Chauvin Pre-Trial Day 10 Motion Rulings: Portion of 2019 Prior Floyd Arrest Video Can Be Played At Trial
Prosecution also cannot call expert on Floyd’s state of mind or PTSD during 2020 incident, denies defense request for change of venue or trial delay.
Welcome to our ongoing coverage of the Minnesota murder trial of Derek Chauvin, over the in-custody death of George Floyd. I am Attorney Andrew Branca for Law of Self Defense, providing guest commentary and analysis of this trial for Legal Insurrection.
As a reminder, I am “LIVE Parlering” the trial in real-time over at my Parler account, which you can find using my Parler handle: @LawofSelfDefense.
Just a quick early morning post this morning to share with you Judge Cahill’s rulings on four important motions.
The defense had made motions to continue (delay) the trial as well as for a change of venue.
Both of those motions were DENIED. So jury selection, trial will continue on schedule in Hennepin County in this courtroom.
The defense had also made a motion to admit video evidence of George Floyd’s year-prior arrest-related drug ingestion event, which is remarkably parallel to what happened on his day of death in 2020. Judge Cahill will ALLOW very limited admissibility of this video, for the sole purpose of arguing Floyd’s actual cause of death, a key issue in this case—did Chauvin kill Floyd, or did Floyd kill Floyd via drug toxicity when he ingested fatal dose of fentanyl. Much of the video of that 2019 event will not, however, be admissible, only the portions directly related to Floyd’s physiological condition and response to drug ingestion.
The state made a motion to admit expert witness testimony of forensic psychiatrist Dr. Vincent, as evidence of Floyd’s emotional state and to explain away his apparent non-compliance with arrest. Judge Cahill has DENIED this evidence, on grounds that Floyd’s emotional state (as distinguished from his physiological state) is irrelevant.
However, Cahill may allow Dr. Vincent testimony if the defense opens the door by making argument around Floyd’s emotional state. In that case however, Cahill cautioned that if Dr. Vincent is allowed to come in then the ENTIRETY of the 2019 arrest-related drug ingestion event would be admissible to enable defense to rebut that testimony on emotional state.
Here’s the video of Cahill announcing his decisions on these four motions:
Until next time, stay safe!
–Andrew
Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC
Attorney Andrew F. Branca’s legal practice has specialized exclusively in use-of-force law for thirty years. Andrew provides use-of-force legal consultancy services to attorneys across the country, as well as near-daily use-of-force law insight, expertise, and education to lawyers and non-lawyers alike in the form of blog posts, video, and podcasts, through the Law of Self Defense Membership service. If this kind of content is of interest to you, try out our two-week Membership trial for a mere 99 cents, with a 200% no-question- asked money-back guarantee, here: Law of Self Defense Membership Trial.
[Featured image is a screen capture from video of today’s court proceedings in MN v. Chauvin.]
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
That’s fair. The whole point is that the jury be aware of the key facts: 1) He was arrested in 2019 (what for is irrelevant); 2) He was carrying drugs at the time; 3) He swallowed them and had a medical reaction very similar to the one that killed him a year later. The rest of the video isn’t relevant to those facts, so there’s no need for the jury to see it.
This case needs to be transferred to Bemidji.
I always found Bemidji a pain to drive to
Plus How are you going to get a jury seated. The prosecution will strike almost everyone for “Cause”
Your jury will be a bunch of Indians (if you can call them that now)….all my half Indian blood in-laws live there. Roseau would be better. With all the inbreeding, there might be a conflict of interest.
Overall, a win for the defense on these motions. Just getting the fact that Floyd has done this before will be of great assistance to the defense, even if it is only to highlight his physiological response to these drugs. It’s still a small seed of doubt that the defense can plant in the minds of the jurors. It’s too bad about the change of venue being denied because more and more it’s looking unlikely Floyd can get a fair trial in Minneapolis due to the actions of the city and potential for riots. As far as the concerns over riots go if they were to change venues I would hope they could keep it secret so that the community they move proceedings to wouldn’t have to worry about those troublemakers trying to burn down their town.
Unlikely Chauvin can get a fair trial, not Floyd. Sorry about that.
Political witch hunt by the state. Everyone knows, from the prosecution to the judge, what Floyd the felon home invader died from. He overdosed on drugs. There is no doubt about this. There are no contributing factors. He died of a drug overdose.
If the judge won’t seal the identities of the jurors for 10 years or forever, there is no way they can rule without fear for their own safety if they acquit. Crazy he’s proceeding in Minneapolis and on schedule.
Agree.
Also, it’s my understanding that the State’s own expert will testify that Floyd had potentially lethal amounts of Fentanyl and other drugs in his system, and there is no sign of physical injury associated with compression to Floyd’s neck (which compression–however bad it looks on video–Chauvin applied in a manner consistent with department guidelines).
As long as this testimony is offered, I absolutely do not understand how any jury could properly find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I don’t care what the balance of the evidence is.
“As long as this testimony is offered, I absolutely do not understand how any jury could properly find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I don’t care what the balance of the evidence is.”
Sigh. This is a Democrat Socialist controlled polity and one where protected class status prevails over everything. I expect a conviction [possibly later overturned assuming Chauvin survives] as being more likely. But the goal is to justify massive riots nationwide in either celebration or “rage” [for some limited values of rage]. When the American Republic died last January the rules we were supposed to be pretending to follow did too.
Subotai Bahadur