LIVE: Chauvin Trial Day 10 – Forensic Pathologist and Medical Examiner Day
Dr. Andrew Baker, the Hennepin County chief medical examiner, is expected to testify today. This comes after a day of medical testimony yesterday that may have rescued a flailing prosecution.
Welcome to Legal Insurrection’s continuing LIVE coverage of the trial of Derek Chauvin in the in-custody death of George Floyd. Andrew Branca is traveling today, so I am “guest” live blogging for what is expected to be a half-day in court.
Sorry to disappoint you! Andrew will do today’s wrap-up after he has a chance to watch the testimony himself. So for this morning, you are stuck with me. Feel free to continue adding to the comment section, Andrew will see that when he prepares his wrap-up.
(Update 1:30 p.m) I thought today was a half day, but it turns out it’s a full day. So after the lunch break we are supposed to hear from Dr. Andrew Baker, the Hennepin County chief medical examiner. I’ve updated the title and image.
This comes after a day of medical testimony yesterday that may have rescued a flailing prosecution. I still don’t understand how Dr. Martin Tobin was permitted to testify to his hocus-pocus precise oxygen calculations based on video review. Is this a methodology accepted in the medical community? What is his background as an attending physician would allow him to make such conclusions not only as to oxygen level but to cause of death? In my opinion, his testimony was devastating to the defense. I don’t understand how defense counsel Nelson didn’t fight it harder.
Also, note that the prosecution changed approach. The first eight days were spent trying to convince the jury that pressure to the carotid artery due to the ‘knee on the neck’ cut off blood flow to the brain causing Floyd to stop breathing. But Tobin said it was how Floyd was restrained on the ground that made it hard for him to inhale. You can’t have it both ways, but apparently the prosecution is trying to do that.
If you want to review what has happened since the beginning of jury selection, you can scroll back through our George Floyd – Derek Chauvin Trial tag. For trial testimony, check out the wrap-up posts so far:
- Chauvin Trial Day 1 Wrap-Up: Opening Arguments & Three State Witnesses
- Chauvin Trial Day 2 Wrap-Up: State Focused on Feelings, Judge Scolds Firefighter
- Chauvin Trial Day 3 Wrap-Up: Floyd Was “High” with Foam Around His Mouth
- Chauvin Trial BREAKING: “Mama” Was George Floyd’s Nickname For His Drug-Sharing Girlfriend
- Chauvin Trial Day 4 Wrap-Up: Another Poor Day for Prosecution, Advantage Defense
- Chauvin Trial Day 5 Wrap-Up: Poorly Informed Witnesses Provide State with Poorly Informed Opinions
- Chauvin Trial Week One Analysis: State Offers Abbreviated Versions of Video Evidence
- Chauvin Trial Day 6 Wrap-Up: Chief Says Neck Restraint Not Trained, But Does It Matter?
- Chauvin Trial Day 7 Wrap-Up: a horrible day for the prosecution
- Chauvin Trial Day 8 Wrap-Up: “I Ate Too Many Drugs” Video May Be Game-Changer
- Chauvin Trial Day 9 Wrap-Up: Medical Experts Resuscitate Prosecution Case
Here is the LIVE VIDEO feed:
Here is the LIVE Blog (hopefully it works today):
Also, I’ll put in a plug for Andrew. The time he is spending on this is enormous, practically round-the-clock. Here’s something he has posted before:
Personal Message from Andrew: Hey folks, obviously thousands of you are new to me and my firm, Law of Self Defense, and I have to say it’s really humbling to see this onrush of attention–and thanks to so many of you for your kind words and encouragement! For those who’d like to know more about what we do, I’d like to offer each of you a complimentary copy of our best-selling book, “The Law of Self Defense: Principles,” a plain-English explanation of use-of-force law, for FREE. Normally the book is $25 + S&H, but if you’ll just cover the S&H cost of getting the book to you, we’ll cover the $25. If you’re interested–and I hope you are!–just click here: FREE COPY Law of Self Defense: Principles Book.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Welcome Mr. Jacobson!
Your insight, like Mr. Branca’s, is much appreciated!
Thank you for all you do to keep L.I. operational!
As a new member to LegalInsurection, I just wanted to let Prof. Jacobson know that the link to his Cornell bio does not work properly from his bio on the legalinsurection page.
Thanks, they re-did the website, so the link changed. I’ve updated.
Why didn’t Nelson ask Tobin about Floyd’s prior breathing difficulties standing up before the knee? Could he not introduce that or something? Hopefully the jury will come to see this as all one episode of some health or overdose event and not fixate on the knee. Now it seems pundits are running with ‘he wasn’t even at overdose levels’ and ‘you can actually talk while being choked’. Tobin has founded a new religion it seems.
It would be interesting to find an anesthesiologist to ask some questions:
– How many ng/ml of fentanyl does somebody normally get when undergoing surgery?
– At what concentration of ng/ml does it approach dangerous levels and you would stop administering it?
– And at what level would surgery be stopped and attempts at reducing the level be started?
– And that is how many multiples of the concentration in Floyd’s blood?
– Have you ever had a patient with that concentration of fentanyl on the operating table?
– To your knowledge, has anybody been admitted in the emergency room at your hospital with that concentration of fentanyl in their bloodstream and survived?
Well, of course, that will probably happen, but not until the prosecution’s turn at direct is over.
Happy to help out. I’m a cardiac anesthesiologist, in private practice for the last 10 years. For any other docs out there, a disclaimer. I’m going to leave out a ton of caveats here in the interest of space, so don’t pillage me too hard for leaving them out.
1 – We don’t measure, or really think about, plasma concentration in clinical practice. However, we can back calculate/ estimate a concentration based on typical doses, and volume of distribution. Single dose fentanyl is typically given in 50 mcg to 100 mcg quantities. In a 100kg man (like GF) that would equate to approximately 0.125 ng/mL to 0.25 ng/mL. Almost everyone can tolerate this dose with minimal respiratory depression, assuming no other substances on board. In opiate addicts, I typically administer a 250mcg dose to observe their response, before putting them to sleep. That would correspond to a 1.25 ng/mL level. There are studies of fentanyl infusions for post-op pain, where they actually did measure the blood concentrations. They found levels of 1 to 3 ng/mL.
In cardiac surgery, we sometimes use extremely high doses of fentanyl. Sometimes 2,500 to 5,000 mcg. That would translate into approximately 6.25 ng/mL to 12.5 ng/mL. This dose would be uniformly fatal to the opiate naive, although it would be a pleasant, peaceful death. I have personally administered 5,000 mcg to hard-core opiate addicts with no apparent respiratory depression, or change in level of consciousness.
2 – As long as someone is there to take over breathing for the patient, and support blood pressure and heart rate, there is practically no ceiling. It is why we love it for cardiac surgery. It makes for an extremely stable anesthetic, obviously when combined with an appropriate sedative agent.
3 – Surgery would never be stopped for some specific level of fentanyl. We might try to reverse the effects if, at the conclusion of surgery, we were trying to wake the patient up, and they simply won’t breathe on their own.
4 – Floyd’s level was 11 ng/mL. I don’t know when that was drawn, and I can’t speak to any shifts in levels that might occur post-mortem.
5 – I think you can see that yes, we have patients with that level frequently. I can’t say at what level of abuse one goes from tolerating that level to dying of that level. I can only say that hard core, use heroin and fentanyl multiple times per day, addicts, can tolerate that level with no apparent respiratory depression, and opiate naive patients cannot.
6 – You would have to ask an emergency physician. I’m not sure if they get concentrations in the ER or not. There is no reason to think that someone who uses daily would be significantly affected by that level. There is no reason to think an opiate naive individual would survive that level. I have no idea what GF’s tolerance is.
…As long as someone is there to take over breathing for the patient, and support blood pressure and heart rate,…
So GF could have been saved (possibly) if the paramedics had arrived far earlier, or if the police had begun CPR when his heart stopped. Maybe. If everything went right. And the crowd had not been hostile and loud.
That’s good to know. Thanks, Doc.
Watching his testimony, Nelson understood that Tobin was going to be “cute” in his answers. He was making stuff up to support his conclusion. Doubt he would have gotten the answer he wanted. Better to just ask a few to raise some doubt then counter with his own expert.
I agree. Tobin was quite the smart ass. Seemed to have every angle covered except for the one that made sense.
Dr. Andrew Baker, the Hennepin County chief medical examiner, is expected to testify today. This comes after a day of medical testimony yesterday that may have rescued a flailing prosecution. I still don’t understand how Dr. Martin Tobin was permitted to testify to his hocus-pocus precise oxygen calculations based on video review. Is this a methodology accepted in the medical community? What is his background as an attending physician would allow him to make such conclusions not only as to oxygen level but to cause of death? In my opinion, his testimony was devastating to the defense. I don’t understand how defense counsel Nelson didn’t fight it harder.
I concur with your analysis. Though MN Daubert standard may not be as robust as the Fed standard. Further, Daubert issues typically dont arise in criminal trials so possibly Cahill may have completely missed it. Nelson may have not gotten the info soon enough & spent his time on getting up to speed on the material and overlooked the daubert issue
I will add that his testimony came across as the typical expert “paid whore” witness
Maybe he has a witness who could answer those questions already lined up? Maybe that is why he never really pushed back. He knew he was struggling to the testimony because he doesn’t have the knowledge to counter and Tobin was sticking to his theory no matter what. Rather than get into an argument, he may be able to rip it to pieces in another way.
The only thing that arguing with a professional witness will do is cement that witness’s testimony in the minds of the jury. Far better to bring in your own expert to make a better explanation of the fact that there was literally nothing the police could have done to stop Floyd from dying at that point.
Agree, If you can see that you can’t win with the questions you are asking, but you lack the information to discredit it yourself, then just back off and fight it another day from a position of strength. Which is what he did just then, he used the prosecution witness to discredit his testimony whilst making her come across as biased.
I swear at one point he had a smile on his face because he knew that it was going well. So well you could clearly see the annoyance in the redirect.
“I swear at one point he had a smile on his face because he knew that it was going well.”
It’s very clear that Nelson loves his work. I get it. It’s fun work.
If I am ever unfortunate enough to end up as a defendant, I hope that I have a lawyer who truly loves and enjoys the game, and gets a little smile on his face when he senses an opening.
No point in questioning the “expert.” He isn’t going to change his opinion, only become more entrenched. Since there really is no way to get him to impeach himself, and you are limited in scope, based on what the prosecutor has asked, better to just bring in your own expert who can incredulously opine on just how far out of mainstream, accepted medicine, the state’s expert’s opinion is.
I saw him as the “true believer” expert – no matter what was asked or presented he truly believed his own opinion and NOTHING would push him off it. His absolute degree of certainty in EVERYTHING undermined his opinion, at least to me. I thought Nelson did a decent job in cross, but I sure would appreciate anyone’s insight how to attack that kind of expert!
When day is considered “devastating for the defense” and leaves observers wondering why Nelson didn’t fight harder, what is the takeaway for someone with no background in law? Did the defense make a mistake? Was a real opportunity to mitigate the damage missed, and is that missed opportunity irrecoverable?
Defense Attorney Nelson was sandbagged. He only received the material which Tobin would use in his testimony the night before Tobin took the stand. IF the prosecution didn’t have the material before late that afternoon, then Tobin deliberately withheld it so as to prevent the defense single attorney (Nelson) from having adequate time to prepare for his cross. Expert Witnesses don’t come up with all that dog and pony show stuff the day before testifying, but he could have held it from the prosecutors so they couldn’t be accused of failing to turn it over to the defense in a timely manner. Needless to say the prosecution team wouldn’t object to their own witness helping out in that manner by delving into when he actually had the material ready to use.
In that view, it’s not so much that Nelson made a mistake, correct? The prosecution and their witness made what would be considered, at best, an unethical move. It’s nerve-wracking, even as a detached observer, to think that one missed opportunity by the defense could eliminate all hope for the defendant.
Minnesota explicitly rejects Daubert and uses Frye-Mack. Nelson should have brushed up on rules of evidence 701-703. I don’t see him challenging any experts in his motion in limine. My brother is party to one of the biggest individual civil cases in MN history (Kedrowski v. Lycoming) that recently went to MN Supreme Court, which remanded it back to a new trial. The entire case centered around expert witness testimony and foundational reliability. Nelson should have objected to foundational reliability (at least I didn’t hear him doing so).
David Ked Thanks – I am a cpa , so I can follow statutory text better than most layman, though civ procedures beyond my pay grade
two questions
1) His failure object under frye for lack of foundational reliability, once witness is off the stand , is the ability to object forfeited?
Covid can screw up oxygen levels so any testimony is bogus. Many people have terrible oxygen levels but look fine. Remember how many people got intubated early on for lousy levels that didn’t need it?
“In my opinion, his testimony was devastating to the defense. I don’t understand how defense counsel Nelson didn’t fight it harder.”
It was a good testimony in that he came across as knowledgeable and was consistent in cross examination. I think Nelson probably knew that due to his own lack of medical knowledge, and that he only received information late that he was not going to win this battle and he was best backing off and fighting that testimony on his own turf where he can call the shots.
I thought Tobin came off as quack and a hack. I really did. If I were on the jury, I might have laughed out loud on occasion. Really, I would. It disturbs me others see it differently.
On reflection, I think we are back to square one in so far as the defense has to prove that Chauvin’s actions did not kill Floyd. That may not be fair, but the bystander video and the extended length of George Floyd’s restraint likely creates a presumption of guilt in the minds of most observers and, most importantly, jurors. I believe the unequivocal attribution of cause of death by Dr. Tobin will need a compelling rebuttal – including the recall of Dr. Tobin, if permitted, to affirm flaws in his presentation and/or logic. I assume the late proffering of his exhibits constitutes grounds for appeal?
bernie comment – “I assume the late proffering of his exhibits constitutes grounds for appeal?”
Under normal circumstances, most of Tobin’s testimony would likely have been barred, however strong the grounds for appeal, I think that is lost cause. The first level appeals court basically showed it bias via the reinstatement of the 3rd degree charge
Yeah, he’s estimating the amount of o2 in the bloodstream of somebody in a iPhone video. He’s either a genius or a fraud at that point.
Fraud.
I was under the impression that the appeals court was obligated to reinstate the 3rd-degree charge because the Minnesota Supreme Court had made a decision in the case of Mohammed Noor that reckless endangerment could apply to only a single person (a stupid decision, IMO, but one that was made) instead of endangering a crowd.
That is a correct summation of the decision.
The Minnesota Supreme Court only took the Noor case. It has yet to rule. As such, the appellate decision in Noor applies to Chauvin until SC rules.
I’d like to think the Jury is smart enough to at least see the biased quackery of Tobin… I’d like to.
I’d like to think the jury in the OJ Simpson trial was smart enough to make a decision based on the evidence, but they didn’t vote that way. Maybe someone here can make an educated guess concerning this jury.
As I recall, a member of the OJ jury not only didn’t understand the concept of DNA and DNA matches, he or she (I forget which) conflated blood type with DNA to ignore the evidence.
I wouldn’t underestimate the jury’s ability to understand the burden of proof—I’m sure the judge will be extremely clear that Chauvin is innocent and that the state has to overcome any reasonable doubt.
At least I hope so—and all that said, you’re right that this is an incredibly difficult case to defend, due to all the prejudicial media narratives and official statements
Nelson did a great job briefly eliciting the fact that this investigation followed the filing of charges—a reversal of the normal order.
Larry Elder recounted a time he was interviewing a juror from the OJ Simpson trial. He asked her to define “reasonable doubt”. She replied that if you have any doubt at all, that’s reasonable doubt.
He then turned to the woman’s lawyer and asked him if that was the definition of “reasonable doubt” and he conceded that it wasn’t.
I think we may presume she applied this standard while deliberating.
The Judge will be exceedingly clear, as will the clarity of demonstrations by BLM and Antifa, the prior history of rioting and the “fortress under siege” appearance of the courthouse. Jurors of even slightly less than average intelligence can understand that a government which showed itself unable to prevent widespread rioting, looting and burning of a significant portion of the city would be very unlikely to be able to protect the jurors should they find for the defendant, an outcome the politicians would not view approvingly.
That would have been a good point to make during jury selection. They were all asked about the security. You could truthfully say that if y’all couldn’t protect a Minneapolis, how are you going to protect little ol’ me?
I like Andrew Branca better.
Ha! That’s very kind of you–or is it? 🙂
Mr Branca:
How do you think the jury is seeing the evidence that has been presented so far? Is Chauvin getting a fair trial?
Of course we like him, that’s why we are here.
Question in regards to the exhibits presented yesterday, don’t the Minnesota rules for discovery disclosures require the prosecution to turn over all exhibits they intend to present for their case before trial begins? Wouldn’t the prosecution’s providing the written reports after they were required to and providing inaccurate information put them at risk of a mistrial or instant loss on appeal if Chauvin is not acquitted in full?
Looks like the WaPo talking heads are back today after they thought they had a good day yesterday.
Does the judge have any extra relevant motions this morning? Seems like he likes to settle up on fridays.
Does not fit the Democrats’ narrative for gun confiscation. So this story will go away quickly.
Are there any late breaking updated reports submitted by Baker or the prosecution team last night?
Yesterday, prosecution did score their points. According to media, bless their heart, the state attorneys are simply on a winning streak day after day. Oh well…
With Dr. Tobin, there were some unnecessary exchanges on Nelson’s cross, like getting into nanoseconds discussion and some more (non)science. Not sure it helps. On a lighter note, Tobin did discredit himself agreeing with Nelson that things can happen faster than speed of light. Are we on the verge of a fresh Nobel prize in physics?
Good luck with subbing Andrew, Dr. Jacobson!
Welcome to our Brave New World. In the new “settled science,” no amendment is absolute.
It appears that Judge Cahill is having a private meeting with one of the jurors. Can anyone shed light on this?
Apparently they had viewed the news but then switched off. Their mom text them regarding the case but apprently they didn’t reply. Something about they have allegedly signed a book deal too.
Thanks, Professor Jacobson. This coverage has been a fantastic public service—and I’m sure we’re all looking forward to your insights!
why do these people find this trial to be amusing ?
Well, despite the ramifications for the railroaded, it IS a show trial. Everyone loves a show.
I think that the BLM folks are hoping this case will “change” the country to fit their social justice, especially after the other cases’ acquittals.
Thanks for the plug, Bill!
–Andrew
General Q for the professor: I noted in an earlier comment that a newly-graduated civil engineer would tear Dr Tobin’s weight calculations to shreds … if a civil engineer happens to be on the jury, can he point out in deliberations that the Dr’s calculations are flawed or must deliberations be based only on the evidence as presented?
A juror may bring any expertise possessed to the other jurors attention while Jury Deliberation is ongoing. The Jury is charged with evaluating the testimony and evidence presented, not simply accepting it as equal to Moses return from the mountain with the Tablets.
The packetman – I would presume that would be a factor regarding his credibility. Personally, I discount factually accurate statements from anyone that has demonstrated dishonesty on other statements.
Dr. Thomas mentioned being semi-retired. Not that it matters too much, since she is still involved with medical examinations, but doctors say that if you stop practicing or reduce the hours being put in, you are behind. It is like climbing upward on the descending escalator. If you stop, you are brought down.
Not being paid: looks like another activist (?)
Interesting the groups Dr Thomas is a member of … The Police Policy Studies Council …
“Our research has spawned a substantively different vision of how law enforcement personnel should be hired, trained, assigned, and supervised. In fact, we see the training being offered by many other training organizations as being “part of the problem” as opposed to offering any legitimate solutions”
http://www.theppsc.org/Information/Intro-M.htm
So Dr. Thomas is following the Dr. Baden model:
I have no medical evidence of what I am saying but I saw this video……..
I expect Dr. Baker to do something similar. Wonder how Nelson will do in his cross with both of them but doubtful that this part will finish today.
I think the state is going to use all the other medical testimony to throw Baker ‘under the bus’ (as far as they dare) when he eventually has to admit that the fentanyl had more impact than the other doctors have testified to, hoping that the jury won’t notice that Baker is the only one to have actually examined Floyds body.
Or, “I stayed an a Holiday Inn Express last night”, therefore, I am qualified to say anything and it is to be considered fact and sacrosanct.” Darn, when I traveled a lot for my job, I stayed at Holiday Inn Express many times and I still cannot pilot a Lear jet.
If you’re Black, Delta wants you for a pilot!
I’m so glad to find these articles by Mr. Branca and Mr. Jacobson. We live in a society where we rush to judgment without the facts. The media and other nefarious actors shape the narrative.
The state has the burden to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. In reading your analyses, it sounds like they are not hitting the mark.
It’s hard to predict what a jury will do. If Derek is acquitted, the media are already priming the pump for more riots. If Derek is convicted, it’s one more nail in the coffin for America and the rule of law.
Thank you for what your are doing.
Thomas just contradicted Tobin when she said there was nothing sudden about the death.
Tobin stated one moment he was alive, the next moment he wasn’t.
A lifetime slow suicide?
Sorry, Professor Jacobson, not Mr. Jacobson.
For the record “low oxygen” is hypoxia, not asphyxia. The government quacks are playing word games.
I can’t believe this Dr. Thomas testimony. She is on a mission… mission to convict. Doesn’t mean Chauvin is innocent, but she is too excited to make medical determinations about breathing based on video.
I wonder if she ever participated in reviewing and recommending the MPD materials, guidance,and training.
yeah, not sure and now she is comparing it with hanging, or at least planting it in… that must be designed to bring some connotations to the minds of Jury
She has no idea how people act before they die. She admits she never has this sort of video so it is wholly outside her area of competency.
It also seems odd they are determining his respiratory rate from what is a very large rise and fall of his chest, so large that it lifts his hands and is easily visible on video, but their theory is his complaints that he couldn’t breathe at that time was due to his being unable to expand his chest. That seems contradictory.
Thank god for these live blogs, Some of this is so hard to watch with a straight face.
Did everyone else get booted off the WaPo stream?
Yes
Yes. Back now.
state asks her about the level of meth, no mention of fentanyl
Can a minuscule amount of meth make a serious impact or contradiction to fentanyl? I thought there were stimulants in addition to meth and fentanyl?
someone answered that a few days ago. In fact, I think Branco did a separate post about that specifically.
At some point the state has to explain why Floyd was complaining he couldn’t breathe even before he tussled with the police.
It doesn’t pass the smell test that they found no cause for this, and are not mentioning it at all. That will be reasonable doubt all in itself in the minds of some if they cannot find provide explanation for it.
For anyone who is skeptical that a doctor can view a video and determine that a person kicking his leg indeed proves the moment of death, I offer this conclusive proof:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h57UR-oIE_g
ROFLMAO!!!!
I have a question about yesterday’s witness statement. Did Dr. Tobin say a healthy person would have died under the restraint used? After finding out the officer only weighed 140 pounds, this does not make sense to me.
As I pointed out yesterday….pressing someone to death usually required over 400 pounds for small people and upwards of 700 for larger people when being executed. The cop couldn’t crush Floyd that much except in the court room where reality is barred.
I still think it would be great for Tobin to hire a 6’6″ 230 lb. paralegal to sit on the other side of Chauvin, just to drive it all home.
Thanks! I didn’t keep up with comments yesterday. I was surprised a doctor would say that.
Could any/all of these injuries have occurred during struggle with police – in the squad car and when he was first put on the ground? Video shows him kicking at officers while on the ground, but not what may have been happening to his head and face.
The injury to his face was caused during the struggle in the squad car. That is why they called the ambulance at first, code 2.
How about conversely:
“There are suggestions that he would have died that night while sleeping in his bed.”
He came close to death in March 2020 and stayed in the hospital for five days.
Wonder how expensive that bill was…
Don’t you know? You paid it.
Couple things I’m noticing with the State’s case. One thing is that the more the videos are played the more likely the jurors are to become desensitized and unsympathetic. Another thing is that the parade of med “experts” is an overreach by the State. The more you bang on about something the more likely it is to not be believed (i.e. Me think thou dost protest too much).
Also, thank you so much to Attorney Branca and Prf. Jacobson for doing the play-by-play!!
“primary asphyxia, secondary stress, but “cause” of death was restraint.”
How about restraint caused by fluid buildup in the lungs?
When one spins lies make them but ones. Floyd shut himself down.
Can someone tell me if the judge has issued instructions to the jury regarding the charges themselves? I know he instructed them at the beginning about listening, being judges of fact, note taking, avoiding cameras, not discussing, etc. But I don’t see that he has given them actual jury instructions. I can only find the motions filed by pros & def as to what they want them to be.
So has this been done already, or will this be done before deliberations?
I think this is done right before deliberations. I’m more curious how people are sitting in the court room are viewing the reactions jurors are having to pieces of evidence. Boredom? Shock? Yesterday that ridiculous breathing expert was opening laughing on re-direct… wtf.
The judge instructs jurors before the jury gets the case for deliberations.
That is really a terrible flaw in how things are done. There is a lot of information in a trial like this, and it is hard to know what is relevant, so it is absolutely ridiculous that jurors aren’t told what the basis for their ruling must be before hearing it all.
It is just a really sloppy way of doing things that is convenient for the lawyers, but makes it much, much harder for justice to be done. They should be listening carefully for items that will influence their decision, but they can’t do that without knowing specifically what they are being asked to decide.
And the fact they cannot take notes also means justice will be less likely to be done. Pretty much no thought or consideration is given to jurors in our system.
FWIW, everything that is either admitted into evidence or into the transcript is relevant. It it weren’t relevant to the case then the respective lawyers would object and the judge would either overrule or sustain the objection.
I mean relevant to the specific points on which the case turns. The pretense is certainly that everything in court is relevant, but it won’t be in the mind of each individual juror. That is something they must decide for themselves and it is only by having knowledge of the precise question they are being asked to decide that they can make that determination.
For instance, you want assurance that there is a proper chain of evidence, but in the vast majority of cases you could give bugger-all whether cop A or cop B put the evidence in the bag and signed his name to it. There is a LOT of extraneous information like that. But you certainly would want to know what elements constitute the crime you are being asked to pass judgment upon so you know precisely what to look for and can understand the points the lawyers are trying to make. Otherwise, very important things can get lost in the noise or overlooked.
Dr. Thomas is giving so much leeway for Mr, Nelson’s cross. Everybody being arrested is experiencing stress. Should arrests be banned then?
OMG, I wish Blackwell would at least try to do a better job of acting like this all hasn’t been rehearsed beforehand.
homocide – “death at the hands of another”
How about Morries Hall, the drug pusher? How about the crowd?
Awesome job, Prf. J!!
Dr. Jacobson – you’re doing well. Admittedly, you’re not Andrew Branca, but then he isn’t you.
Cheers!
“At 7:30 p.m. on May 31, 2020, prosecutors “met” online with Dr. Andrew Baker, Chief Medical Examiner of Hennepin County, to discuss Floyd’s toxicology report. Take a look at this recently released June 1, 2020, memorandum by Assistant County Attorney Amy Sweasy of that discussion….
To their undoubted dismay, Dr. Baker, the chief medical examiner, had to concede that at 11 ng/mL, Floyd had “a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances.” He also conceded that the fentanyl overdose “can cause pulmonary edema,” a frothy fluid build-up in the lungs that was evidenced by the finding at autopsy that Floyd’s lungs weighed two to three times normal weight…. In other words, like a drowned man, Floyd’s lungs were filled with fluid….
The memorandum ends with Dr. Baker’s devastating conclusion that “if Floyd had been found dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no other contributing factors he [Dr. Baker] would conclude that it was an overdose death.”
https://spectator.org/minnesota-v-derek-chauvin-et-al-the-prosecutions-dirty-little-secret/
I wonder if Nelson will bring this up on cross…
I would guess he would bring it up during cross AND in his defense case.
He just did in his question to Thomas about leaving police interaction out of it.
I assume this memo can be introduced at Cross?
It will look really, really bad for the prosecution if they don’t mention the lung weight before the defense does. And to blithely say that there is no evidence of an overdose would leave me with no way to conclude anything other than they are lying were it to pan out that the lungs were that badly foamed and engorged with fluid and that is a symptom of an overdose.
I can only assume that is inconsistent with dying from positional asphyxia — and that is the ballgame right there.
Based on Nelson’s question to Thomas, he is aware of the memo and will use it, as expected.
You’re doing fine so far. Happy there is no gap in the coverage.
Agree. Be sure to note when it is direct or cross, please.
Prof. Baker, please add a note whenever they have an objection or sidebar, I can’t watch 100% live so skipping to the ‘interesting’ parts helps. Thank you.
I find it stunning that this pathologist “sought out” the opportunity to weigh in on the case and is not compensated for her time.
What an amazing admission of bias!
“Nothing to suggest he would have died that night “except for the interactions with law enforcement”
_____________
Really? So Floyd would have just gone home and been fine, if not for the cops holding him down?
That seems pretty unlikely, given that he had taken the same speedballs a couple of months earlier, presumably in much smaller quantity (since he wasn’t trying to hide his stash from cops at that time) and ended up being hospitalized for five days. And the fact that his lungs were full of fluid on autopsy.
It isn’t a lie, it just leaves out the inconvenient facts. If the MPD Officers had not attempted to arrest George Floyd, George Floyd would not have been compelled by their actions to attempt to make the drug evidence disappear. Thus compelled, George Floyd used the only disposal method available and swallowed sufficient drugs to induce an overdose and he subsequently died as a direct result of the MPD Officers attempt to arrest him.
See – it’s easy with sufficient ideology to point the witness in the “correct” direction. No perjury at all, just a true believer issuing an “expert opinion”.
Seems like a red herring that the prosecution is “winning” by coming to an opinion that Mr. F would not have died except for his interaction with the police. That does not mean an officer committed a crime. At all.
Yeah, if the police never came to arrest him for counterfeiting, DUI and drug possession, he wouldn’t have downed an overdose of Fentanyl to hide the evidence. It’s all the police’s fault!
I should have read further down.
If you think this logic is at all unusual, be sure to look elsewhere on this site to read about the Asian academic who claims that black racist violence against Asians is fueled by (wait for it)… White Supremacy! The all-weather breakfast!
You’re doing just fine!
This pathologist was really hesitant with her answers to Nelson’s questions.
By the way, do we have knowledge of when the defense’s case will begin?
#TWOWEEKS
If GF had no possibility of dying from his drug use, why did he go to the emergency room a month earlier
if no danger, why not enjoy the drug and ride it out
Because common sense is very uncommon.
I find it telling that the cause of death of ‘interaction with law enforcement’ is without doubt, but all other causes of death are … ‘complicated’.
Nelson sounds like he feels better today. More sleep? Better cold meds?
What happens if someone important to the trial gets COVID in the middle of it?
This Dr. Thomas seems like a fruit cake. I don’t think the jury is going to like her. She really seams dodgey.
when I first saw her, I thought she was a congresswoman (D)
I think Nelson is doing a pretty good job re-introducing alternative causes of GF’s death with Dr. Thomas – and she is clearly reluctantly agreeing with him. (about 12;50 EST whatever that is on the video stream.) Introducing the Canada study article seems pretty supportive that the prone position arrest is not problematic in and of itself.
Anyone getting the sense here the prosecution wants to have it both ways? “Well the drugs didn’t kill it was the knee….but he was clearly dying from drugs so the police should have afforded him care”
Seems like at this point the latter might be only case the prosecution has.
Most excellent point!
I’m a little behind here but during yesterday’s testimony I got the feeling that the state’s “expert” witnesses simply “parroted” the State’s line. I know they are paid to do that, or in the one case the guy (Tobin) “volunteered” to do testify (hence raising his profile), but it got to the point that they seemed to be trying to say that the drugs in Floyds system had no effect on anything which just sounded ridiculous. I’m pro-Chauvin for sure but they went too far with that line.
I think adrenalin also causes arteries to narrow. So with one artery 90% blocked, and the other 75% blocked that doesn’t leave much leeway for someone to survive.
Every drug – legal and illicit – GF had in his system at the time of death negatively impacts the circulatory system..
Nelson is pitting Thomas against Tobin – clearly she did not watch all of the testimony. This appears to be an effective cross, much better than with Tobin.
It is a fair assumption that The Rule has been invoked and those on the witness list are not allowed to see/hear the testimony of other witnesses prior to their testimony. If they are released after their stint on the stand, they may see other testimony – dependent on any state specific rules or whims of the judge. If, on the other hand, they may be called back to the stand then they may not see/hear any other testimony.
“It is a fair assumption that The Rule has been invoked and those on
the witness list are not allowed to see/hear the testimony of other
witnesses prior to their testimony. ”
Indeed, that’s the rule. Unfortunately, it’s a rule entirely dependent on the obedience of the witness. If the witness believes they are testifying against a RACISTPOLICEMURDERER!!!! they might feel justified in breaking the rule for that great moral purpose, and simply watching the prior testimony on TV.
There have been several state witnesses where I had the definite impression that their specific word choices was a result of being knowledgeable of prior witness testimony.
I too noticed that.
I feel like I’m watching the sequel to “Idiocracy”
Great movie!
I would keep this evil Dr. Thomas on as long as possible and make they pay for pain and suffering.
Nelson keeps scoring hits with her.
Did Nelson get another State’s witness to testify for the Defense again?
I thought Dr. Thomas was going to cry on cross. Nelson seems so mild- mannered leading her down the rosy path.
I care very little about these medical experts.
Mercil’s testimony was enough for me to decide not guilty.
nelson turned her into a defense witness
she’s a tranny ??
This Blackwell guy is a clown
All he knows how to do is read questions prepared for him.
I keep coming back around to the wording of the autopsy. That George Floyd died WHILE in policy custody. Not FROM police custody. So if a wild driver had run into all of them while on the street, would he have dies FROM police custody? Or WHILE IN police custody? Everything else is secondary to that wording WHILE. And this forensic pathologist is making assumptions unsupported by the facts (her opinion), and is married to it. Like with all, you know, “experts” do.
I wonder If Dr Thomas is donating her fee to her alma mater , Oberlin
Oberlin, so left it’s in China, owes Gibson Bakery millions of dollars lost in a lawsuit
Thomas seems very unsure of her work. And I have to wonder if the defense team’s pathologists agree with her comment: “Canadian study contrary to actual experience of forensic pathologists in U.S.”
Nelson’s last question was on point and forced Thomas to hesitate AND not answer it at all. She knew she was wrong. The jury heard and saw all that.
It seemed to me that when the State objected, that Cahill gave Thomas an out by telling her that she could answer the question if she had an opinion. Then again, I think the jury already has its mind made up.
What’s the difference between Canada and US that we’d see no fatal prone positions in Canada? Could it be criminals in the US are typically drugged up whereas Canadian ones are not? Maybe?
Canadian arrestees are so drunk they are impervious to injury.
So, if she agrees she would certify Floyd’s death for either coronary artery disease, or drug overdose without his ever being restrained how in the heck can she certify that those things did not happen while he was being restrained and would not have happened but for the restraint?
Nelson needs to ask her exactly that so it will be clear for the jury.
I predict Nelson’s cross of Baker will make him a defense witness and this day will belong to the defense team.
Nelson seems to have a better handle on the medical issues involving GF than any of the prosecution team members, including Blackwell and their witnesses.
Nelson already basically claimed Baker in his opening argument starting the trial. He said the State was not satisfied with Baker, which is why they contracted with various other doctors to contradict Baker.
The experts who have testified to the “peacefulness” of a death by a Fentanyl overdose should be asked how they know this because none so far have seen one of these overdoses in real time unless they reference the Floyd videos. They only see their dead bodies after the death when they are brought to the morgue. And, we are talking about street grade Fentanyl here that is mixed with all sorts of garbage and not pharmaceutical Fentanly given by anesthesiologist.
The folly made about the report from Canada by the prosecutor and the witness today is no different than the prosecutor team hiring all their experts witnesses from out of state because the did not like what the home boy had to say on the only autopsy that was done by anyone. To the point that the M.E. had to hire his own attorney. Do not underestimate the political pressure here to get a conviction. The judge should have moved the trial. It will be appealed.
I don’t know what video everyone else is watching but the video I watched I saw him go to sleep peacefully and then pass away. Entirely consistent with how the experts have described a death by fentanyl.
Can attest to the description of dying in their sleep peacefully. My niece’s son died a couple of years ago from an overdose after he went to sleep. And he was in much better shape physically and much younger than Floyd. If it is not evident so far and for most on this thread, the witnesses for the prosecution all seem to have an agenda and it is to convict Chauvin, not render true justice. If they were interested in justice and we need to call it like it is, if Floyd was a white male, there would not be a trial, riots, burning cities, anarchy, nor a $27 million dollar settlement ‘before’ the trial.
Also, many, many fewer angel wings drawn on his funerary portraits.
Apologize Decee. I was trying to hit the Reply button and hit the thumbs down instead. I agree with your comment completely. Again, I apologize.
“I watched I saw him go to sleep peacefully and then pass away.”
This. But Nelson can’t argue defense witnesses into saying those words. One of the ways he’s limited during the state’s case in chief.
Why is Dr. Baker not testifying? Who is this woman?
She is an evil twin of Satan. Bill Gates sister.
https://www.evoke.org/-/media/Images/Evoke/Contributors/BillGates/BillGates_Headshot.ashx?rev=7e39f3afbe07407a8d79b25ff833ba66
Jacobson- Thx for the live blogging- This is a tough task and I bet your thinking Branca makes it look easier than it is 😉
Thus far I’ve only read Branca’s transcripts throughout the week and not watched video. So have grown accustomed to !!! when the prosecution gets a pop to the nose. It’s slightly tougher with the abbreviated notes to tell when that is happening, but it sounds like Nelson is doing well.
From reading thus far, today (11:00 pacific) it will be the prosecution’s second best day.
Ben Shapiro mentioned the “but, for” cause:
NEVER MIND THE DECEASED WAS JUGGLING TNT, C4, HAND GRENADES, LIT ROAD FLARES AFTER DRINKING A QUART OF TEQUILA WHILE WEARING SUNGLASSES IN THE DARK, IF THE DEFENDANT HADN’T ATTEMPTED TO STOP HIM FROM WALKING INTO TRAFFIC, THE DECEASED WOULD NOT HAVE DROPPED THE GRENADES AND DIED.
Yeah, I just scroll through to look for Andrew’s [!!!] notes too.
Given that Minnesota has a drug induced homicide law, wouldn’t Floyd’s death still have been classified as a “homicide” even without the police restraint?
Any way you play it, it was a homicide. The only remaining question is, who to blame for it.
Dr. Thomas is a gift to defense. Once pressed on professional subjects she stutters and stumbles and a lot of “I don’t know”. So, going outside of agreed upon topics (and rehearsed like someone mentioned above) with prosecution, she becomes helpless.
She could have just enjoyed her semi-retirement…
The prosecution did a horrible job of anticipating actual cross. Until yesterday it looked as though they believed they would be the only runners in the race. I suppose after the earlier ass kickings they must have put in some late nights on the prep with their professional witnesses…. especially when they come in at the 11th hour with materials never before seen by the defense.
From a procedural standpoint- isn’t there required lead time on that stuff? Doesn’t the defense have a right to review and analyze written analysis such as charts and graphs PRIOR??? and by prior, I mean more than 12 hours.
indeed. and, with Tobin, they had so many meetings prior. Nelson listed the dates and Tobin agreed. not sure where is intentional withholding and where simply being careless. Probably more of the former.
A lot of merit to this comment by Andy.
Didn’t Thomas just undermine Tobin?
She said she couldn’t tell how George Floyd was breathing.
That looks like the strategy Nelson chose: to make two witnesses’ testimonies conflicting with each other on multiple fronts and use it later (reminding Jury of that at some point).
I thought that as well. Generally, she made clear that she was speaking from a perspective of her admittedly-expert strong opinion, while Tobin overstated everything as hard fact based on “EXTREMELY RIGOROUS SCIENCE THAT YOU NEED NOT UNDERSTAND”. It weakens Tobin’s appearance of objectivity.
I can’t help but notice the prosecution and the prosecutions witnesses slipping from the agreed upon rules to refer to Floyd as Mr. Floyd and Chauvin as Mr. Chauvin. I keep hearing “Mr. George Floyd” and “Former Officer Chauvin”….. not all the time, but it’s there.
I’m a bit confused. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have the M.E. testify first and then bring in all the rest to bolster the M.E.’s findings? To me it comes across as the State saying all these other doctors say Floyd died from X and the M.E. just saying “Sounds good”. Maybe it’s a scheduling issue. Idk. Seems like an odd choice.
Except the prosecution goes first, and the ME’s conclusions are troublesome for the prosecution. They are bringing in “the rest” first to actually undercut his conclusions.
The ME should have been first, but the prosecutors requested the experts testify out of order.
For the most part Nelson did not object.
Big mistake in my opinion. Now the jury carries home these two witnesses in their mind instead of yesterdays experts.
Dr. Baker looks really trustworthy and professional. And, I don’t understand the prosecution line of questioning. All answers so far play into defense narrative. Maybe, it is misunderstanding on my part, but testimony about healthy brain, narrowing of arteries, and more… this is what defense would ask. Only an hour ago they were talking with Dr. Thomas about brain being affected first due to hypoxia. Could be that it is simply not discoverable during autopsy. Not clear.
I have felt like this with so of their experts so far. They have made the case for the defense at so many points.
They predict the defense line of questioning so they can address it on their terms. As to how well they succeed at addressing it, it’s an open question. If successful, it makes Nelson look worse because he either asks a question that has already been answered or has a short and superficial cross-examination.
Do we have any idea about the “drama” early this morning when the court stayed in session but the broadcast was muted and video stopped?
That was it for the prosecution and the chief ME in the case? As someone else pointed out, the only person to actually deal with GF’s dead body.
not overly impressed with baker, he was promoted as the state’skey witness
Was that it? Did anyone else feel as if he was damaging their case so they took the decision to cut him off due to damage limitation?
We’ve sat through hours and hours of testimony from people who were not there and didn’t examine the body yet the actual person who did gets a fraction of the time on the stand?
I find Baker the most likable and believable witness so far. He comes across as both competent and even-handed.
The entire state’s case has been one of fallacies. I’ve never attended law school, but I would assume the law professors would warn their students to not engage in fallacies. The state started off with appeals to emotion and, when that didn’t work, started making appeals to authority. They also switched their cause of death when “blood choke” was looking less likely to being supported by the evidence to asphyxia. Their case is very weak, but when your base is based on a lie you can never have a strong foundation.
Why would they do that when fallacies can be persuasive to juries? I’d guess most jurors are not trained in formal logic.
Dr. Baker is the absolute final opinion. The buck stops here kind of thing. All the rest is just noise. Given that, it is hard to miss that he is the only medical witness, who did NOT mention asphyxia or hypoxia. That’s huge for defense.
I wonder if Jury paid attention to that or not being overwhelmed with testimonies, but that’s exactly where defense attorney comes to play and points it out.
It is easy to comment “from the couch”, I know, but I am sure Mr. Nelson got enough bullets now, some of which were handed to him by esteemed prosecution attorneys and their witnesses.
They might have cut him off not only because he was not going to say anything else that was helpful to their case, but also to limit the scope of cross examination.
“They might have cut him off not only because he was not going to say anything else that was helpful to their case, but also to limit the scope of cross examination.”
This is the correct answer.
Could they not call him back as their witness if they wished to expand the scope?
They can. As with the use of force witness (Mercil?) they most likely will. The ME’s report was always highly damaging to the state, and all the volunteer sciencish testimony in the world is going to be difficult to overcome the findings of the most official person charged with examining Floyd’s body and determining the cause & manner of death.
Oddly, I lived right next door to ME Baker for many years. Creepiest guy I ever met. I was once out taking pics with my new camera and he stopped by. His first comment was “I wonder how it holds up to blood spatters.”
I did not like him and he didn’t like me. But I always got the sense he was a good and honest man.
Who would have suspected that a guy who chose to do autopsies for a living would be creepy?
well that is awfully weird
I can see now why the prosecution called Dr. Thomas to testify. They likely knew that Dr. Baker’s testimony would not be helpful and they wanted to present someone as a potential buffer to his report.
We all know why, but after hearing the PROSECUTION witnesses, how can they be prosecuting this guy?? (And, yes, all loss is sad) This is leaning to maliciousness since every “resuscitating” witness is so obviously overly “prepared” and every neutral witness is not prosecution friendly.
cause the prosecutors aren’t spending their money
when you spend your own hard earned bucks, you spend more wisely
see “US Government “
Didn’t this guy star in Psych?
The more they contradict each other then the more ammunition the defence has to hurt them in the future.
And it seems that the guy who did the autopsy is contradicting the other prosecuting witnesses on many points who never saw the body! Ouch! That’s what we call reasonable doubt!
If the prosecution had the Dog and Pony Show materials prior to the day before testimony, they would be obligated to turn them over to the defense promptly. Without any evidence whatsoever I’ll speculate that Tobin had his show and tell ready some days before his testimony (Expert Witnesses don’t leave preparation to the last minute). I’ll further speculate that Tobin knew that as soon as he gave his materials to the prosecution, they would be duty bound to turn them over to the defense (leaving out there are all sorts of people and 5% are criminals in every group). I believe Tobin kept his show and tell to himself until the last minute because there was little need for the prosecution to study them, he knew what they would be asking him from trial prep. Given that he was doing a pro bono appearance as an “expert witness”, I have to suspect his motivation and the possibility that he did work to sandbag Nelson with the surprise materials with insufficient time to prepare for cross. I could be wrong, but I think not.
Branca/Jacobson:
What’s the procedural rule on this?
It seems not really fair to the accused to allow physical materials to be brought in for the jury and presented without being available for prior review/scrutiny by the defense.
He’s certainly not helping the prosecution, but this guy seems like a right prick.
The WaPo hack is characterizing the testimony in redirect as affirming the cause of death was Chauvin’s knee on the neck. Disgraceful!
Have to build up expectations of the verdict so the riots will be EXTRA ragey.
So is Hannity
The statement that I heard that is significant… is when witness said post examination he had no way of telling if the heart had an arrhythmia caused by the electrical system of the heart .before death, Heart quit beating first? Then breathing ceased. Cardiac arrest much more common than respiratory arrest in adults?
I find Baker professional and objective. I find him likable as well.