But there is a catch: Prosecutors are seeking to prove the existence of aggravating circumstances that would justify an upward departure from Minnesota’s sentencing guidelines. They have identified three such circumstances: first, that Chauvin killed Floyd in front of children (hence the extensive testimony of child witnesses at trial); second, that Chauvin treated Floyd with “particular cruelty”; and third, that Chauvin “abused his position of authority” as a law enforcement officer. The Supreme Court has held that Chauvin has a constitutional right to require the jury to find each aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the defendant waived this right, which means Cahill, not the jury, will decide whether prosecutors proved the presence of these circumstances. If the judge does find aggravating factors, he can impose a higher sentence under Minnesota’s guidelines, extending Chauvin’s prison term by several years—though the defendant will not face more than double the sentence he would without their presence. There is another complication to add to this mix: It appears that federal prosecutors are considering bringing civil rights charges against Chauvin, presumably for violating Floyd’s rights under color of law—that is, exceeding and abusing his legal authority as a law enforcement officer. The New York Times has reported that the Justice Department launched a federal investigation into the crime under Donald Trump, but the investigation languished until Joe Biden assumed the presidency and prioritized the probe. According to the Times, the Justice Department impaneled a grand jury focused on Chauvin in February. During the state trial, Hennepin County Medical Examiner Andrew Baker confirmed this reporting when he mentioned that he had testified before a federal grand jury.