LIVE: Chauvin Trial Day 11 – Has State Eliminated Reasonable Doubt As Case Nears End?
Reasonable Doubt Before Defense Even Begins Is Bad For Conviction
Welcome to our ongoing coverage of the Minnesota murder trial of Derek Chauvin, over the in-custody death of George Floyd. I am Attorney Andrew Branca for Law of Self Defense, providing guest commentary and analysis of this trial for Legal Insurrection.
As we enter the 11th full day of trial in this case, the state is rapidly approaching the end of its presentation for its case in chief. We are, therefore, nearing a major inflection point for this trial.
For those who may be unfamiliar with the criminal trial process, after opening statements by both sides, the state takes the first turn in presenting the jury with its case in chief, meaning its entire comprehensive argument to meet its burden to remove all reasonable doubt on the criminal charges brought against Chauvin.
These charges include second-degree murder (really, felony murder), third-degree murder (really, reckless homicide), manslaughter, and third-degree felony assault (the predicate for the felony murder charge). A more detailed overview of these criminal charges is discussed in our previous commentary and analysis, here: Chauvin Pre-Trial Day 1: 3d Degree Murder Throws Wrench Into Jury Selection Process.
After the state has finished presenting all the witnesses and evidence that they believe prove the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt, they rest their case, and it becomes the turn of the defense to present witnesses and evidence that they believe create a reasonable doubt.
The key is that the point at which the state rests its case is normally the high point of the prosecution’s narrative of guilt, the point at which reasonable doubt has been eliminated to the greatest degree likely to be achieved at any point in the trial. From here on the narrative presented to the jury is primarily the narrative of the defense, which is the narrative that drives an increase, not decrease, in reasonable doubt—and reasonable doubt is the key to acquittal.
So, if this is the highpoint of the state’s narrative of guilt, and by extension the point at which reasonable doubt should have been eliminated to the greatest degree in the entirety of the trial, has the state really met that burden? Has reasonable doubt been effectively eliminated? Has the state met the threshold required for conviction? Because if they haven’t done it before the defense even has its turn on the field of legal combat, they’re not likely to achieve it moving forward.
In our coverage of the state’s case in chief so far I’ve seen plenty of state’s witnesses provide testimony and evidence that could readily support a jury—or, at least, individual jurors—in forming a reasonable doubt on these criminal charges, and on at least two fronts.
Keep in mind, the state really has to prove two different claims to arrive at criminal misconduct on the part of Chauvin in the death of Floyd.
First, the state has to prove that Chauvin’s conduct was a significant contributory cause of Floyd’s death—that would be sufficient for the third-degree murder charge. Even the other charges do not require that Chauvin intentionally killed Floyd. Apparently not even the prosecution believes this was an act of intentional RACISTPOLICEMURDER!!! Or we would see an intentional killing charge in this case, and we do not.
But I see many in the media reporting as if that’s all the state has to do, is prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin’s conduct was a significant contributory cause of Floyd’s death. If that were correct, a conviction would seem at the very least highly possible—after all, the truth is almost certainly that Floyd died not of any single cause but of multiple forces racing together to take his life—his profound heart disease, his dangerous hypertension, his deadly-levels of fentanyl complicated by methamphetamine, his decision to forcibly resist the efforts of four police officers to make his lawful arrest. But also, of course, that force used by police, including the subdual restraint.
Surely it’s not hard to imagine that the subdual restraint was a significant contributory cause of Floyd’s death—at least, it could have been, and a reasonable juror might conclude it was, and that it was proven so beyond a reasonable doubt.
Does that get us to a conviction?
No, because there’s a second condition that must also be met in order for that conduct that may have made a significant contribution to Floyd’s death to be a crime—the conduct itself must in some manner be legally wrongful. If the conduct was lawful, it cannot be the basis for criminal liability.
Some simple analogies should illustrate this point.
If you’re driving your car down the street in a safe and lawful manner, and a pedestrian unexpectedly steps in front of your vehicle and is struck and killed, you certainly made a significant contribution to that pedestrian’s death, but you haven’t committed a crime because your conduct in driving in a safe and lawful manner was not wrongful.
If a surgeon is desperately operating to save the life of a patient on his table, and the patient dies of a combination of their grave illness and the physiological stress of being opened up for surgery, certainly the opening up of the patient made a significant contribution to that patient’s death, but the surgeon hasn’t committed a crime because his conduct in performing surgery was not wrongful.
If an officer intentionally shoots and kills a suspect—so an intentional killing, which is more than Chauvin is charged with!—under circumstances that are legally justified, the officer has clearly made a significant contribution to that suspects death, but the officer has not committed a crime because his use of force was legally justified, and not wrongful.
By extension, even if Chauvin’s use of force on Floyd made a significant contribution to Floyd’s death, it’s not a crime unless that use of force was not justified under the totality of the circumstances, and thus if the force was justified it is not wrongful and not the basis for criminal liability.
Conversely, the same is true if the state’s rationale for guilt is undue delay in providing care, which is one of the several theories of guilt the state has been stirring in their narrative stew of guilt in this case. Even if the delay in care was a significant contributory fact in Floyd’s death, it is not wrongful and not the basis of criminal liability if that delay in care was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, including the circumstance of Floyd having been just minutes ago violently fighting four officers, the circumstance of the angry crowd shouting threats of imminent physical violence, the officers having no reason to know Floyd was in such fragile condition due to existing disease and fentanyl levels, and more.
So, that’s what the state needs to have achieved by the point that they end their case in chief, even if we just limit ourselves to the 3rd degree murder charge in this case, and disregard the more serious charges—they need to have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin’s actual conduct was a significant contributory cause of Floyd’s death AND that Chauvin’s conduct was not reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, given the facts known to Chauvin and the time and in the context of his training and experience.
And the state needs to have eliminated any reasonable doubt, on both those points, in a sufficiently robust manner that it can withstand the next two weeks of defense case in chief driving every single day with every single witness to crack open that window of reasonable doubt.
As of today, has the state achieved that threshold, on both those key issues? If not, will they within the next 24 hours or so before they rest their case in chief?
Color me skeptical.
In any case, be sure to stay with us today as we continue our LIVE blogging of the court’s proceedings in real time, and of course for our end-of-day wrap-up analysis and commentary this evening.
Here’s the live video stream of today’s proceedings:
Here’s the LIVE blog stream:
And, of course, many thanks again for the support of Legal Insurrection, which initiated and sponsored this coverage, and also to CCW Safe which has joined in supporting this effort, making this commentary and analysis free to all of you kind readers, viewers, and listeners.
Finally, anyone interested in a free podcast version of our daily legal commentary and analysis of the Chauvin trial can access the Law of Self Defense News/Q&A Podcast, available on most every podcast platform, including Pandora, iHeart, Spotify, Apple Podcast, Google Podcast, simple RSS feed, and more.
Until next time, stay safe!
–Andrew
Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC
Attorney Andrew F. Branca’s legal practice has specialized exclusively in use-of-force law for thirty years. Andrew provides use-of-force legal consultancy services to attorneys across the country, as well as near-daily use-of-force law insight, expertise, and education to lawyers and non-lawyers alike. He wrote the first edition of the “Law of Self Defense” in 1997, which you can now order in its current edition for just the price of shipping and handling by clicking here. To know YOUR state’s use-of-force laws in an actionable way that will keep you safer physically and legally, take our state-specific advanced use of force class either streamed online or via a shipped DVD with a 100% no-question- asked money-back guarantee, here: Law of Self Defense State Specific Use-Of-Force Class.
[Featured image is a screen capture from video of today’s court proceedings in MN v. Chauvin.]
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Any reason why the “Listen to this article” widget has stopped working for the last few days?
That’s an outside service use by a lot of websites, I’ve noticed the same thing. We’ll look into it.
Wow……that cardiologist is an incredibly condescending twit.
I think I’d rather die of heart failure than have to listen to him as a patient…….
Is there a list of state’s witnesses available? Does anyone know how many are left? Could they rest today?
Great coverage and analysis! One thing that this trial shows is how out of balance our criminal justice system is with that lone defense lawyer taking on the weight of not only a huge prosecution team with unlimited budget, but the mob and media as well. I feel for that defense attorney – I have never done a multi-week trial: the longest I have done is four days and that was incredibly exhausting.
I think one point that needs to be clarified for readers, however,
You stated: “The state has to prove that Chauvin’s conduct was a significant contributory cause of Floyd’s death—that would be sufficient for the third-degree murder charge.” Based on the reading of your prior coverage regarding Dr. Tobin, the one state expert, IF BELIEVED by a jury, would be sufficient for the Trial Court to overcome the Judgement of Acquittal standard and for the judge to submit the case to the jury. Further, the jury can do whatever it wants regardless of logic — rather like reverse jury nullification. So if the State puts up a smidgen of evidence that IF BELIEVED is sufficient to convict, then the judges will sustain the conviction. This is what we on the defense side call “convicted on a technicality.” As a long time defense attorney, even the best case for the defense is 50/50. While this may not be the popular view, or the media image, I find this to be the reality here in Florida.
Restated, if the readers herein think that because we lawyers think there is a ton of reasonable doubt, that a jury cannot convict they are way wrong. A jury can easily convict and that conviction will be sustained on appeal.
You bring up something I’ve been worried about. I’ve seen someone waving part of the (possible) jury instructions around on another site claiming that the jury will be instructed to find Chauvin guilty if his conduct contributed to Floyd’s death *in any way.* It seems almost impossible for Chauvin to be acquitted if the standard is presented in that way.
Good point. Everything the officers did after they received the report of counterfeiting could be said to have contributed. They approach the car so Floyd’s blood pressure rising and he pops the pills in the car to destroy the evidence, both contributing to his death (unless he was already DOA because of the amounts he already had on board -who bears the burden on that?)
Well, again I am not a MN lawyer, but in this post Andrew say the state must prove for this charge that the conduct made a significant contribution to Floyd’s death and that the conduct itself must in some manner be legally wrongful. Thus, the defense will say that any contribution the knee made was not significant. Also, the defense will say the knee was an approved restraint and therefore lawful. The problem is that these are words that are subjectively determined by the jury. Thus, the jury can just ignore the instructions and convict (or acquit) since they are the ultimate factfinder. This is the problem with language and subjectivity in the law.
Great to see the coverage and analysis here. You can’t even see any unedited clips outside of somewhere like this.
Sadly, very few read below the headlines, if they follow the story at all. Meanwhile the news media has filled the streets of this country with gasoline and are awaiting the spark they will help create so there is a much bigger story for them to cover.
At this point, guilty or not guilty only matters in the level of violence that they will cause to happen.
Is live blogging broken again?
Will the defense ask for a mistrial due to the police shooting and rioting going on right now in nearby Brooklyn Center. The press is blowing it out of proportion now and it will influence the jury.
https://twitter.com/i/events/1381451278409113600
Thank you Andrew for your selfless efforts.
By the way I recently renewed my. CCW plan. I selected this provider over its competitors after viewing this video:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Wilf_R5wlNQ
The first thing you should do is to read the policy or have a lawyer review it.. Most policies like this do not pay up if you are indicted for a criminal offense.
It is my understanding that LOSD currently endorses CCWSafe, not USCCA: https://lawofselfdefense.com/the-must-avoid-self-defense-insurance-trap/
https://lawofselfdefense.com/uscca-sued-in-federal-court-refused-to-cover-platinum-member/
I very much do NOT endorse USCCA. At all. Period.
How did the ME Baker testimony go regarding the subsequent Zoom meeting after receipt of the Toxicology report?
I expect the conversation will go somewhat like:
Juror 1: So we’re expected to convict a police officer for murder when he used an approved hold on a violent man with enough drugs in his system to kill him three times over, plus heart disease and Covid?
Juror 2: Do you want your house burned down?
Juror 1: Never mind.
That, IMO, is the real problem here. This jury knows that if they convict, they will be lionized. If they acquit, they will need witness protection–which they won’t get.
I don’t know how a “fair” trial can be conducted under these circumstances.
“The 807 residual exceptions, the trustworthy of statement, some are corroborated by Ms. Shawanda Hill (sp?). Floyd fell asleep in car and couldn’t wake him up, to point she called her daughter to pick her up.”
_________________
That’s an interesting bit of information. How long before the cops arrived did that happen? Because passing out like that is consistent with fentanyl intoxication.
From early pre jury arguments today ”
State very upset about the video of Floyd purportedly saying “I ate too many drugs,” which state witness Ryerson agreed with.
Then state had taken Ryerson out in hall, brought him back in, and now Ryerson said he heard “I ain’t take no drugs”
In Texas it is absolutely forbidden for either the prosecution or the defense to have private conversations with a witness during any break in testimony – is the rule different in Minnesota? appears to have been second time to have occurred – previously with stiger
any clarification Branca?
I think the argument is that it wasn’t technically a break in testimony, but rather two instances of testimony (by the same person). Remember, he was called as a witness, again, rather than the issue merely coming up on a redirect.
Is that Jason Biggs?
Interesting that defense case may be so brief—does that suggest a real confidence? Or just a simple argument?
Also: the state hasn’t elicited any testimony that specifically addresses the 3rd-degree assault charge, have they? Or will that simply be addressed in closing argument?
Is the doctor so nervous that his voice quavering? Another first-time expert!
Dr Rich – any bets that he testifies that 90% blockage had no role in death.
If you need 5 different medical experts to provide 5 different theories on how someone probably died, you’re already way behind on reasonable doubt. At least with a reasonable jury.
Why are these experts just allowed to declare a cause of death, having never actually seen the patient/deceased.
I would not buy a used car from Dr. Rich. I find his whole tone and demeanor annoying and condescending
This guy really likes himself.
How many more witnesses has the state lined up and will the state wrap up today?
So this guy is not a medical examiner, but works very closely with one apparently, and he is not an expert on drug use, but he is able to tell you that GF didn’t die of a drug overdose.
But, he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express before testifying about pathology!
Has the witness just opened the possibility of inquiring into Floyd’ s previous overdose on cross?
Good question. Either way this will be introduced for the defense, so it really doesn’t matter what the prosecutions used car salesman thinks.
“State opposes motion for sequestration.” So, they WANT a tainted jury? SMH
Well, the judge denied the motion. Does he also want a tainted jury?
Wouldn’t surprise me if he did. Although most of his rulings have been pretty reasonable.
Found it odd that the State inadvertently made a case for sequestration in that they were against sequestration but understood the need to give guidance to the jury to further avoid media but that might be difficult this day in age. Sooooo should we sequester them then? Like the rest of their case, when you can’t support your argument, just keep using the shotgun blast approach until you think people believe you.
At this point, declaration of a mistrial would not be inappropriate
Avoiding media is one thing, avoiding the blood-thirsty mob outside is another.
Of course they do. Helps them immensely.
That has been obvious since the beginning, when they opposed a motion for a change of venue.
This guy’s a condescending ass …
Wow. High Blood Pressure == Strong Heart.
Someone alert the American Heart Association!
My doctor will be so happy to hear this. Now he can stop hounding me.
At some point all these expert quacks have to go back to their offices and look their colleagues and patients in the eye.
Yes.
Also, occluded arteries gave his heart a healthy workout by having to pump harder to keep him alive, enlarging and strengthening his cardiac muscles.
95% narrowed arteries are healthy, as is getting the USRDA of meth and fentanyl every day, part of a complete breakfast.
Shades off SNL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxCUHjx7U7Y
Does anyone know if Chauvin will testify? Other officers?
Dr Rich is annoying… if I was a juror, I would have blocked him out and would have started thinking about lunch. If I was a patient during my first visit with him, I would have walked out and found myself a new doctor.
Absolutely. We can expect the media to drool on about his “brilliant” and “compelling” testimony. The coverage of this trial has been absurd.
The jury has to see how insanely biased this Dr, Rich is—he’s trying to sell the idea that Floyd’s enlarged heart was an advantage, akin to the muscles of someone who’s been going to the gym.
Were I a juror, I’d be offended by his pedantic spiel. His slightly hushed “explaining” voice and his hand gesticulation are those of someone reading a children’s book to a special-ed class. Why doesn’t he speak like he would to an adult?
He’s also misrepresenting events—Floyd wasn’t “dragged through” the squad car, nor was he “pulled to the ground”.
I have a bit of an enlarged heart and it scares me to death.
What qualifies a cardiologist to opine on restraint positions? Does he encounter them in his practice?
If the way he spoke to the jurors was the same as he spoke his patients or staff, he may well be qualified in the restraint techniques so as to stop them from walking away
This guy should be completely torn apart on cross. Just said he could note the point where GF went in to cardiac arrest from watching the video, which is completely impossible.
Also, Tobin claimed Floyd died 5 minutes in, exactly as he stopped resisting. This sets up a serious contradiction for the state, since they’ve been arguing that, even if Chauvin’s restraint was initially reasonable and permitted, it became unreasonable and illegal *after* Floyd stopped resisting. In other words, the last 5 minutes of restraint are entirely irrelevant.
No one from MD Anderson / Houston would ever testify to Rich’s conclusions at all. Not one!!
Guess we know how blue Chicago’s state is. Chicago is riddled with high crime rates and gun shootings. And he came down voluntarily to testify amidst the problems in his own little town????
I’m an epidemiologist – PhD, not MD, and not a cardiologist – and I would never say what he did. This “board certified cardiologist” basically claimed NStemI heart attacks with incomplete blockages exist, cited the “H&Ts” while essentially denying the “Thrombosis” and “Toxins” contributions, and blamed the hypoxia entirely on the position of restraint AFTER testifying that signs of respiratory distress were observed when he was resisting entering the police vehicle, BEFORE is was in the restraint position. This is why lawyers don’t want educated jurors with relevant competence to be seated.
I’m a retired MD, Family Practice. As a pre-med student I spent 2 months in the cardiac path lab of Dr Jesse Edwards attending autopsies, seeing many heart specimens. One case that really stuck out was a 40 year old psychiatrist who dropped dead while mowing his lawn. He was a pack a day smoker. His coronary arteries were completely clear. Nevertheless, he had enough nicotine and physical stress to trigger a cardiac arrest that he didn’t survive. He died too quickly for there to be any signs in his myocardium of necrosis. Dr Rich may be a great cardiologist but he’s not telling the complete story.
I’ll throw in Hopkins and the Cleveland Clinic as well. Good places are good places because they mock stupidity relentlessly.
‘This “board certified cardiologist” basically claimed NStemI heart attacks with incomplete blockages exist,’
They do.
Ah, seeing your post further down in the thread. You meant he denied that these exist.
I’ll throw in Hopkins and the Cleveland Clinic as well. Good places are good places because they mock stupidity relentlessly.
The Cross of this guy will be important. I have no idea how a jury member might react to Dr. Rich.
Agreed, I think Dr. Rich’s testimony is the State’s attempt to have a charismatic and more plain spoken “medical expert” re-cap and summarize all the previous medical testimony in a way that benefits the State’s case. It will be interesting to see how the jury will resolve all the previous conflicting medical testimony to what Dr. Rich is explaining.
It seems to me that the State’s experts have come to a high degree of certainty that Chauvin’s knee restraint caused Floyd’s death primarily through the use of the “Shaggy Method”.
Fentanyl intoxication? “Wasn’t me.”
Methamphetamine complications? “Wasn’t me.”
Coronary atheroscelrosis? “Wasn’t me.”
COVID-19 infection? “Wasn’t me.”
Hypertensive cardiomegaly? “Wasn’t me.”
it’s really funny if you sing those lines along w the music
I get why he’s doing it, obviously—and would do the same—but were I Chauvin’s attorney I think I’d advise him to take it easy on the note-taking.
The guy is fighting for his life here, with a single attorney and small team—I don’t blame him for not wanting to miss the smallest thing. But from an optics standpoint, it’s a little too constant and intense—it almost has the opposite effect, making him appear disengaged.
You also give morphine for pain and reduction in oxygen demand during a heart attack. Morphine is pretty similar to fentanyl, only weaker.
Here comes the “9000% blockage meant he was super human, better than anyone ever!”
Query for Mr Branca: Dr Rich in his testimony keeps referencing terminology and evidence presented in evidence by other expert witnesses. Aren’t witnesses required not to listen to trial activities prior to their own testimony?
More generally, he’s explicitly contradicted the other ‘expert’ witnesses. They said the death was sudden, which meant it couldn’t be a drug overdose. He’s said it was gradual, so..
Has this guy never heard of demand ischemia?
He knew he was just making stuff up when he talked about working out and lactic acid buildup being ischemia, pretty sure thats not what it is. He realized he screwed up and just stopped talking.
Floyd’s body fat was why too high for someone that worked out
He ignored nStemI – heart attacks with partially blocked arteries, in fact basically denied the possibility of them occurring, which makes me wonder how competent this “board certified cardiologist is”
“Heart muscle itself, not show any evidence of any injury at all, if would see if a silent heart attack. Some years ago a mini heart attack, would see saar tissue, no evidence of heart attack, pathologist did a good job of describing the endocardium, inner most lining of heart, most susceptible part of heart to cardiac injury. Smallest of heart attacks originate there. Not only described as normal and smooth and glistening, completely normal finding.”
Not sure what his point is other than proving that Chauvin did NOT cause his death at all. Right???
Why is the judge allowing this guy to just go on and on, adding all kinds of unasked for information, instead of just answering the questions being asked?
Did Dr. Trudeau just admit to having listened to and/or corroborated with other witnesses? “You may have heard from other experts about the H’s and T’s”…
Juror (me): Yep, lunch decided. After Dr. Rich, definitely will be a juicy burger for lunch… and french fries and a shake!
Take that cardiologist! Hoping I don’t fall asleep… waiting for Mr. Nelson to have some fun with the good drama major Dr. Rich!
Oh cool now he’s a toxicologist?
Back and forth, back and forth. No, meth and fent had no impact to GF’s death until crossed…Yes, both had impacts to GF’s death. Baker said singular factor process under direct until crossed when he said multi-factorial process.
Which one is it?
Did you notice he stated that Floyd was experiencing respiratory distress symptoms when resisting being placed in the police car, but also claimed that the hypoxia he blames for cardiac arrest was entirely due to positional asphyxia —- when the distress began BEFORE Floyd was put in the restraint position?
He also cited the “H&Ts” – forgetting that these include “Thrombosis” (blocked arteries – and NStemI coronaries CAN occur with incomplete blockage, which he basically denies occur) and “Toxins” – like drug overdoses.
This guy was board certified as a cardiologist?
Now that we know some of the Hall background, all this signs and symptoms of OD talk is going to discredit these folks real quick if it gets to the jury that they couldn’t wake GF up in the car prior to police arrival.
Doctor before watching video = drug overdose, cardiac event, etc.
Doctor after watching video = police brutality.
Something that should KILL the cardiologists credibility. He claims a heart attack requires a complete blockage of a coronary artery. I would expect a competent board-certified cardiologist to be well aware that a “NSTEMI” heart attack or a non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction occurs with incomplete blockages.
Also, he refers to the “H&Ts” as causes of cardiac arrest…..ignoring that those include “Thrombosis” (blocked coronary arteries) and “Toxins” (including effects of drug overdoses – like fentanyl leading to respiratory depression and Hypoxia).
Third, he notes respiratory issues begin during Floyd’s resistance to being put in the police car, which undercuts his theory that the hypoxia was entirely due to positional restraint.
His testimony about fentanyl overdose symptoms highlights the importance to the defense of admitting Hall’s testimony.
And the woman in the car with Floyd and the dealer. If Floyd was passed out in the car and she couldn’t wake him up and had to call her daughter for a ride (as she told cops), that suggests that Floyd was experiencing a fentanyl overdose before the cops arrived. Maybe Floyd woke up, took some more speedballs, and the small amount of meth in the pills, combined with the adrenalin from his struggling with the cops, was enough to temporarily delay the effects of the fentanyl OD.
OMG, not another first time “expert”.
He doesn’t know how long Floy was “pulseless”. Just because the officer said he couldn’t find a pulse doesn’t mean Floyd didn’t have one.
Rich is acting like he’s teaching 8 year olds, not professional adults. It’s insulting to the jurors.
“And the state needs to have eliminated any reasonable doubt, on both those points ..”
This is sort of a nitpicky question but could a juror conclude that either point in isolation had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt but not both of them together? Or in other words can two unreasonable doubts add up to a reasonable doubt?
yes
It’s not nitpicky. It is essential that reasonable doubt be overcome for both points..
I’ve never heard of a pile of unreason amounting to anything reasonable at all.
The testimony of Dr. Rich, while with a condescending tone, is probably the strongest testimony given by the State. He has all the right credentials and is probably actually a very good cardiologist.
However, he is speaking in very precise medical terminology to answer questions. There is a gold mine here that Nelson will be able to use if he can ask the right questions.
For instance, prosecution asked about VFib and Vtach. Dr. Rich only answered about VFib. He did NOT talk about Vtach because that would undermine his argument.
I agree. The cross will be important. Did Dr. Rich submit written testimony or a report? Will Nelson have been surprised at any of Dr. Rich’s statements?
Keeping Hall testimony out seems like a lynching.
Plain and simple.
You have the guy who was at the scene, provided the drugs, had tons of first hand knowledge of what went down, and you’re not going to have him on the stand????
I would hope Nelson puts him on the stand and asks 100 questions which the jury hears and force him to take the 5th on every one of them.
Is Nelson allowed to address why these ‘experts’ are testifying for free? Seems pretty obvious that they want fame, to me.
I’m interested to see how many will testify for the defense for free.
How many books are going to be written on the back of this trial?
The other side of that is, were they being paid, how much are they paid by their buyers to say what is expected of them?
Also as I have posted on previous days – there is NO mention of GF’s paraganglioma. Could high levels of adrenaline from paraganglioma have caused this cardiac arrest?
One of the state’s doctors mentioned it (I forget which one), but he dismissed it as unimportant. He said that it’s known as the “10% tumor” because only 10% of paragangliomas secrete adrenalin. (That’s not what the medical sites online say). Maybe the defense medical experts will have more to say about it, and it’s possible impact here.
Based on the limited research I’ve been able to do online with medical sites, journals, etc – most paragangliomas in the head and neck don’t produce adrenaline. However, paragangliomas in the abdomen (GF’s) DO produce hormones. So statistically speaking – his tumor likely was producing hormones.
Additionally, my understanding of high levels of adrenalin in the body actually cause life-threatening arrhythmias – so there would be no actually physical damage to GF’s heart at autopsy.
Can anybody with more knowledge or expertise weigh in here??
A paraganglioma is a rare tumor. As med students we used to joke about diagnosing a pheochromocytoma (the same condition) because it’s like a unicorn.
Is a reasonable degree of medical certainty the same as a reasonable degree of criminal certainty?
Dr Rich stated something to the effect that his video appointments include having his patients turning their hs eads so he can evaluate their neck veins. I am curious what he makes of Floyd’s obvious neck vein jumping out as he is coming out of the car. I hope the defense hones in on that should they find it useful.
Rich: Opiate overdose, usually extremely lethargic, often unarousable. Wake up, fall back asleep. Not talking, if talking slurred speech. Saw all the opposite with Floyd, he was alert, awake, conversant, he was walking, and yet according to the tox report he had this degree of fentanyl in system. Just looking at the clinical story didn’t see any signs or symptoms of fentanyl overdose.
________________
Hope Nelson asks him on cross if he’s aware of the statement by the woman who was in the car with Floyd and the dealer. Because her part of the “clinical story” shows that Floyd was unarousable in the car before the cops arrived, which suggests that Floyd’s fentanyl tolerance level was not as high as the doctor is trying to make it out to be.
Don’t forget the meth.
Yes, at some point Floyd did wake up and realized the cops were going to search him, so he swallowed a bunch of speedballs, which contained enough meth to keep him awake, at least for a while. Then he fought with the cops and probably experienced some adrenaline surges, which also helped him stay awake. But once he was on the ground the fentanyl OD kicked in and he passed out.
I think that is a likely scenario.
Certainly likely enough for reasonable doubt.
This guy is falling apart already. He suddenly got flustered and his tone has definitely changed. The soft voice is gone.
This guy (Rich) is really getting on my nerves — what a pompous condescending ass.
Dr. Trudeau is lying with statistics. “Mildly enlarged”… Thomas already talked about the 2SD confidence interval compared against someone of his size/weight. It’s mildly above that marker, but that still means that more than 95% of the population of people of similar size would have less enlarged hearts.
That seemed like a pretty weak cross. Seems like there was a lot of low hanging fruit that Nelson didn’t address. Thoughts on reasons why?
Because he knows this guy is a leftist shill and is doing his best act. No point in asking pointed questions of someone who will blatently lie through his teeth.
He could have easily destroyed his credibility with a few simple pointed questions though like, what is a lethal dose of Fentanyl, I can almost guarantee a cardiologist could not give you a solid answer.
Mr. Nelson’s cross on previous medical testimony seemed stronger. Maybe he sensed Dr. Rich was more of a performative witness so he just wanted to speed through and get him off the stand.
I was also waiting for Nelson to address the fact that GF said he couldn’t breathe before even being put in the squad car. Rich had stated that GF saying he couldn’t breathe on the ground was indicative of something but I can’t quite remember the specifics. If he couldn’t breathe before he was on the ground does the same thing hold true. I don’t know if that was the time to openly address the fact the GF was stating he couldn’t breathe before getting in the car, something that many on these threads has pointed out is a sore spot for the state.
Is the female passenger going to testify?
We know Hall is iffy, but what about her?
That last question was pretty damning… I doubt the jury is buying anything this guy is selling.
Nelson: Take that out of it, struggle, HBP, drugs, could have resulted in death even without the prone restraint.
Rich: I found no evidence to support that.
Saying this- right after blood pressure over 200!!!!!! Wut?????
So now the prone position is deadly?
The prosecution seemed to start in on that line Friday with Dr. Thomas IIRC. I think they realize they are having a problem proving how Chauvin’s knee killed Floyd without causing any injuries or bruising to his neck or back.
Interestingly, prone ventilation – known as the ‘prone position protocol’ – is becoming the preferred treatment option for many patients experience ARDS (acute respiratory distress syndrome). It has really become popular during the 2nd half of the pandemic with doctors looking for novel ways to decrease mortality in intubated patients. Turning them on their stomachs has resulted in encouraging improvements in patient outcomes.
To add to this, today they stated that in an ICU the patient is vented and their airway secure. However, the value of proning patients became pretty apparent far in to the pandemic that medical staff were encouraging patients to lie prone without the benefit of a supported airway such as a vent. None of my patients ever died from proning themselves.
Blackwell: Paraganglioma, usually preceded by headaches. Did you hear amongst the various complaints Floyd made of pain, any of them headache?
Rich: No.
________________
LOL, maybe Floyd wasn’t experiencing a headache because he was doped up to the gills on fentanyl?
Yep – also the same reason why he would not have experienced chest pain. Fentanyl (and morphine) is used medically to treat people with heart attacks to help relieve the pain.
Dr. Rich conveniently left out that people with paragangliomas often experience anxiety (like panic attacks) – which I believe he actually said that GF had anxiety (Coincidence??).
He also (as a cardiologist) left out that people with paragangliomas also can have palpitations, shortness of breath – you know all the things that could are relevant to a cardiologist!!
Yep, panic and a sense of impending doom. Like saying: “I’m going down!”
Dr. Rich says floyd didn’t die of a heart attack, and his heart was strong.
Nelson should have asked Rich if the transplant patient who received Floyd’s heart is alive and healthy.
I’m going to cross-post this from yesterday:
jackscott1 | April 11, 2021 at 9:57 am
So, I have a theory about why GF died. I’ve been thinking about it for several days and finally decided to post it. It has to do with the small tumor found in his abdomen – paraganglioma.
I’m not an expert on this although I do have some science and medical background -almost everything I’ve learned is from reading. If you are a doctor or have personal knowledge about paragangliomsas, then please correct any misinformation.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/medgen/349380
https://pheopara.org/education/paraganglioma
Dr. Tobin described paragangliomas as the “10% tumor” – what he either didn’t know or simply failed to mention is that is only technically true. Most paragangliomas are found in the head and neck and are called parasympathetic paragangliomas. These do NOT secrete hormones like adrenalin and are simply incidental. However, most abdominal paragangliomas (like GF’s) are sympathetic paragangliomas and usually DO secrete hormones.
Additionally, these tumors do not seem to secrete hormones all the time, meaning that people with paragangliomas usually on secrete the hormones durings “spells” or “attacks” Things that precipitate a spell or attack are physical exertion, anxiety/stressful situations, changes in body position, caffeine, stimulants such as amphetamines or cocaine. Symptoms of an attack are hypertension, headaches, palpitations (racing heart), anxiety, flushing, nausea, dizziness, dyspnea (shortness of breath), among others – basically most of the symptoms are like having a “panic attack.” This could also look like agitated delerium??
It seems that fentanyl would likely counteract some of these effects – like any type of pain – headaches, abdominal pain, chest pain, etc.
So, if GF during his initial struggle (getting in the squad car) with the officers had an “attack” from his paraganglioma as well as having significant fentanyl and some meth in his system, he would feel extremely claustrophobic, feel short of breath, and have superhuman strength (from all the adrenaline). His heart would not be able to handle the extreme stress from the adrenaline and he could easily have a heart attack/cardiac arrest. He wouldn’t neccessarily feel chest pain or other common heart attack symptoms because he has fentanyl in his system. The officers would interpret this as “agitated delirium” and would continue restraint. At some point, his heart would simply stop because he couldn’t handle the adrenaline load with the fentanyl/meth in his system.
Essentially, every point the Prosecution made about why it couldn’t be a fentanyl overdose could easily be explained by the above. When the paramedics arrived, his pupils would be dilated because of the adrenaline.
Please feel free to dissect and blow my theory apart. I just think the combination of a paraganglioma dumping massive amounts of adrenaline in the body with the fentanyl/meth combo is the perfect storm for everything we see in the video and autopsy. In this case, restraint would have very little or nothing to do with his death. The only way to save him would have been for him to be in an ambulance or hospital when all this started.
Dr. Rich’s testimony does nothing to discredit this theory and actually supports this – GF had long-standing and apparently uncontrolled blood pressure (top number >200)
Any doctors on this board provide any additional insight??
Interesting. It would appear Nelson has something planned for the paraganglioma, as he’s brought it up several times—along with adrenaline.
“Spark of life” is BS.
Yes, everyone was once an innocent infant, and MS-13 members are emissaries from Heaven, blah blah.
Is this the last witness for the state?
Yep, and Hitler loved his dog and liked to paint. Who cares? This “spark of life” testimony is irrelevant and a giant waste of time.
It seems to me that the prosecution are saying if Chauvin had been a qualified doctor with prior knowledge of Mr Floyd’s medical and drugs history, he would not of put him in a position that he did. All these witnesses do not deal with what happens in reality. Had they brought forward a specialist that served in violent conflict rather than a class room! in Vietnam, Middle East etc, perhaps there would be some credence.in their evidence..
did this ruling on hall’s possible testimony just open the door for a legitimate appeal if chauvin is found guilty?
Likely not. Evidentiary rulings are abuse of discretion rulings where judges in MN have broad discretion and are almost never overruled.
I would hope that the defense will show jurors the CDC guidelines for first responders in protecting them from exposure to illicit drugs. I would think Chauvin was trying to keep Floyd’s mouth facing away from the officers (and holding it tilted to the side) The “tool kit” referenced shows a video of an officer od’ing from exposure. (and he had PPE on) I also read that Narcan will not work on a meth over dose. My personal opinion, I find it malpractice for a doctor from Northwestern to state that ALL things combined, HBP, illicit drugs, chronic prolonged drug use, 75-90% narrowing of arteries, nicotine use, tumor, and fighting with police could cause death.
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/fentanyl/risk.html
I’ll bet there are pics of Lee Harvey Oswald with his mom
Man, this is total BS
has nothing to do with the trial
the judge is so tanked
Felonious Floyd. I wonder if his parents were wish-casting, or just predicting his future, with that choice of name.
His brother sounds like a total moron, much like George
Zero evidentiary value to Floyd’s brother testifying during this phase of the trial. He should have been allowed to testify during sentencing if we get to that point.
Might not be the correct place for this in the thread, but… At what point does all this blather about how wonderful, etc etc GF was and how the family misses him become permission for Nelson to bring up things like home invasions, guns, convictions in Houston, not to mention why did GF decide to relocate to MN, and was he on parole when he left, did his parole officer know he left the town, state? How about all the child support he sent back to the baby-momma when he was away. ??
It seems to me that such questions would be fair game to refute the “Mr. Wonderful” nomination being submitted.
Most states apparently agree with you, but in Minnesota this is (again apparently) a standard practice, to have a loved one speak about the deceased pre-verdict.
Bet Nelson will not cross.
so Felonious, what did your mom think about Georgie cutey pie’s conviction for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon ??
Doesn’t matter. They got 27 million dollars for it.
2 years from now, entire fam back on welfare
He gets the hoopin’ term in to disassociate it from drug use.
Nice that he got in the word “hoopin’ to describe GF playing basketball. Every. Day. Coached much?
I was wondering how many times someone could say “hoopin” in one sentence. You can ask Hall if they were playing basketball all day and if GF got his 50-100 shots in that day so that he could one day make the pros.
Body camera from the accidental police shooting that set off the riots in suburban Minneapolis last night. https://twitter.com/AlphaNewsMN/status/1381663652776923139?s=20
Was Hall selling Mayo Banana sammies to Georgie ??
He also links GF cries of Momma to his mom’s funeral, not his girlfriend. Both this and the hoopin’ term appear to me to anticipate arguments from the defense.
I don’t know how the Judge could rule that the FBI interview of Hall be admissible in this trial. If Hall want’s to plead the 5th to get out of testifying on the stand that is his right but how can a video recorded interview he voluntarily gave to the FBI be deemed inadmissible? Is this ruling by the judge supported in law or is he trying to throw the case to the state? No doubt that interview with the FBI would have contained a lot of exculpatory evidence. How is this fair to Chauvin? Aren’t the accused entitled to a fair trial?
If ever Hall is charged with supplying drugs to GF I would think that the interview he gave to the FBI would be admissible in that trial so why not in Chauvin’s trial?
Correction: “I don’t know how the Judge could rule that the FBI interview of Hall be INADMISSABLE in this trial.”
(is there an edit feature here? )
EDIT: After re-reading Andrews blog – it appears that the Judges ruling was limited to the Q&A list submitted – not the recorded FBI interview with Hall so it looks like that is yet to be decided. I can’t imagine the judge ruling the FBI interview of Hall would be in inadmissible in this trial since if Hall is ever charged with supplying GF with drugs his statements to the FBI can and will be used against him in that trial
There has been other points where the judge has kind of applied a “we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it” kind of philosophy. I am guessing any rulings on the FBI interview will come about if Hall is non-compliant on the stand.
It is because it can be considered “hearsay.”
I agree that it seems like horseshit though. That is really some key evidence in this trial and I sure hope it finds it way into admission. I really feel like the state should have to grant Hall immunity to what he testifies to so the judge can compel him to testify, or the judge should allow the interview to be entered into evidence. Otherwise the state hold all the cards and Chauvin gets screwed.
Use of force expert is likely purely an expert on theoretical scenarios, despite his five years on the force. I wonder why he left?
He is a lefty as evidenced by his college major, literature.
“I wonder why he left?”
Those who can, do … those who can’t, teach.
How many use of force experts has the state called?
https://hosting.photobucket.com/albums/s335/fefjdoglmulb/everyone1.gif
Exclusive video of expert witness recruitment for the Chauvin trial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTy1Qyl03kI
is this the 8th or 9th use of force expert?
Branca – comments on the redundancy of use of force experts?
Professor Seth Stoughton
Consulted California on its new police use of force law.
Appeared on The Daily Show
Appeared on NPR
Has written for The Atlantic
You know, I’m just a bit skeptical that this guy is an impartial witness.
Enlightening, thanks for background info. Perhaps that’s why the state reached out to this expert.
The defense will bring expert witnesses on how to follow law enforcement commands
as if
I’ve gone through Stoughton’s Twitter. As expected he’s a left wing twit. He condemned the officers in this case from the beginning on his Twitter. His whole existence is about convincing people that officers are wrong and police reform is necessary. I’m sure he was an amazing cop in those 5 years he talked about. (That last line was sarcasm, which I’m sure you got)
In Exhibit 17 Chauvin does not have his hand in his pocket.
His hand is not in his pocket. Please stop claiming his hand is in his pocket because his hand is not in his pocket.
Pocket <- here is his pocket
TrousersTrousersTrousers
Hand <- here is his hand
I hope that ascii diagram helps.
Mr. Branca,
Following up on my questions about qualified immunity and being “on notice”, the prosecution’s expert today (Seth Stoughton) had criticized qualified immunity and called for ending it.
– https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/how-actually-fix-americas-police/612520/
I have 2 questions.
1. Given Graham v Connor was a 1983 case (civil trial where qualified immunity is invoked), can the police be subjected to more liability in a criminal case over use of force than in a civil case? In other words, if Chauvin would get qualified immunity in a monetary damages civil suit, is he not entitled to the same immunity in a criminal case when there is nothing on the books like this prone restaint issue?
2. Can defense use Stoughton’s advocacy against qualified immunity, which is the current law of the land, to argue that he is biased?
Thanks!
Qualified immunity under 1983 does not apply in criminal cases.
It’s amazing how many people I talk to that fallaciously believe qualified immunity applies to criminal cases, particularly young people.
Why is the state repeating it? Because they know that Nelson will repeat it?
Benefit of hindsight again, why is so much of this testimony even allowed.
The cumulative testimony discussion from this morning must’ve been forgotten about after lunch. Whoever has an opinion can step right up and voice it?
Yeah, wtf. This judge is inconsistent and ignoring his rulings.. The prosecution is taking full advantage of it.
Opinion – does not prove anything.
Asking if they should roll GF indicated that one person thought he no longer needed to be restrained, and was trying to do the right thing…. don’t worry, his trial will be in a few months
Once again, Stoughton has a dozen cameras from every possible angle that he’s using to try to figure out what was happening on the ground…. but none of that matters. This is Chauvin’s trial, his perspective is the important one because his, imperfect, knowledge dictates what may or may not be reasonable.
“No, somebody without a pulse does not present a pulse in any way.”
Has he never watched the documentary series “The Walking Dead”?
Dr. Victor Frankenstein – expert witness.
My typo, second use of “pulse” should read “threat.”
I didn’t catch it when I copy pasted. I knew he had said threat. My attempt at humor was sabotaged by my lack of proof reading.
Had Stoughton in written or spoken communication expressed an opinion criticizing the officers’ behavior before he had been given the video and other evidence for analysis? If so, might it be said that he had reached a conclusion that biased his interpretation of the evidence?
He has. I am surprise they did not delete his Twitter postings (may have the worst ones). He is a cop hating liberal.
https://twitter.com/PoliceLawProf/status/1265379821149917198
Probably effective witness for most of the jurors because it reinforces their prejudices. Curious how Nelson will go after him on cross
What in tarnation is exhibit 949? Nowhere have we seen Chauvin’s leg on Floyd’s brainstem… at most, it’s on the back/shoulders and may slide down to the base of his neck.
Look at this nonsense: https://i.imgur.com/gFXWDg3.png
I noticed that too, taking some liberties there. I chuckled to myself picturing a group of people sitting around a computer saying “can you make that knee go up just a little bit higher? A little bit more? maybe just a little bit more… yah yah that’s good, we can get away with that.”
Its fake made-up leftist propaganda. The world we live in now.