There's some misunderstanding with how this verdict was reached and the elements the State has to prove. I will try to explain.
Minnesota, like most states, has what's called "The Felony Murder Rule". Essentially, if someone dies while you commit a related felony, you are guilty of that person's murder in the second degree. It's supposed to be used for cases like where two guys rob a store and one shoots the clerk. In that case, both criminals are liable for the death. It's even used where two guys rob a store and the clerk kills one. In that case, the remaining one will be liable for his buddy's death. It can also be used against a single person, like where you start a forest fire and a hiker dies.
Where Minnesota differs from the norm is on something called "The Merger Rule". In most states, the felony used as the predicate for the felony murder charge must be a separate act. So, in most states, you cannot catch a felony murder charge if you assault someone and they unintentionally die, because the assault and the homicide are one single criminal act.
Minnesota does not have the merger rule. In this case, the State is using the underlying felony of 3rd degree assault to charge Chauvin with felony murder (officially, "unintentional second degree murder"). This basically means that the State gets to upgrade what would normally be manslaughter charges up to 2nd degree murder without having to prove intent to kill. Instead, they only had to prove intent to assault. This is an unusual application of the felony murder rule, even in Minnesota, and it's frankly the sign of a prosecution team who wanted to fuck Chauvin every way they possibly could. They could do this for every manslaughter charge if they wanted to, but they don't. Chauvin's got it worse than someone who killed a person while drinking and driving, for instance. Technically legal, but probably immoral and definitely political.
But alas, even if they hadn't stuck that charge, the jury also found him guilty of "depraved mind, 3rd degree murder", which carries the same sentencing guidelines. This is basically like "aggravated manslaughter", or "Manslaughter +", where an extreme indifference to human life evincing a depraved mind leads to the unintentional death of someone.
Depending on the results of the Blakely hearing, the sentence could vary. The most likely result will be no aggravating factors, resulting in concurrent sentences of about 12 years, of which he'll serve 8. But then again, I was wrong about the verdict, so I might be wrong here too.
