Judge Peter Cahill has reinstated the third-degree murder charge against Derek Chauvin trial.
On Wednesday, the Minnesota Supreme Court declined to hear a motion to take up the third-degree murder charge reinstatement and left the decision to Judge Cahill.
Judge Cahill addressed the courtroom on Thursday morning.
"The Court of Appeals has said in a precedential opinion, specifying the single-person rule applies to third-degree murder, I feel bound by that and I feel it'd be an abuse of power not to grant the motion," said Cahill.
Last October, Cahill dismissed third-degree murder charges against Chauvin and the three other officers accused in George Floyd's death.
Thursday's ruling to reinstate third-degree murder only applies to Chauvin's case.
"This charge does not come out of left field," Cahill added. "It was originally charged. I think the defense has been aware that the State will take every opportunity to add it back. The remedy is not to deny to motion to reinstate based on timeliness, it is to grant motion for continuous if the defense can prove to me they are prejudice by this ruling."
The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that Cahill was bound by a prior ruling in the case of former Minneapolis police officer Mohamed Noor, who's third degree murder charge was upheld in February.
"The Noor opinion came out and and it was very clear that I disagreed with it and said so. I denied the motion initially because of my disagreement, but not without first checking if I was duty bound by precedent," Cahill said. "Based on the defendants appeal, the Court of Appeals made it clear that I was bound from the moment the Noor opinion was filed. I accept that."
Cahill said he agrees with the Court of Appeals that opinions have precedential value immediately, but expressed concerns with how the Court of Appeals got to that position.
"They stated in their analysis that the plain language of the rule says that precedential opinions take immediate effect," Cahill said. "That implies this court disregarded plain language in the rules, or at worst, was too lazy to look up the rules. Neither was the case."
Cahill added that he believes the Court of Appeals reached in saying there is plain language in the rules.
"This court turned to the rules immediately to look for plain language as to when opinions marked as precedential have in-fact that precedential effect. We found silence."
This is a developing story. Stay with News Talk 830 WCCO for more details.
LISTEN NOW on the RADIO.COM App
Follow RADIO.COM
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram