76 F.4th 773
8th Cir.2023Background:
- On May 25, 2020, MPD officers responded to a report involving George Floyd; officers Kueng and Lane handcuffed Floyd and attempted to place him in a squad car; Chauvin and Thao then arrived.
- Chauvin placed his knee on Floyd’s neck for about nine minutes while Kueng and Lane restrained Floyd’s limbs; Floyd repeatedly said he could not breathe and later became unresponsive.
- Thao suggested using a ‘‘hobble’’ (which would place Floyd on his side), retrieved it, and later upgraded the EMS call from Code 2 to Code 3; he also performed crowd-control duties and moved between the crowd and the officers.
- Body-camera footage showed Thao looking toward Floyd at times and toward the crowd at other times; bystanders repeatedly asked officers to check Floyd’s pulse; EMS found no pulse on arrival and Floyd later died.
- Thao was charged and convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 242 on two counts: willful failure to intervene (unreasonable seizure) and willful deliberate indifference to serious medical needs; he appealed denial of motions for acquittal and mistrial.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Thao) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence — failure to intervene (§ 242 willfulness) | Training, MPD policy, Thao’s admissions, bodycam, and conduct show he knew force was unreasonable and had a duty to intervene | Lacked mens rea: thought Floyd had excited delirium; suggested hobble; bodycam may not reflect what he saw | Verdict affirmed — reasonable jury could find willfulness |
| Sufficiency of evidence — deliberate indifference to medical needs (§ 242 willfulness) | MPD training required medical aid, side-recovery position, pulse checks; bystanders urged checks; Thao knew sudden silence is a red flag | Took some steps (hobble suggestion; upgraded EMS); occupied with crowd control; relied on other officers to render aid | Verdict affirmed — evidence (though not overwhelming) sufficient for jury to find willfulness |
| Prosecutorial misconduct / mistrial | N/A (Gov't contends any errors were harmless or cured) | Alleged duplicative evidence, pretrial-order violations, improper argument deprived fair trial | Denial of mistrial affirmed — any misconduct was not prejudicial; court cured errors via objections, rulings, and instructions |
Key Cases Cited
- Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (Sup. Ct. 1945) (willfulness requires particular purpose or reckless disregard)
- United States v. Johnstone, 107 F.3d 200 (3d Cir.) (willfulness can be shown by reckless disregard)
- United States v. Boone, 828 F.3d 705 (8th Cir.) (willfulness element under § 242)
- United States v. Broussard, 882 F.3d 104 (5th Cir.) (officer liability under § 242 for failure to intervene)
- United States v. Proano, 912 F.3d 431 (7th Cir.) (training evidence relevant to intent in § 242 cases)
- United States v. Rodella, 804 F.3d 1317 (10th Cir.) (training evidence probative of willfulness)
- United States v. St. John, 716 F.3d 491 (8th Cir.) (standard for sufficiency review)
- United States v. Blakeney, 876 F.3d 1126 (8th Cir.) (reasonable conflicting inferences do not require reversal)
- United States v. Sherman, 440 F.3d 982 (8th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion standard for mistrial denials)
- United States v. Conrad, 320 F.3d 851 (8th Cir.) (test for reversible prosecutorial misconduct)