Perhaps juries should not only have to say guilty or not guilty, but to specify the fact set upon which a guilty verdict is based.
“609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE
....
§Subd. 2.Unintentional murders. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or...”
What was that felony offense?
Why didn’t the prosecutor charge for it?
Why didn’t the judge insist on the prosecutor charge Chauvin for a specified felony before charging Chauvin for second degree murder?
Also...
Second degree murder requires intentional murder.
How do you commit intentional AND unintentional murder on the same victim?
Murder in the third degree and manslaughter.
Why didn’t the judge insist on the prosecutor charge Chauvin for a specified felony before charging Chauvin for second degree
...........
Good point. The felony was Felony Assault I read. I have not followed trial. Hope Defense raised that issue with motion??