IN, IT WAS KIND OF LIKE
ICING ON THE CAKE.
>> YOUR TEAM HAS INDICATED THAT
YOU’RE GOING TO BE SEEKING A
HARSHER SENTENCE FOR DEREK
CHAUVIN BASED ON A NUMBER OF
AGGRAVATING FACTORS.
WHEN YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT THE
MESSAGING OF A MAX SENTENCING,
YOU SAID SOMETHING THAT CAUGHT
MY ATTENTION.
YOU SAID YOU THINK IT IS
IMPORTANT FOR THE COURT, THE
JUDGE IN THIS CASE, TO NOT GO
LIGHT OR HEAVY.
YOU POINTED OUT THAT THE STATE
NEVER WANTED TO EXACT REVENGE.
WHAT KIND OF SENTENCE WOULD HOLD
HIM ACCOUNTABLE, MR. ELLISON?
>> WELL, WE’RE STILL IN THE
MIDST OF WORKING ON THAT ISSUE,
BUT I WOULD SAY IT NEEDS TO
REFLECT THE SEVERITY, THE HARM
INFLICTED, RIGHT?
IT SHOULD NOT BE A VINDICTIVE
SENTENCE.
IT SHOULD NOT BE DESIGNED TO
ADVANCE A POLITICAL CAUSE.
IT SHOULD BE A SENTENCE THAT
REFLECTS THE SEVERITY OF HARM
INFLICTED UPON GEORGE FLOYD AND
THE PEOPLE WHO LOVED HIM AND HIS
FAMILY, WHO ARE THE SURVIVING
VICTIMS.
IT SHOULD NOT BE EXCESSIVE.
THE STATE SHOULD NEVER INFLICT
MORE PUNISHMENT ON SOMEBODY THAN
IS WARRANTED BY JUSTICE.
BUT I THINK THAT -- SO I’M NOT
HERE TO ANNOUNCE A NUMBER WE ARE
SEEKING, BUT I WILL SAY, WE
WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF A
VINDICTIVE SENTENCE, NOR WOULD
WE BE IN FAVOR OF A SENTENCE
THAT IS -- THAT MINIMIZES THE
VERY SERIOUS NATURE OF THE HARM
THAT GEORGE FLOYD SUFFERED.
>> A LOT OF FOLKS WOULD BE
SURPRISED TO HEAR THAT YOU SAID
YOU ACTUALLY FELT A LITTLE BAD
FOR DEREK CHAUVIN.
WHY WAS THAT?
>> YOU KNOW, I SPENT 16 YEARS
BEING A CRIMINAL DEFENSE
ATTORNEY.
I’VE BEEN IN JAIL CELLS, TALKING
TO PEOPLE ACCUSED OF CRIMES.
YOU KNOW, THEY ARE HUMAN BEINGS.
THEY HAVE PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT
THEM.
I THINK -- AND I NEVER WANT TO
BE ONE WHO LOSES SIGHT OF
SOMEONE’S HUMANITY, JUST BECAUSE
THEY ACTED INHUMANELY.
IT IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO ACT
JUSTLY, NOT VINDICTIVELY, AND
REMEMBER THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE
WHO CARE ABOUT DEREK CHAUVIN,
TOO.
SO HE IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE
HELD ACCOUNTABLE, LIKE EVERYONE
WHO DID WHAT HE DID SHOULD BE,
BUT HE’S STILL A MEMBER OF
HUMANKIND AND SHOULD BE TREATED
WITH THAT RESPECT.
>> ATTORNEY GENERAL, ONE OF THE
THINGS I FOUND STRIKING ABOUT
THE CASE IS THAT, HERE, YOU HAD
GEORGE FLOYD’S DEATH.
IT SPARKED THIS GLOBAL RACIAL
RECKONING.
DURING THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL,
YOU TEAM DIDN’T TALK ABOUT RACE.
IT WASN’T ABOUT RACE IN THAT
COURTROOM.
WHY WAS THE CONSCIOUS DECISION
MADE NOT TO MAKE RACE A PART OF
THE TRIAL?
>> WELL, THE FACT IS THERE IS A
MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT CASE
WHICH SAYS IF PROSECUTORS INJECT
RACE IO A CASE, THAT THAT
COULD BE BASIS FOR A MISTRIAL.
WE WERE CAREFUL TO NOT DO THAT.
BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT, YOU
KNOW, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT
I WOULD DESCRIBE AS
INSTITUTIONAL RACISM.
THERE’S NO OVERT, EXPLICIT
MENTIONING OF GEORGE FLOYD’S
RACE BY THE OFFICERS.
BUT I BELIEVE THAT IT IS VERY
CLEAR THAT THESE KIND OF
OFFENSES, THESE KIND OF CRIMES
HAS BEEN TO PEOPLE WHO, YOU
KNOW, ARE LIVING -- WHO ARE
OFTEN PEOPLE OF COLOR, WHO ARE
PEOPLE UNEMPLOYED AND LOW
INCOME, PEOPLE WHO HAVE
INSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS WORKING
AGAINST THEM.
I THINK THERE’S SORT OF A GREEN
LIGHTING AND THERE IS A SENSE
THAT, HEY, YOU KNOW, IF WE DO
SOMETHING BAD TO THIS PERSON,
NOBODY IS GOING TO REALLY CARE.
THEY DON’T MATTER.
AND SO I WOULD SAY THIS IS NOT A
CASE OF EXPLICIT KKK STYLE
RACISM.
IT IS MORE OF AN INSTITUTIONAL
PROBLEM THAT MEANS THAT PEOPLE
OF COLOR GET WORSE OUTCOMES, IN
GENERAL, AND IT’S NOT THE KIND
OF THING YOU WOULD EXPECT TO SEE
HAPPENING TO A WHITE PERSON OF
MEANS.
>> LAST QUESTION BEFORE WE LET
YOU GO, MR. ELLISON.
THE REMAINING THREE OFFICERS,
THAT TRIAL IS SET TO HAPPEN IN
AUGUST.
ARE THERE CONVERSATIONS UNDER
WAY THAT COULD LEAD TO SOME SORT
OF PLEA DEAL, OR ARE THESE CASES
THAT ARE GOING TO HAPPEN IN
AUGUST, NO MATTER WHAT?
>> I’M NOT AT LIBERTY TO TALK
ABOUT THAT.
SORRY.
WHENEVER I DODGE QUESTIONS, I
ATDAT
LEAST ADMIT I AM DOING THAT.
I WILL SAY, YOU KNOW, WE ARE --
THESE GENTLEMEN ARE ALL
CONSIDERED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN
GUILTY.
AS A PROSECUTOR, WE’RE MINISTERS
OF JUSTICE, NOT MINISTERS OF
PUNISHMENT.
WE BELIEVE IN ACCOUNTABILITY.
WE’RE GOING TO STAND FOR THAT
PRINCIPLE.
>> I KNEW YOU WOULDN’T ANSWER,
BUT I HAD TO ASK.
ATTORNEY GENERAL --
>> YOU’RE A GOOD JOURNALIST,
MAN.
>> APPRECIATE YOU, SIR.