MINNEAPOLIS – A Minnesota judge on Tuesday lifted a gag order in the criminal case against four former officers charged in the death of George Floyd, but said he would take into account a request by a media coalition for the images of the body camera are more widely available.
Even though the gag order was overturned, Hennepin County District Judge Peter Cahill said he expects all attorneys in the case to follow the rules on disclosure of information. In announcing his ruling, Cahill said he agreed with defense attorneys’ arguments that a gag order would be unfair to his clients and limit their ability to defend themselves against negative publicity.
Cahill also ruled Tuesday that he would not detain the chief prosecutor in the case, Attorney General Keith Ellison, in contempt of court, as requested by two defense attorneys, saying a statement Ellison made when he announced that additional attorneys would assist in the prosecution. was harmless and did not violate the gag order.
Floyd, a handcuffed black man, died on May 25 after Derek Chauvin, a white police officer, pressed his knee to Floyd’s neck for nearly eight minutes when Floyd said he was unable to breathe. Chauvin is charged with second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and involuntary manslaughter. Three other officers who were on the scene, Tou Thao, Thomas Lane and J. Kueng, are accused of aiding and abetting second degree killings and homicides. All four officers were fired.
Earlier this month, Lane’s attorney Earl Gray archived police body camera videos in court as part of a request to have Lane’s case dismissed. Gray said he wanted the videos to be made public, prompting Cahill to issue an order prohibiting attorneys and the parties from discussing the case.
Defense attorneys for the four former officers called for the gag order to be lifted. The Associated Press is among the news organizations that opposed the gag order.
Cahill made the videos available only for viewing in person, by appointment. Media attorney Leita Walker objected to that format, saying it violated common law, public access to records rules and the First Amendment, and that it was essentially equivalent to keeping the videos sealed.
The records of all courts are presumed to be open for public inspection with limited exceptions. Prosecutors said a court can impose restrictions if that access will interfere with the fair and impartial administration of justice, and that reasonable alternatives are not adequate.
