IANAL, but I have seen cases in which the defendant was charged with multiple levels, as Chauvin was. But, it usually is a way to allow the jury to convict the defendant on SOMETHING, even if they feel the crime did not rise to the level of the most serious charge.bob wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:01 pmCharging in the alternative is common. Most defendants want alternative charges, to give the jury a lesser option. All-or-nothing cases are unusual.noblepa wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 8:56 pm I wondered how/why they charged him on three different charges for the same act. Then I realized that, if his inevitable appeal is successful, an appeals court might set aside the 2nd degree murder charge, for some reason, leaving the other two in place. Had they only charged him with 2nd degree, he would go free. In that scenario, they still have the 3rd degree and manslaughter charges to sentence him on.
And, as you suggested, it works both ways: An appellate court could (for whatever reason) reverse on the second-degree murder charge but otherwise affirm the other charges. It could then be sent back to the trial court for the possibility of a retrial on only the second-degree murder charge.
IOW, it is a way to allow the jury to, essentially, pick the level that they want to convict him on. Had Chauvin only been charged with 2nd degree, and the jury didn't think that the offense met the criteria for 2nd degree, they might have felt compelled to acquit him. I believe the term is "over charging"; the prosecutors aimed too high and the jury didn't support it.
For the lawyers out there, if an appeals court were to reverse the 2nd degree conviction, would the trial court then simply sentence him on the 3rd degree conviction? I supposed that the choice to retry him on the 2nd degree charge would depend, in large part, on the reasons that the appellate court reversed.