As we previously reported, Chauvin recently demanding the court award him $14,000 in attorney fees.
His lawyer Eric Nelson filed three different requests for work done on a pretrial appeal. Back in February, the state filed an appeal over the issue of adding a third-degree murder charge.
Chauvin fought the request, and his lawyer spent a ton of time preparing court filings. The state eventually won in court, but Chauvin says the law allows him to ask for his bills connected to the appeal to be reimbursed. Nelson asked for a total of $14,031.25.
In the first two motions, the lawyer asked for $5,000 + an additional $5,000 for hours he worked. He then requested $4,031.25 for his time researching, writing, and reviewing the petition.
In newly filed documents, the government says they have no problem with the first $5,000 but need a little clarification on the second request for the same amount. However, they are demanding the motion for $4,031.25 be shut down.
- Convicted Murderer Derek Chauvin Awarded $10,000 In Court To Pay His Lawyer Who Defended Him In Trial Over George Floyd's Death
- Former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin Denied A Public Defender, Forced To Represent Himself In Appeal Amid Money Woes
- Derek Chauvin Hires Hot Shot Lawyer To Appeal 22-Year Prison Sentence Over George Floyd’s Murder, Weeks After Claiming He’s Broke
They claim, “The state does object to the motion seeking attorney fees for preparation of the petition for review in the Supreme Court. Such fees are neither permitted by statute or rule.” A judge has yet to rule.
As we first reported, the three other officers charged over George Floyd’s death, Thomas Lane, J. Alexander Kueng, and Tou Thao, also asked the court to award their lawyer $5k. The court already approved their request.
Chauvin is currently sitting in prison after being sentenced to 22.5 years earlier this year. A jury found him guilty of second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter
His plea for a new trial was shut down. The judge wasn't persuaded by his claims the case should have been heard in a different venue or that the jury should have been sequestered the entire time.