April 20, 2021, 5:50 p.m. ET20 minutes ago
20 minutes ago
Emily BazelonReporting on legal issues
The jury could have convicted Chauvin or any combination of manslaughter, third-degree murder or second-degree murder, but chose "all of the above." When that happens, it raises questions about whether the theory of the conviction is internally coherent. In this case, could Chauvin be guilty of 1) causing the death of a human being, without intent, while committing an assault (second-degree murder) AND 2) unintentionally causing a death by committing an act that is eminently dangerous to other persons while exhibiting a depraved mind, with reckless disregard for human life (third-degree murder) AND 3) creating an unreasonable risk, by consciously taking the chance of causing death or great bodily harm to someone else (manslaughter)? I’d say the answer is probably yes, but I confess I’m still absorbing all the legal jargon.
###
At least in my jurisdiction a defendant can be convicted of duplicative crimes if each represents a different "theory" of prosecution and there is one different required "element" of proof. A defendant can only be sentenced on one, i.e. he cannot be sentenced as if he killed three separate people.
HOWEVER, when, as here, the charges are for different statutorily defined degrees of the same crime, a defendant cannot be convicted of three different degrees of the same general law against unlawful homicide. for one act. For example, you cannot be convicted of grand theft and petit theft for stealing the same one thing. I think, I am not 100% sure of this, that where I practice when there are "inconsistent" verdicts the benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant and he is "adjudicated" guilty by the court on the least serious charge the jury found him guilty of.
