Two ex-Minneapolis police officers charged in George Floyd's death cast blame on more senior colleague

Minneapolis Star-Tribune ^ | 6/4/2020 | Chao Xiong

[NautiNurse]

Attorneys for two former rookie Minneapolis police officers on Thursday rejected accusations that their clients aided and abetted the killing of George Floyd, casting blame instead on a senior officer who allegedly ignored his younger counterparts.

[snip]

“What is my client supposed to do but follow what the [senior] officer says?” Lane’s attorney, Earl Gray, argued in court. “The strength of this case, your honor, in my opinion is extremely weak.”

[snip]

Defense attorneys said Kueng, 26, of Plymouth, was working his third shift ever as a full-time officer and Lane, 37, of St. Paul, was working his fourth day as a full-time officer on the day they encountered Floyd.

[snip]

“At all times Mr. Kueng and Mr. Lane turned their attention to that 19-year veteran …” Plunkett said. “[Kueng] was trying — they were trying to communicate that this situation needs to change direction.”

Charging documents show that Lane asked twice if they should roll Floyd onto his side and was rebuffed by Chauvin. Kueng took Floyd’s pulse and told his colleagues, “I couldn’t find one,” according to the criminal complaint.

[gcparent]

No but I saw and read it.

[Respond Code Three]

Thanks for the calm deliberation. Sometimes it gets pretty wild. My sense of the case is that if the officers had been put on leave, then IA would have had time to interview them all. This interview couldn't be used against them at trial, but if any of them changed their testimony, then the interview could be used to impeach their testimony. This is what I term an unforced error and the prosecution probably wishes at this point that those interviews were available.

As for the civil side, the attorneys for the plaintiff's probably also wish a IA interview had been done. The IA interview would have all the reports and all the witnesses who were interviewed. In essence, IA would have done a lot of leg work for the plaintiff's attorneys. Now, the plaintiff's attorneys have to do depositions with nothing to compare the statements with.

The defense has had a huge burden lifted of it because with no IA interview, it can craft its case around whatever case the prosecution puts together.

The same applies to the defense on the civil side. While the plaintiff's attorneys will certainly do depositions of the officers, there is no IA interview to compare the depositions with. The whole point I was trying to make, is that the firing of the officers put an unnecessary obstacle in the path of the prosecution and the civil attorneys. I have tried to explain this without taking sides. You see how that worked out.

As for representation, generally the city will pay the legal bills of the officers. This might not happen here. What the Union leaders then do is to take a vote and arrange for legal defense of the officers anyway. That may be what has happened in this case.