Derek Chauvin moves to overturn his state convictions. I have reviewed his new court filing, submitted December 2, 2025, and can confirm he is asking a Minnesota judge to vacate the 2021 verdicts or grant an evidentiary hearing. Judge Paul Scoggin is now reviewing the petition. The Minnesota Attorney General’s Office must respond by January 4, 2026. ⚖️
What is new today
Chauvin, convicted in 2021 of second degree unintentional murder, third degree murder, and second degree manslaughter, argues his trial was unfair. He is serving a 22½ year state sentence, alongside a concurrent 21 year federal sentence for civil rights violations. Earlier appeals failed in the state courts and in the U.S. Supreme Court. This petition is a fresh post conviction attack in Hennepin County District Court, not a direct appeal.
What Chauvin is claiming
In plain terms, the petition says three things undercut the verdict:
- Medical testimony about George Floyd’s cause of death was wrong or misleading.
- Minneapolis Police training on restraint tactics was misrepresented to the jury.
- Jury instructions misstated the law, harming his right to a fair trial.
The defense asks for a new trial, or at minimum an evidentiary hearing. A hearing would let the court test the claims with witnesses and documents.
An evidentiary hearing is a mini trial on specific issues. It is not a full retrial.
How the court will judge these claims
Minnesota law sets a high bar. To win a hearing, a petitioner must present specific facts that, if true, could change the outcome. To win a new trial, the court must also find legal error or new, reliable evidence that likely would produce a different verdict.
On the medical testimony claim, Chauvin must show more than disagreement among experts. He must point to new scientific evidence, or proof of false or materially misleading testimony, and show it probably affected the jury’s decision.
On the training evidence claim, he must show the jury heard a distorted picture of Minneapolis Police policy, and that the record was not corrected at trial. He then must link that misstatement to key elements of the crimes, like intent or recklessness.
On the jury instructions claim, he must show the judge gave legally incorrect directions to the jury. If the defense objected at trial, the test is whether the error was harmless. If there was no objection, he must meet the plain error standard, which is even tougher. Either way, he has to show prejudice.
The court will also weigh whether any of these issues could have been raised earlier. Minnesota limits post conviction claims that were, or should have been, raised on direct appeal. Prior losses on appeal make this path narrow.
You can read post conviction filings through the Minnesota courts’ public portal. Look for the petition, the exhibits, and the state’s response.
Policy stakes and citizen rights
This petition lands in a case that reshaped national policy. Police training on restraint, duty to intervene, and medical aid has been rewritten in many cities. If the court grants a hearing on training or medical evidence, expect renewed debate over what standards juries should hear in police cases. It could influence how departments draft policy and how prosecutors present forensic experts.
For citizens, the stakes are clear. Defendants have the right to a fair trial, accurate jury instructions, and reliable expert evidence. Communities have the right to honest policing and to verdicts that rest on sound proof. The court’s handling of this petition will speak to both sets of rights.
Chauvin’s federal sentence remains separate. Even if he won a new state trial, the federal conviction would still stand unless separately undone.
A presidential pardon can reach only federal convictions. It would not erase a Minnesota state sentence.
What happens next
- The Attorney General’s response is due by January 4, 2026.
- Judge Scoggin can deny the petition on the papers, order an evidentiary hearing, or grant relief.
- If a hearing is set, witnesses could include medical experts and police trainers.
- Any ruling can be appealed, which could extend the timeline.
A grant would reopen one of the most watched criminal cases in modern memory. A denial would leave the convictions in place and the debate focused on policy, not procedure.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What is a post conviction petition?
A: It is a request asking the trial court to fix a conviction after appeals, based on new evidence or legal error.
Q: Could this set Chauvin free soon?
A: Not likely. Even a win would mean a hearing or a new trial, which takes time, and his federal sentence remains.
Q: What counts as new evidence in Minnesota?
A: It must be truly new, not available at trial with reasonable effort, and likely to change the result.
Q: What if the judge finds jury instruction error?
A: The court asks whether the error affected the verdict. If yes, a new trial can be ordered.
Q: Can the Governor or President end his state sentence now?
A: The President cannot. A state pardon or commutation comes from Minnesota authorities, under state law.
Conclusion
I have verified that Derek Chauvin is pressing a new legal attack on his state convictions, focused on medical proof, police training, and jury instructions. The law sets a steep climb, but the court’s next steps could ripple far beyond one case. The outcome will test how Minnesota balances fair trial rights, expert evidence, and police accountability in its courts.
