By Joyce Vance

Dear Reader,

Last Friday, prosecutors in the Derek Chauvin case filed a motion formally asking the judge to sentence Chauvin to a longer sentence than what the Minnesota sentencing guidelines call for in this case. The motion wasn’t a surprise; there’d been indication all along that they would ask the judge for more than the 150 months — 12 and one-half years — that the guidelines call for.

Under Minnesota law, virtually all convicted criminals receive a sentence in accordance with the guidelines. Enhancements are reserved for cases where the defendant’s conduct is significantly more serious than how the crime is typically committed. The Chauvin prosecution team asked for an enhanced sentence based on five aggravating factors that distinguish George Floyd’s murder from the heartland of second and third degree murders and require a longer sentence in order to do justice. These factors are often referred to as Blakely factors, due to a 2004 Supreme Court case, Blakely v. Washington, which held that a jury must make the decision as to whether there are any factors that require a defendant’s sentence to be increased beyond the prescribed maximum. The Court also ruled that the jury must make that finding beyond a reasonable doubt. Chauvin, likely understanding that the jury’s quick verdicts of guilt on all three charges against him were a strong indicator of how they would view sentencing factors, chose to leave his fate in the hands of the judge and waived his right to have the existence of Blakely factors determined by a jury.