8

Some years ago, a police officer named Derek Chauvin was found guilty of 2nd degree murder of George Floyd. He received a sentence of about 20 years. At the time it was reported that had he been a felon, the sentence would have been 40 years automatically.

At the same time Chauvin was also ordered to appear in court for felony tax evasion. On March 17th 2023 he was found guilty of felony tax evasion over several years from 2012 to 2019.

Does that mean “innocent until proven guilty” is to be taken literally? Even though the crime happened from 2012 to 2019, is it true that on March 16th 2023 he was innocent of tax evasion, and on March 17th 2023 he was guilty? Would he have gotten 40 years if (a) second degree murder was committed after March 2023, or (b) if he had been sentenced after that date?

Trish
  • 50,532
  • 3
  • 101
  • 209
gnasher729
  • 35,915
  • 2
  • 51
  • 94

2 Answers2

8

The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and Commentary clarify this on page 11:

Prior Felonies. Assign a particular weight, as set forth in paragraphs a and b, to each extended jurisdiction juvenile (EJJ) conviction and each felony conviction, provided that a felony sentence was stayed or imposed before the current sentencing or a stay of imposition of sentence was given before the current sentencing.

So this makes it clear that the relevant question is whether the sentence for the previous offense was "stayed or imposed," or an imposition of sentence stayed, before the current sentencing.

(I have linked the 2019 version of the guidelines because the rule is to use the guidelines in effect as of the date of the offense, namely the murder of George Floyd on May 25, 2020. But later versions have the same phrasing.)

Chauvin was sentenced for the state murder charges on June 25, 2021. Since at that time, no sentence for tax evasion had been stayed or imposed (that didn't happen until 2023), it plays no role in determining the murder sentence, not even retroactively. It isn't relevant that the actual offense of tax evasion occurred much earlier - all that matters is the sequencing of the sentencing dates.

So the answer to this question has nothing to do with interpreting the phrase "innocent until proven guilty", nor with evaluating whether Chauvin was abstractly "innocent" or "guilty" of tax evasion prior to being convicted.

Nate Eldredge
  • 31,520
  • 2
  • 97
  • 99
2

Minnesota uses a point system for sentencing for past convictions

https://mn.gov/sentencing-guidelines/assets/Guidelines%20Fundamentals_tcm30-513963.pdf

I doubt federal tax evasion is worth more than a point.

Tiger Guy
  • 9,049
  • 2
  • 22
  • 42