Chauvin Trial: Jury has “a basis” to “find reasonable doubt here, but it’s not what I’m expecting”
My appearance on the Tony Katz Show: Chauvin “made the right decision not to testify because I think these two prosecutors … would have essentially tortured him on the witness stand. I mean, it would have been brutal.”
About an hour after the close of the evidence on April 15, 2021, in the Derek Chauvin trial for the in-custody death of George Floyd, I appeared on the Tony Katz radio show with a quick reaction.
Quick hot takes aren’t always comprehensive, and this is no exception. But you have 10 minutes of my first thoughts (audio here, transcript below)
.
Transcript
[auto-generated, may contain transcription errors]
Tony Katz (00:00):
I’m Tony Katz. So in addition to what’s going on in, in Brooklyn center, you have the trial for Derek Chauvin. This, of course George Floyd and that trial, well, that trial has wrapped and there are people who will tell you that the defense is doing just great. And then I’ve got people saying that the defense didn’t have a good day. I guess everything is in the eye of the holder. Tony Katz, Tony Katz today. It’s good to be with you. William Jacobson, Cornell law professor joins us right now, the mind behind legalinsurrection.com. And you know, it’s interesting different lawyers can see things in different ways. Of course you have had a team following this case all 14 days of it. So far, it ends with the defense resting today. Derek Chauvin not testifying asserting his Fifth Amendment rights. I’d like for you to give us a look at the prosecution and a look at the defense and how you would grade both.
WAJ (01:16):
Well, I think they actually both did pretty well. The prosecution had the advantage of a large team and enormous resources behind it, not just the regular prosecutors, but they had volunteer attorneys who were helping out from major law firms helping out behind the scenes. So I think one thing that came across very clearly is the disparity in resources. You basically had Nelson, the defense attorney, doing it alone. Now he did have some people behind the scenes helping him, but he had to examine all the witnesses. And I really do think the defense would have been better served if they had an attorney for the trial who focused specifically on the medical evidence. Because that’s where Nelson was the weakest, the defense attorney. So I think they were all very good. I thought the prosecutors were very good. I think that they were very good questioning and I think Chauvin made the right decision not to testify because I think these two prosecutors or who, whichever one of them would have asked the questions would have essentially tortured him on the witness stand. I mean, it would have been brutal. These are, these were very competent prosecutors. So I think they, they all did very well, but the disparity in resources I think came across pretty clearly,
Katz (02:33):
Well, that’s going to rub some people the wrong way in that. Okay. This guy didn’t have money for defense. Did he get a proper, uh, defense? What was, as you see it, uh, the key case of the prosecution and what was the key case of the defense?
WAJ (02:53):
Right. Well, I do think he got a legally sufficient defense and he did have, I think his union is paying his legal fees, but you know, he didn’t have the whole team that the prosecutors did. The prosecutor’s best piece of evidence is that videotape, the nine minute videotape where even if you can justify, and I think you can, Floyd being taken to the ground, being put in a prone position at some point, I think even the prosecution’s use of force witnesses admitted that that was okay, but it’s the length of time. And the fact that Chauvin keeps the pressure on him. It’s not quite knee to the neck, like the media saying, but kept the pressure on him even after he visibly stopped breathing. I mean, for a minute or two, after that, uh, just, there’s just that length of time is brutal.
WAJ (03:49):
And I expect that that tape will be showed or at least part of it will be showed in the closing arguments, by the prosecution. That’s their best piece of evidence that if you just turned them on his side, or if you’d given him a little more breathing room, so to speak, you know, halfway through the nine minutes, he’d be alive. So that I think is a really tough thing for the defense to overcome. I think they can justify a lot of what was done, but it’s those extra three to four, three to five minutes that are going to be a real problem. The part of the point of view from the defense point of view, I think their strongest thing is essentially that Chauvin did nothing that in and of itself would have killed a normal, healthy person and that he couldn’t have known that there were all these drugs in the system, that he had a bad heart, all these other things.
WAJ (04:46):
So his use of force was objectively reasonable. Even if that reasonable use of force on this particular person resulted in heart failure. So I think that’s the defense point of view. And I think they scored a lot of points on the use of force experts that really, you’re getting down to this three to four minutes out of the nine minutes where it becomes questionable. And remember, in theory, the defense only needs to raise reasonable doubt as to the cause of death. The role that the knee on the back was, I think this notion that his knee was on the neck for nine minutes, I think that’s been completely debunked by the prosecution’s own witnesses. That for the most part, the knee was on the upper shoulder, across the back of the neck. It was not pushing on the blood supply to the brain for any considerable period of time.
WAJ (05:43):
They started the case by calling witnesses saying, this is the equivalent of a, I forget what they call it, a blood choke or something like that, where you cut off the carotid artery and you deprive the brain of oxygen and everything else shuts, but their own medical witness, the key, the key medical witness for the prosecution said, that’s not what caused the death. That there’s no evidence of that. There’s no physical evidence of it. And that’s not what happened. The prosecution theory is you’ve kept him in an position that made it difficult, if not impossible for him to breathe in and out. So if I were the defense, I would get up there and I say, here’s what they said in the opening statement. Here’s what they, you know, for first five days of trial, they had one theory which was cutting off the flow of blood and now they’ve switched and you don’t get to pick and choose. And if you’ve got, and if you’re tossing a coin here, that’s a reasonable doubt. So that’s what I would do. If I were the defense.
Katz (06:38):
Talking to William Jacobson, Cornell law professor, the mind behind the legalinsurrection.com, you should check it out, be a part of the foundation, do the whole thing. Uh, I agree with you, being the outsider, looking in of course, Chauvin should not have, have testified. I can’t recommend anybody testifying in their own case when it comes to this prosecution. So some others has, I had a whole bunch of people that maybe the prosecution didn’t create enough of an opportunity of beyond a reasonable doubt. Maybe they gave some reasons to think that Chauvin had, has the case going in his favor. Will we see anything like that when it comes to what charge they find Derek shoving guilty of? Cause I agree that they will find him guilty of something. There’s a second degree murder charges, a third degree murder charge, and the manslaughter opportunity as you see it, which one is it going to be?
WAJ (07:46):
You know, if I had to bet, I’d say they’re going to convict him of manslaughter. I forget the specific wording of the statute, but it’s essentially, you know, if you, in a grossly negligent way, put somebody in a position that you know, death is reasonably foreseeable that you’re guilty, even if you didn’t intend it to happen. And I think that’s what it’s going to be. The second degree murder is not as many people are saying intentional, you know, nothing to do with intent. It’s basically a felony murder charge that you kill somebody unlawfully in the course of committing another crime. And I don’t know what that other crime would be here. You know, some sort of unlawful assault, but the defense use of force witnesses have already said that it was okay to take him to the ground and it was okay to put him in the prone position.
WAJ (08:35):
I think for that murder charge, you have to have a completely separate crime. So if you kill somebody while you’re holding up a bank, you know, in the course of holding up the bank, which is a crime, you end up murdering somebody that could be felony murder or something like that. So I don’t see a felony murder charge here, if it’s a reasonable jury. The third degree murder is really, it’s very similar actually to the manslaughter charge. It’s not an intentional killing of somebody, but it’s a higher degree if you will, of culpability a higher degree of knowledge and foresight. It used to be up until a few months ago that you could not convict someone of third degree murder if you, the grossly dangerous act was directed at one person.
WAJ (09:33):
So traditionally in Minnesota, third degree murder was essentially the equivalent of firing a gun into a crowd. It’s an inherently dangerous with a likely cause of death, but you just kind of fired into a crowd, not directed at one person. If you’re directing it at one person that would be a different sort of murder charge and they changed the law. Basically the Minnesota Supreme court said, yes, you can have third degree murder, even if directed at a single person. So that was originally thrown out by the trial judge and the appeals court reinstated it. So the judge was forced to reinstate it. So I think it’s probably the manslaughter. I mean, I think that probably is accurate if there’s a crime here that that is an accurate sort of negligent homicide, unlawful negligent homicide here, I would be surprised, you know, if he is found not guilty of all.
WAJ (10:29):
But you know, I think there is a basis where if a jury wanted to find reasonable doubt, they can find reasonable doubt here, but it’s not what I’m expecting. So this is unlike when we followed every day, many years ago, the George Zimmerman case for the killing of Trayvon Martin. And we did the same thing, live blogging it everyday extensive analysis. And when that thing went to the jury in the Trayvon Martin case, everything, there is no way a rational jury can find guilty here that the, the elements of a lawful self-defense are so clear and so overwhelming, that there’s no way we can, you can get a guilty verdict and it wasn’t here. I’m not feeling that way. I mean, here Chauvin has a problem, which is if he had just brought George Floyd to the ground, I think that’s justified. If he had just laid him out for a short period of time, I think that’s justified. If he had then turned him on his side so he could breathe easier, we wouldn’t be here today. I mean, so it’s that extra three to five minutes that I think is probably going to get him convicted.
Katz (11:43):
Now I’m gonna take you out of the legal and put you in the political observer category. Is the city of Minneapolis ready for what happens when people hear guilty of manslaughter and think that’s not good enough?
WAJ (12:01):
Well, I don’t, I don’t know that the city of Minneapolis is ready for what’s going to hit. I don’t know if many cities are ready for, what’s going to hit because the media has committed malpractice here as have the activists. And frankly, as have the prosecutors, the concept that there was a knee to the neck for nine minutes has been disproven by the prosecutor’s own witnesses at the trial. The video tape does not actually show that, particularly when you view it from other angles. It’s a classic example. It may have been excessive use of force. He maybe shouldn’t have had pressure on his back and chest for that long, but the concept of the knee to the neck that we hear every single day over and over again is not factually correct. The prosecution’s own witnesses have acknowledged that and the cause of death by their expert witnesses is not the knee pressure to the neck.
WAJ (12:59):
It is the overall restraint of him in the prone position with weight on his back which made it impossible for him to inhale. That’s the cause of death. According to them, it’s not the cutting of blood to the neck. I don’t think the any municipality is ready because the general public and particularly the public who wants a conviction here is convinced of something that’s not true, that there was a knee to the neck for nine minutes. And I think that the media has played a part in this as they always do. And I think that anything short of conviction on all counts is going to erupt in rioting.
Katz (13:41):
And on that, you’re more correct than anything else. William Jacobson, legalinsurrection.com. Be sure to check it out. I always appreciate you taking the time to be with us, sir. More to get to I’m Tony Katz.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The question that comes to mind regarding the third degree murder and the fact that it was first thrown out and then reinstated based on an another ruling.
Was that ruling “in place” at the time of the murder? Isn’t there something out there that prevents a law from being “changed” (even by a court decision) – after the event has taken place? Shouldn’t Chauvin be facing charges as they would have stood at the time of the Floyd death, not at the time of the trial?
Otherwise given the amount of time it takes to go from even to trial, a manipulative court could simply change the rules particular to one case in order to make it easier to convict?
Doesn’t apply in show trials.
Yes, it’s called “Ex Post Facto” law. I’m no attorney but I think they are hiding behind this change being an interpretation of the law, not a new law itself. It’s sophistry, but unfortunately that is what our court systems have become.
Gee…I wonder what the prosecution team/Keith Ellison did to convince the MN Supreme Court to reinstate the 3rd degree murder charge, especially when they truly had no case to begin with.
Regardless, the country is not ready for any of the outcome from this case, Duarte, Toledo, Trayvon, Brown, Breona, et al.
They are trying to transform our county into Somalia.
They
are trying totransformed our county into Somalia.FIFY
It’s not a change in the law. The MN Court of Appeals said the way people had previously understood the law was wrong, and the law has always allowed this charge. That is probably incorrect, and the MN Supreme Court will probably correct it in a few months when it hears the Noor appeal, but in the meantime the trial judge is bound by the Court of Appeals decision. If he’s convicted of third degree murder and then the Supreme Court says the Court of Appeals was wrong and the trial judge was right, then that conviction will be vacated.
How are there two thumbs down. lol. Your analysis is exactly correct.
There has been speculation for a couple of years that there is a random downvote bot, but who knows. The thumbs up or down don’t really mean much here.
Milhouse gets voted down here simply for posting his name.
I was trying to find your website to get an honest analysis of the trial. I had heard about the site on a podcast but forgot the name. It can’t be found on Google when searching for Chauvin trial analysis. Used same search on Duck Duck Go and your site comes up first. Hmmm. Why is this????
I know. We are getting totally screwed on Google searches. Not just for this but for just about everything.
“Hmmm. Why is this????”
On the off chance you actually do not know, google censors everything that is conservative in nature.
Oh, and I never, never ever, use google for searching. I use DDG.
The riot is on either way. If he’s convicted of all charges they’ll be rioting to celebrate, like sports fans. If he’s only convicted of the lowest charge, they won’t like that and they’ll riot.
Nothing short of a 1st degree murder charge and immediate execution after the verdict will make the rioters happy…but they’d probably riot anyway because they won. I live in the Twin Cities suburbs and I’m scared that the rioting and looting will make it all the way to my neighborhood this time. The looting got to within 2 miles of my apartment the last time. Who knows how much of the Twin Cities will get burnt and robbed this time.
I am from Farmington – so I am about as far away as you can be and still be part of the twin cities area. But my 18 year old works on 42 in Burnsville (Davanni’s) and they have closed down a couple of nights due to the B.C. shooting. I have a feeling that anything goes if Chauvin is not convicted of at least 3rd degree murder.
Get your 18 year old out of there.
I live nowhere near the Twins, but rioting is decentralized in the the time of Twitter. I will be very careful where I go next week, if I go anywhere at all.
Going out on a limb here – I think it will be Not Guilty or Hung Jury.
Question – If he is found Not-Guilty – can the Feds come in and charge him with a civil rights violation ? ? If so, I reckon that is a likely result if he is not found guilty of murder.
I’m not a lawyer but as I understand it the Feds can come after him. It’s considered a “different” crime so on the basis of that technicality it doesn’t fall afoul of double jeopardy.
Burnsville is a safe suburb 25 miles from Brooklyn Center. In between, the huge Minnesota River valley, river and backwater. State Highway Patrol just closes I-35 during urban rioting.
I hear people say that. I don’t believe so. If they give this officer a ‘murder’ conviction, I don’t think we’ll have a repeat of last year’s riotousness.
Third-degree is now what they give a Somali for the unprovoked murder of a white woman. If they hadn’t had that tortured interpretation of third-degree, they would’ve had to let Noor go without a conviction.
A conviction for Chauvin is the only thing that can prevent widespread, violent, and prolonged rioting. A lesser conviction than second-degree murder may forestall property damage and violent crime, but not prevent them entirely.
A mistrial would be ideal for the prosecution; they have no limit in time, money, or patience for tormenting Chauvin before finally handing him off to the Harris administration for tax evasion and civil rights charges, and they don’t live where the brick meets the skull.
I’m on the West Bank and had front row seats to the roundups at Bobby & Steve’s Corral. So far I’ve been okay here; last year, businesses at 7 corners closed during rioting, we have state troopers present along with national guard and the only thing right in this area was a porta-potty set on fire.
I am a layperson and not familiar with specific legal matters, but how can the DOJ make this statement to support not following up with charges again the unnamed individual (in this article). How does this situation contrast to the George Floyd case?
The Justice Department said it found no evidence that the officer who shot Babbitt “willfully” used force that was “constitutionally unreasonable.”
“Evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent required,” according to the statement.
Simple answer: Politics.
Longer answer: Socialist/Communist Party in charge of the Capitol PD (particularly Scan Fran Nan for that PD), the Metro PD, the US Attorney’s Office and the US Department of Justice.
Another simple answer: Babbitt was white, the cop black.
Were you or I to shoot or, God forbid, kill someone out of mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or poor judgment, the same federal prosecutors would be delighted to stomp on our throats. Cops have no more right to fire than you or I, except that prosecutors are politicians.
See an OD, just let the junkie die. Respect his rights.
And if the OD harms someone’s life, what will the city do…charge a LEO for failing to do his or her job?
The police have no responsibility to save you from harm.
Which is quite apparent in both deed and action. (of course there are many, many good cops that try).
The police protect the criminals, that’s their job.
Actually, they protect the connected, those who can buy and sell them, and “pillars of the communkty”. We’re on our own.
We are on our own. Check the list of articles published by mises.org.
https://www.google.com/search?q=mises.org+police+protect+and+serve&rlz=1CABUSA_enUS920&oq=&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
This is true. But for the rest of us they protect the criminals from us.
Also, remember what happened in Rochester last year. The LEO’s handcuffed an put a netted hood on a junkie on a quiet street in the middle of the night while waiting for EMS.
And riots started across the country.
So no matter what the LEOs do, charge them for doing something or not doing anything and riots start.
Here’s a fun https://abcnews.go.com/US/officers-cleared-wrongdoing-shooting-left-firefighter-suspect-dead/story?id=63717912
Given the saturation of media propaganda over this incident and this case that twisted and distorted facts to support their abusive cop/innocent victim narrative…… the best Chauvin can hope for is a hung jury, The moral of this story is don’t pass counterfeit money, don’t do drugs, don’t swallow your drug stash when the police arrive, and don’t be combative and hostile to the police unless you want to be restrained forcibly.
Unfortunately, the real moral of this story is, don’t be a cop if the perp is black.
I still can’t believe yesterday. Was Arterial Blood Gas test already entered as evidence? Tobin said it was done at 9.16 GF was declared dead 9.25 so how would result be
relevant to the ER doc who ordered it? Why would oxygenation be in it but not FCOHb? None of it was relevant by then.
Is it an own goal by the prosecution? Nelson just says – oxygen level was perfect, he cannot have died from asphyxiation.
Will Prosecution ask for a mistrial and say Blackwell was confused?
Will the judge say he was confused and bring back Fowler?
the state torpedoed their own case yesterday. The poorly done and reported autopsy, the testimony that the oxygen level was normal in the hospital with no plausable explanation as to why. You can’t have it both ways, low oxygen on the street and normal in the hospital without telling the jury why and then not giving the defense a chance to rebutt the state’s expert.
One completely minor detail thrown into the mix by Fowler sent the state into panic mode, newly discovered medical information after Fowler testifies with zero chance to question the evidence by the defenses expert, the state dumped over 5k in documents and exhibits after the the trial started.
“You can’t have it both ways,” Well sure they can. In a world where black is white and white is black, up is down and down is up, anything is possible. If you’re looking for the truth you need to look elsewhere.
the fact that floyd was suffering the effects of a self-inflicted overdose is not disputed by either side–without immediate medical intervention, he was literally a dead man walking–police are not trained(and are certainly not expected)to practice emergency medicine–regardless of the charge, it is evident from the video and other evidence presented that the police never intended for floyd to die–from the evidence presented, appears exactly the opposite–floyd’s self-inflicted overdose, unknown to the officers, and his subsequent death were directly traceable to his own actions
right, but you have to explain to the jury why you kept Floyd pinned down for 9 minutes. He was handcuffed. The focus of the defense should have been on Chauvin acting to keep Floyd safe. Pin him down to keep him from overexerting himself.
the defense doesn’t have to prove anything, that is the state’s job. if chauvin goes on the stand the state will try and carve him up. the mpd trainer in use of force testified he did something very similar to what chauvin did, hold the suspect down until ems arrives. chauvin had no idea that ems was going to take so longto arrive, plus chauvin did not instruct ems to begin cpr away from the scene in front of cup foods, but several blocks away.
According to Karen the Firefighter it wasn’t nine minutes.
We know the ambulance was called when he was pulled out of the car. So to have kneeled for 9 minutes, it would have taken the ambulance 9 minutes to get there.
According to Karen “that just does not happen” her own words. She was vehement about it.
Or maybe it did take nine minutes. Anyone who uses busses as primary transportation is familiar with it. You’re going someplace where it’s fifty-fifty walk versus take the buss. It’s
cold and wet and the sidewalk is full of snow. So you wait. The bus is a little late. You wait some more. The bus is taking longer. You really should go but you’ve waited so long and the bus may just be coming. It has to be coming because it’s been so long. You can wait more then ten times the time it would have taken to walk.
Chauvin is waiting. Should he turn him over. Well if the ambulance comes it cause more trouble. The ambulance should be here. ….
Good point Thad
Excellent analogy.
Appeasing the mob never works. The court could find Chauvin guilty and execute him on the courthouse steps, and the mob will still loot and pillage the whole town until everything that can burn, has burnt, and every shoe store is bare.
I’m guessing that the sane jurors will not be able to leave their room safely unless they convict him on at least one charge, so they’ll throw the two highest charges out and convict him on the least. The *crazy* jurors will want to convict him on everything, plus parking tickets. The length of deliberation will last until either the crazies calm down and vote just to get out of there and onto TV, or until the sane ones are arm-twisted into voting the more serious charges out.
By now, the citizens of the city know that insurance doesn’t cover civil unrest. I urge them all to read Andrew’s book before they shoot any civil unresters in self-defense.
After GF’s family getting 27 million dollars, will Duarte’s family get at least 27 million dollars? What about Adam Toledo’s family?
“You get $27 million! And you get $27 million! And you get $27 million!. Everybody gets $27 million!!”
It’s like a show of oprah.
that was 27mil before crump takes his percentage, crump ain’t doing this pro bono
GF’s family also received over 14 million in gofundme $$$$$ last year. I’m sure they were also paid well by media for each interview they gave. Toledo’s family will be paid millions for their gang banging kid.
this sounds about right.
I think the likely result is a hung jury on manslaughter and acquittals on the more serious charges. The prosecution rubbed the jury the wrong way. Jurors may be very unhappy about how dishonest prosecutors were throughout the trial. Examples — Floyd didn’t have a pill in his mouth, it was a banana. Floyd didn’t say he “ate too many drugs” but rather “he ain’t do drugs.” And Chauvin didn’t have his knee or his entire weight on Floyd’s neck for nine minutes or even a majority of the time. And the prosecution dumped three different theories as to cause of death. What the heck?
If prosecutors are not prohibited from plea bargaining, and they believe that riots are going to follow, and they believe there is a good chance for an acquittal, what is stopping them from reaching some sort of plea bargain with the defense? This case is not murder but it does look like manslaughter. I think the two sides need to get together, hammer something out and get Chauvin a one or two year prison sentence. Let’s end this thing in a dignified manner.
BS. The violent felon criminal that holds pregnant women at gunpoint in a home invasion died by his own hand. Why should Chauvin serve a minute in jail?
And Kim Ogg released GF because of something wrong with the “no-knock” warrant.
I’d love to believe that the jury is smart enough to see how much the media and prosecutors have been lying to them and trying to manipulate them, as you demonstrated. Watching their selection, I can imagine a few of them feeling that way, but it’s hard to know.
Though Chauvin doesn’t deserve any prison, considering the defense case was not near-perfect, a 1 or 2 yr plea deal might look attractive to him, however repulsive it would be to admit any guilt.
The arterial blood gas tests were referenced earlier by Nelson in his cross of ER doctor Langenfeld.
Oxygen saturation level was not mentioned. Nelson asked more about carbon dioxide in venous sample which was “over 100′ not sure what units that is in.
So does that mean Blackwell was correct and ABG had been admitted as evidence?
https://lawofselfdefense.com/chauvin-trial-day-6-wrap-up-chief-says-neck-restraint-not-trained-but-does-it-matter/
blackwell should have cited that directly, he failed to, the state rested their case, they do not deserve a second bite.
Here’s how MSM propaganda presents things — floyd did NOT overdose, but had a good, healthy amount of fentanyl and meth in him, apparently.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/this-key-chauvin-defense-theory-is-racist-its-also-medically-ridiculous/ar-BB1fI8xW
such an incomplete study of this case, he never mentions the amount of drugs in his body and what amount is needed to od, he also fails to point out floyd’s other health issues, ie, blockages in the artreries and high blood pressure. A click bait story by an md who doesn’t report on the entirity of the situation.
Sheesh, they make it sound like Vitamin F.
If you line in a city controlled by the marxists, what comes next is coming for you eventually. Get out while you can.
by not testifying you are conceding defeat. If Chauvin had multiple lawyers some of them could have focused on preparing him to testify.
The entire defense should have been based on what Chauvin would say on the stand. He decided Floyd needed to stay still. For Mr. Floyd’s safety, to keep the crowd from escalating the situation, even to instruct the rookie officers on how to get the entire scene under control.
Once things turned for the worse with Floyd, concede that you made a mistake. You were under the impression from your training that keeping someone on the ground would not hurt them. Better just to keep Floyd still as the ambulance would be arriving shortly.
Chauvin is going to prison for 20+ years. How will having to answer a prosecutors questions make that punishment worse?
There must be good reason for Chauvin choosing not to testify, and it is certainly not a sign of guilt or anything you imply here. I don’t have the stats in front of me and don’t feel like searching for them since I’m not working LI today, but it is my sense that the majority of defendants do not testify in their own trials on their lawyers’ advice.
Maybe he’s a bad witness (comes across as cocky, gormless, shifty, bland, overly emotional, whiny, or otherwise unlikable–none of which make him guilty of anything but may not help his case) or maybe defense feels that it has already made its case and doesn’t need his testimony? Maybe his attorney feels that he would be unable to withstand cross? Maybe defense feels that given the nature of this trial and the current political climate, it’s unwise to place Chauvin in that situation since however he does, even if he’s a perfect witness, he’ll be painted a villain in the partisan press?
Who knows? We sure don’t. And no defendant is required to testify in their own defense (hence the Fifth), assigning guilt based on that decision–one Chauvin may have made under his attorney’s advice–flies in the face of our justice system. We don’t assume guilt, right? In fact, we are to presume innocence, and it is on the state to prove guilt. Pointing to a defendant asserting his Constitutional right not to testify as some indicator of guilt is just bass-ackward.
best reason to testify is that the jury might feel sorry for you for being so stupid
Huh? Chauvin, I think the evidence shows, behaved in anything but a stupid manner. He was called in to back up rookies at the scene who had lost control of the situation because the suspect fought them and refused to comply with lawful police orders; he was trying to assess the dangers of the increasingly agitated mob; and he was trying to contain a drugged-up–by Floyd’s own admission on the scene–guy twice his size.
Plus he had to assess the scene for the situational safety of the EMT deployed to the scene given the escalating agitation of the gathered mob. ALL of this was on Chauvin’s shoulders. At the same time. What would YOU have done differently? Given the totality of the events?
If anything, I think that with all that pressure on him, he exercised admirable restraint in not using further and equally justifiable force to contain the suspect.
huh rbay,
if Chauvin testified, it would be stupid !
Ah, so I need to adjust my irony detectors. Got it.
The best reason to testify is to show that he’s not afraid, unlike mories hall, who fled the state as floyd lay dying, and won’t testify.
“by not testifying you are conceding defeat.”
So, with that statement you are conceding that you are a domestic enemy of our Constitution? Because the Constitution says the exact opposite.
“Chauvin is going to prison for 20+ years. How will having to answer a prosecutors questions make that punishment worse?”
So then the trial wasn’t to establish guilt or innocence. Guilt was a foregone conclusion, and this was simply a lynching.
Essentially, liberals are making the case that America has nothing to be ashamed of for all those lynchings under Jim Crow. After all, if to be accused is to be guilty, and the crime comes with a mandatory sentence (rape was punished by death) why hold a trial at all? Which, according to you, is what is going on in Chauvin’s case; it was only to establish the length of his prison term since to be accused is to be guilty. And you have no problem with that apparently.
Remember, according to the American left, #BelieveAllWomen! Apparently the KKK in the Jim Crow south lived up to that hashtag better than the leftists currently using it.
the judge screwed Chauvin over during the voir dire
by accepting the obviously bias juror’s claim of “of course I can be impartial” line of BS, he made the defense use their strikes
he made sure Chauvin had no chance of acquittal
not to mention a trial delay and change of venue, both denied
yeah, the entire system wants Chauvin found guilty. So you have to testify. What is there to lose? This poor man’s life will be miserable in prison.
the play was not to convict Chauvin, which I don’t think will happen
It is the Michael Slager playbook they are following
the Feds will move in and get him to plead to something significant but less than he currently charged with
you don’t have to be a lawyer to figure this out
No, but you do have to be a lawyer to know that this statement is crap. Chauvin won’t accept a plea because he’s likely to walk, as he should given the totality of evidence.
We are coming to the point where the mobs rule, but I don’t think we are there quite yet.
Sadly for our wannabe Democrat overlords, I would be happy to see him here in Florida with both a badge and a gun. . . . .
I assume reading is not your strong suit
Why would you assume that?
I assume writing is not your strong suit.
Yikes, Barry, writing actually is my strong suit. 😛
Now, I’ll grant you law is not my strong suit (and why I rarely chime in on threads like this). I do politics mostly and some culture stuff; besides, we have great legal minds like Andrew, the prof, and Kemberlee for the law stuff. But dude, I can write. Heh.
Yikes Fuzzy, by now, in what 7-8 years of commenting, you should have figured out that I wasn’t talking about your writing…
Your writing is fine. Since the new blog software cuts off direct reply’s rather quickly we are often left with making a response in line. My comment was a parody of “I assume reading is not your strong suit”, and aimed at the foolish.
Which brings up an interesting point. Your reply was to me, but I cannot reply to your comment, no “reply” button exists. The last “reply” button in this line of comments that I see is the one for your comment at 1:39 pm. That indicates that as an editor you are seeing something most of us do not. Perhaps a clue to a problem…
Ah, I see what you mean, Barry! Yes, I tend to read and respond to comments from the Dashboard, so this means that I don’t have the full discussion thread when I respond. I should probably do better on that, actually.). Anyway, we’re good (and would have been even if you meant that comment for me! I was kind of just joshing, anyway, since if you really thought that, I would be bummed but still love ya, and if you didn’t, then I would be happy and still love ya. Win-win.).
So the citizens on the jury get to decide next week if law and order and due process and all that survives in their state. They get to pick Somalia or the United States. The Zimmerman jury surprised me, with the obvious but politically unpopular Not Guilty verdict. Hopefully, this jury will, too, despite electing communist fools to their government.
some of the zimmerman jurors said they absolutely wanted to convict (they went into the trial “knowing” he was guilty,) but the defense case was so strong they couldn’t possibly do so. not that they had any sympathy for GZ and might even be BLMers today, but they couldn’t in good conscience convict the guy on the crap the prosecution put out. Maybe DC gets the same….
also the big thing that worked against the prosecution during the GZ trial was they really swung for the fence in the murder-2 charge
but here in this Chauvin trial – the big charge the prosecution is trying to nail him on is the manslaughter
which only needs the jury to believe Chauvin’s actions was enough of a contributing factor towards Floyd’s death
doesn’t even have to be the main cause or even a secondary, as the autopsy showed there was no strain or damage on the deceased’s neck
the jury only has to believe that his participation of pinning Floyd down – which is nearly 10 mins – was a factor, however slight it was
I think it is safe to say only a biased (or idiot) jury can convict Chauvin on the 2 murder charges, seeing as there no physical evidence 12 jurors could construe in unanimous agreement
because you would have to believe Chauvin’s knee 100% killed him in that scenario
however for the 3rd degree assault and 2nd degree manslaughter… there is alot more gray area for the jury to work in
We’re experiencing a society in a VERY DIFFERENT atmosphere, wrong is good, good is bad, you see a huge majority of society beginning to live in fear, as the mob mentality grows stronger at each incident.
And that was before it came out that the state’s key witness, Rachel Genteal, was a complete fraud. The entire case against Zimmerman was bullsh*t, from start to finish.
Zimmerman won by the skin of his teeth, and has suffered more than most convicts.
Can someone please explain how a guy who was alleged to have been smothered to death can have a blood oxygen level of 98%? Did the prosecution make a huge mistake yesterday ?
Apparently the blood oxygen levels they used were the ones taken at the hospital after Floyd was mechanically ventilated and circulated, with high supplemental oxygen, likely well after he had been dead for some time.
They did not report oxygen levels at the scene.
That said, I do this the state may have hurt their case by closing out with that, without actually saying where, when, or how it was taken. Most people, myself included? simply assumed that it was the blood oxygen level taken by the paramedics on the scene, which, if it were, it would, as you said, completely invalidate all of the State’s current theories of death.
You may be correct, but this information is not in the record. All the jury knows is that the deceased had an oxygen level of 98% Any attempt by the prosecution to enter your information would be impermissible testimony. The defense could hammer this point at closing creating reasonable doubt?
Remember, Tobin was called as a last minute rebuttal witness to impeach Fowler’s testimony that CO might have been a contributing factor to GF’s death.
GF would have inhaled the CO from the vehicle exhaust at the scene. So it is now irrelevant how GF’s was able to be completely normal. The state can’t now argue that blood oxygen levels were different later at the hospital. That would be conceding the defense expert witness may have been right and that CO could have been a contributing factor. The state may argue that, but either way they’ll be making the defense’s case.
A) George Floyd couldn’t have died from asphyxiation. His blood oxygen level was perfectly normal, and asphyxiated people die because they’ve been deprived of oxygen. The prosecution’s own rebuttal witness shows that wasn’t the case in GF’s case, therefore positional asphyxiation couldn’t have been a factor.
B) If GF’s blood oxygen level was normal only due to resuscitation efforts at the hospital and that he had been asphyxiated then no one can say what it was, and therefore his CO levels, at the scene of the arrest. Therefore Fowler could well have been right;
You can’t eat your cake and have it too (another of my pet peeves; somehow that bit of folk wisdom got turned on its head and now makes no sense whatsoever).
In any case, this fits in with the general incoherence of the prosecutions’ case. Even they can’t say what killed GF.
You’re right. Point A is critical. With their last minute gamesmanship the prosecution destroyed the theory that GF died because he lacked oxygen. Either I am wrong or a huge part of the prosecution’s case fails. As long as the defense recognizes it.
add in the fact that chauvin did not testify, that move sped the entire process up, the state was in scramble, panic mode and had no time to figure out how to address this big hole in their case. had chauvin testified he would have been on the stand testifying the entire morning and most of the afternoon while the state’s army of doctors and lawyers would have had a chance to come up with a plan.
once the state announced they rested their case the door closed on any new evidence and testimony.
I’d reserve a prediction until after the closing arguments when the lawyers try to argue how the jury should interpret what they’ve heard over the past weeks. Chauvin still has a chance if Nelson can weave a stronger evidence-based narrative of reasonable doubt than the State. There’s plenty for Nelson to work with here.
But as Andrew Branca says in his book, the jury is the ultimate wild card. We won’t know what was likely in their head until it’s over.
“It is the overall restraint of him in the prone position with weight on his back which made it impossible for him to inhale. That’s the cause of death.”
Is that your opinion Professor Jacobson? Between the drugs and the medical conditions, testified to by Baker and Fowler, there plenty of reasonable doubt as to cause of death.
Unfortunately, the defense did better on the use-of-force case with the State’s witnesses than its own expert witness! That was a real shame and hurt the defense toward the end.
“It is the overall restraint of him in the prone position with weight on his back which made it impossible for him to inhale. That’s the cause of death.”
____________
That’s what the state is arguing but that argument doesn’t explain why Floyd complained seven (7) different times of not being able to breathe before he was placed in the prone position. Clearly the breathing problems started well before Floyd was put on the ground, and therefore were being caused by something other than Floyd’s prone body position or pressure applied to Floyd’s body by cops. The defense pathologist offered the most likely explanation, that a combination of many factors (the drug overdose, Floyd’s badly diseased heart and extreme high blood pressure, the adrenaline released by the exertion of Floyd fighting with cops [and also possibly by the paraganglioma in Floyd’s abdomen], etc., all contributed to the failure of Floyd’s cardio-pulmonary system.
How can the theory that the weight on his back which prevented him from breathing be squared with the testimony that GF had 98% oxygen in blood at the autopsy?
I love this site and learning a lot. I realize the speculation is mute due to the ‘fact finders’ who will decide. You’re all very knowledgeable regarding ‘fact-finding.’ I believe most of the jurors comprehend very little of what they hear without the benefit of ‘explanations’ after the day in court is over. As a juror, how many comprehend what’s told/shown to them beyond a limited amount? Now, add the LAW to the mix with jury instructions. Right now they don’t know they must put on a ‘hat’ to comprehend/decipher “apply this law if it says A then apply B….” This is asking A LOT of average people. I find jurors have little interest after a while, it’s tedious listening to people talk legal all day! The jury I served on some actually dozed off during evidence, in the jury room they were uncaring & tired of it all. This jury is faced with a lose-lose no matter how they vote+ the angry mob awaits, the scrutiny of the press awaits, however, some may get a book deal!
“I realize the speculation is mute due to…”
*MOOT
The misuse of the word mute is a personal vexation.
Mute is defined as unable to speak.
Moot is defined as open to question; to be debatable.
The overall observation of your comment is quite true, though, and simultaneously rather depressing.
Very good remarks.
Thank you Professor Jacobson. I think Chauvin should have testified, though I respect your opinion. Someone needed to tell his story. Also, I don’t understand why he didn’t call the drug dealer in the car, if only to have him assert the 5th. And maybe the other officers, except maybe they would have asserted the 5th also. I hope that Nelson drives home in his closing that (i) Floyd asked to lay down (ii) Chauvin was trying to protect Floyd, the public, his fellow officers, and himself (iii) Chauvin’s maneuver was right out of MPD manual (until it was removed after this incident) (iv) EMT was delayed through no fault of Chauvin and (v) Chauvin had no idea when he commenced the restraint that it would take 9 minutes for the EMT to arrive. This should be a slam dunk, and if a guilty verdict is returned, it will be a travesty of justice. I hope and pray for an acquittal, and if not, a reversal. In a just world, Chauvin would not have been tried.
The drug dealer went before the judge to assert the 5th.
Chauvin is being thrown to the dogs by a prosecution and department that knows he did no wrong and did suffocate Floyd.
*Did NOT suffocate Floyd.
Understood. But Chauvin has a right to question him and have him assert the 5th in front of the jury.Nelson can ask all his questions and dealer can take 5th to each one. That would make an impression on the jury
IMHO:As a juror, this line of questioning we sit up and take notice and talk about in jury room. The experts, we hear them, but not on a comprehension level. I realized, they bore most jurors, after assessing if they are relatable, in one ear, out the other. What is anyone’s assessment of this jury?
Does anyone know of ways to support financially or otherwise Officer Kimberly Potter? She has and is continuing to go through a hell none of us could imagine. Her mug shot showed so much pain. She deserves our support. Please post if you know.
Even manslaughter is a miscarriage of justice. This officer was railroaded, period.
The necessity for an MD to review prosecution evidence cannot be understated. The paid to order MDs lied – both Tobin and Rich.
It’s very clear that Floyd did not die of suffocation. Why? He did not exhibit the symptoms of air hunger when he was down. Not only that he can talk but also in Tobin admitting that when he was down, Floyd’s respiration rate was in the (upper part of) the normal range, he said 20-22 breaths/minute. Someone suffering air hunger is going to be 40+ if not 50+. They can’t talk, too busy gulping down air. They won’t have their mouths closed, either.
Floyd wasn’t suffocating, he was lying and pulling an Eric Garner. The movements were him trying to resist arrest, not try to breathe.
Thankfully there’s at least one RN in the jury, an ICU nurse. She’s seen people die from respiratory failure. Surely she knows what’s going on.
We can only hope she has the guts to stand up.
I don’t think Floyd was lying about having difficulty breathing. I think he was, both before and after he was on the ground. After all, he said “I can’t breathe” or “I can’t f*cking breathe” seven (7) different times before the cops put him on the ground. Floyd’s lungs were full of fluid at autopsy. The pulmonary edema would make it difficult to breathe, regardless of whether he was upright, or lying down.
everyone thinks about how the riots will affect the honest jurors
but I think that’s selling them out short
maybe they will ponder on what kinda police force they will have if they convict this obviously innocent man
I couldn’t tell that Floyd stopped breathing. I did see him apparently go unconscious. But that doesn’t mean he stopped breathing then, or that Chauvin could have known he stopped breathing.
I am surprised to see Prof. Jacobsen say that he stopped breathing there, with no further elaboration.
Thank you professor, I think this answers some questions I had about the trial like why didn’t he testify and why weren’t there a lot more medical witnesses for the defense (Nelson was overstretched).
The media in this country don’t care about facts, they want “emotional correctness”. You see this over and over again.
Okay, we have no idea how much pressure or weight was being applied to the back (or *rolls eyes* “neck area”) of GF by Chauvin. Only Chauvin knows this and he didn’t testify, which is the right thing for him.
The elected politicians that manufactured this case from raw emotion better stop to think of what kind of monster they have created for the residents of Minneapolis. If DC is convicted, especially on one of the higher (overdone) murder charges, just what kind of fallout will they reap from their actions?
Who would want to work in law enforcement if they can expect to be criminally charged if they make a serious mistake in the process of making a lawful arrest? Are LEO’s expected to be infallible? Evidently, that is the case now, given that Officer Kimberly Potter was quickly charged with 2nd degree manslaughter. Even more outrageous, the City Manager was terminated for calling for the constitutionally promised right of Due Process be applied to Mrs. Potter.
We are witnessing the breakdown of law and order in Minneapolis. Realistically, who is going to muster the courage to stop any further erosion? I see no one willing to step up, and the dire consequences for doing nothing cannot be overestimated.
Really surprised at some bad takes here. Testifying is absolutely a bad idea in this case.
They will put him up against the black lawyer who is a Johnny Cochran wannabe. It’s already been demonstrated that the prosecution will be able to score cheap political points nearly at will, and even if objected and sustained, the dog whistles to the jury will be made.
If he’s defiant and fights on cross to clear his name then he’ll be branded a racist. If he remains too passive then he is admitting his guilt and showing obvious signs of guilt. If he could be guaranteed to fully thread the needle, then it might go okay, but the prosecution will be allowed to lead him off path as the liberties they’ve been granted in this case are just obscene. They’ll also try to paint him as a sociopath if he doesn’t fall into any emotional traps. There’s too many political snares in this trial to make testifying worth it, even if he loses.
More and more of us are now being accused as whiteys and white supremacists. It’s not just Chauvin but all of us whites. It’s getting worse.
I am fed up.. I have had personal relationships with different races.. I know in my heart where I stand… but I am fed up now… This division is being pushed.. and everyone suffers, except the pushers…
I’ve said since the travesty of jury selection that the BEST Chauvin could hope for with this jury is a mistrial enough in his favor to discourage future prosecution.
WORST case for Chauvin is he’s found guilty on some charges and goes to prison but a mistrial on the murder charges requires him to pay for his defense when the prosecution refiles again.
An acquittal is simply not going to happen regardless of evidence with the laughable bias the judge permitted through.
Prof. Jacobson,
Did you happen to listen to the jury instructions record that was recorded yesterday? The proposed instructions for Assault 3-> Felony Murder/Murder 2 are exceptionally broad. Probably easier to prove, in general, than manslaughter, since according to the person on the phone giving the arguments, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Assault 3 doesn’t require an intent to do harm, but merely an intent to apply force. It’s extremely scary, and I’ve never been more glad that I don’t live in Minnesota.
Anything short of a conviction on all charges and those jury members know they’re looking at having unhinged communist lunatics throwing bricks through their windows at 2am and threatening their children.
In reading all this I’m left confused.
The prosecution started out saying Chauvin used a blood choke (unconscious in 10 seconds), and that he kept his knee on Floyd’s neck for 9+ minutes. Except the defence proved Chauvin’s knee wasn’t on the neck, and it wasn’t a blood choke – that requires pressure on both sides and kills in under a minute.
So the prosecution switched to a knee on neck area caused asphyxiation narrative. The defence proved that Floyd’s poor health plus the overdose plus the exertion from resisting arrest plus carbon monoxide was a better explanation.
So the prosecution recalled a witness, risked a mistrial, and established Floyd’s oxygen levels were normal. Er but wasn’t he asphyxiated?
So um how did Floyd die?!?!?
Of a heart attack/overdose/suffocation/CO poisoning, apparently. He was a big guy, and it took a lot to bring him down.
I agree…there is so much confusion in how GF died. I do wonder if the police had turned him over the last 3 minutes before the ambulance arrived if things would have turned out different.. However, I dont think that the state even asked this question or posed it to the jury.
even if chauvin, anothe cop or the firefighter on the sidewalk immediately starts cpr on floyd there no guarantee that he comes gack to life
Had they done that, GF could start fighting back. “Could” does not mean that he absolutely would do it but the LEOs had no way to know it. Several youtubes demonstrate the unknowns of criminals making a comeback in fights.
He was a dying criminal the moment he swallowed the stash of drugs. The only way he could have been saved was if it was recognized and his stomach was pumped. That would have had to have been done very early.
Just another dead home invader.
Fowler said…undetermined.
I thought the best argument for the defense was a study that showed over 1,000 arrests in prone position custody resulted in 0 deaths.
IMHO:As a juror, this line of questioning we sit up and take notice and talk about in jury room. The experts, we hear them, but not on a comprehension level. I realized, they bore most jurors, after assessing if they are relatable, in one ear, out the other. What is anyone’s assessment of this jury?
Forgive me if I am wrong, but if the jury agrees that Chauvin was not the substantial cause of GF’s death, doesn’t that wipe out all 3 charges? Cause of death is an element for each one, correct?
The State’s case is built on two components: 1) Videotape and 2) Raw emotion. The first is legal evidence, the latter is not. The idea of what the bystander witnesses were feeling at the time of the incident is irrelevant, the Judge has allowed too much of it to be presented, especially from minors. The standard is whether it is more probative than prejudicial, and the testimony from the minors, particularly the 17 year old (at time of incident) who took the viral video, and her 9(!) year old cousin, was nowhere near that standard.
When you see the videotape of her at the scene, she does not look troubled at all by what she sees, she calmly records it on her phone. In fact, from what I saw, she appeared to be more than happy to record it. I saw no attempt to turn away from the scene, moreover she made no attempt to keep her 9 year old cousin from being possibly traumatized by moving her away from the scene after she came out of the store. Her cousin’s safety was of little concern to her, she was doing what she felt was more important (or interesting, like watching a train wreck), regardless what she may have said in her undoubtedly coached testimony.
And since the incident occurred, her mother hired a PR person to manage her contact with the media, but for what real purpose? Given that this same PR person violated court instructions to take a “selfie” of her client with AG Keith Ellison to memorialize her trial appearance, this girl (now 18) was minimally traumatized by the event. Instead, it would appear she’s doing her best to draw fame from the event, particularly when she so emotionally testified about the incident. Her testimony was not probative, it was more a performance than true testimony.
The State led with emotion because that is their best argument. The “expert” witnesses were just filler, giving the appearance of evidence but falling far short of providing any sort of plausible proof of excess force or Cause of Death. And we should expect the same from the State’s closing argument, it will begin and end with emotion, with some filler testimony sandwiched in between.
Bottom line, this is a show trial, it is not pursuing genuine justice. Instead, it is trampling all over it, just like the rioters waiting in the wings.
just like the rioters waiting in the wings.
_________________________________
you address the core issue of it all–as others have posted, regardless of the outcome, the rioters will commence their “protest” unless a guilty/conviction verdict is returned
in other words, fairness, justice, the rule of law is held hostage by these criminal elements–looters/antifa/blm, etc.
so the real question becomes: how long are the good citizens(our fellow countrymen)of this nation going to tolerate the chaos either anticipated or enacted by these unlawful bastards ? and then, what are WE going to do about it?
At first the prosecution told us that the flow of blood to GF’ brain was stopped by pressure to the back of GF’ neck, by DC. That meant his brain did not have enough oxygen; which killed him..
Experts for both the prosecution and defense testified that it is not possible to cut off the flow of blood to the brain by applying pressure to just one side of the neck.
The medical examiner that performed the autopsy testified that GF did not have any damage to his neck.
***
Then the prosecution told us that because GF was flat on his stomach, and some of DC’ weight was on GF’ neck and back, GF’ could not expand his lungs enough to add a normal level of oxygen to his blood. That meant his heart and/ or brain did not have enough oxygen; which killed him.
The prosecutors’ experts testified that being kept on your stomach is dangerous and can lead to death. The defenses experts testified that being kept on your stomach can be dangerous if you are overweight and have a large belly. GF was a very tall and heavy man, but he was not overweight and did not have a large belly.
The medical examiner that performed the autopsy testified that GF did not have any damage to his back.
***
On the last day of the trial the prosecutors’ expert testified that GF had a normal level of oxygen in his blood, when he was tested at the hospital ER. An actual test, not estimates made by viewing body camera videos, etc.
If GF died with a normal level of oxygen in his blood, that means his lungs were able to add a normal level of oxygen to his blood during his arrest.
***
The prosecutors’ medical experts testified that GF’ autopsy reported that he had an enlarged heart due to High Blood Pressure (HBP), and had blocked arteries to his heart. They also testified that HBP and/ or blocked arteries can lead to death.
The prosecutors’ medical experts testified that GF’ autopsy reported that he had the opioid drug fentanyl in in his blood,. They also testified that the level of fentanyl in GF’ blood was high enough to cause death.
The medical examiner that performed the autopsy testified that if GF had been found alone at home, he would have decided that his death was due to a drug overdose.
***
The police did not use pepper spray on GF. They did not use a baton on GF. They did not use a taser on GF. They did not use a gun on GF.
What the police did do, is hold GF down – against his will – in the course of a lawful arrest. Thay also called an ambulance to treat him for the non-fatal injuries he received while resisting being placed into the police car.
***
It is reasonable to believe that no one who was present that day wished to see GF die.
It is reasonable to believe that the prosecution completely failed to prove that DC did not follow the use of force training he had received. Even the prosecutions own witnesses agreed with the defense’ questions concerning the proper and lawful use of force.
It is reasonable to believe that the prosecution completely failed to prove that DC holding GF down – during a lawful arrest – led to a restricted level of oxygen to GF’ brain or heart. Even the prosecutions own witnesses testified that GF had no bruising to his neck or back – and had a normal level of oxygen in his blood when he was tested at the hospital ER.
It is also reasonable to believe that the combination of: 1) a dangerous level of drugs, 2) poor heart health, and 3) overexertion due to resisting arrest, were too much for GF’ body to handle. And that combination led to his death.
Regardless of the outcome, there are many potentially good police officers who will not be willing to join any force. Officer Chauvin is a sacrificial lamb to the hate-filled Dem/Left.