George Floyd trial,could you make a case for the defendant not being guilty of the charges?

A defense attorney can turn a case down but that's our system. Everyone deserves the best defense. If they know their client is guilty they can't say otherwise so often times they just don't want to know.

The bread and butter for your average local defense attorney is defending small time drug dealers, users, DUI tickets, etc. Putting on the best defense in those cases involves hoping that the cops made some technical mistakes, breathalyzers not being recently inspected, the cops breaking the rules during the arrest process, calling cops as a witness and hoping they don't show up, etc.

Even if you think the guy is guilty you can be motivated to try to reduce his sentence if you think they are throwing the book at him when that's not "just".

It's an adversarial system. It doesn't work if both sides aren't ably represented.
 
That makes sense. ^

I wonder if Chauvin will take the stand?
 
wegs said:
That makes sense. ^

I wonder if Chauvin will take the stand?
Click to expand...
I'm guessing "no". "Do no harm" is the Hippocratic oath and I think that applies to Chauvin. He's not a sympathetic figure and talking probably won't help him. Maybe he is a great communicator and that would surprise us all but I'm guessing not.

If he tells his side of the story on the stand he would also have to answer questions from the prosecution.
 
Seattle said:
I'm guessing "no". "Do no harm" is the Hippocratic oath and I think that applies to Chauvin. He's not a sympathetic figure and talking probably won't help him. Maybe he is a great communicator and that would surprise us all but I'm guessing not.

If he tells his side of the story on the stand he would also have to answer questions from the prosecution.
Click to expand...
You're probably right. Nothing he could say would justify what he did, and doubtful he'd add anything useful for his defense. Perhaps if his attorney feels he's losing the case, maybe as a last ditch effort, he may ask Chauvin to take the stand. If Chauvin appears remorseful, it only takes one juror to change his/her mind.

I wonder if defendants who have taken the stand, have changed jurors' minds, especially if the defendant appeared remorseful?
 
wegs said:
You're probably right. Nothing he could say would justify what he did, and doubtful he'd add anything useful for his defense. Perhaps if his attorney feels he's losing the case, maybe as a last ditch effort, he may ask Chauvin to take the stand. If Chauvin appears remorseful, it only takes one juror to change his/her mind.

I wonder if defendants who have taken the stand, have changed jurors' minds, especially if the defendant appeared remorseful?
Click to expand...

It happens but I think it's more common for them to not take the stand just because it opens them up to more questions from the prosecution and also because not everyone comes off as sympathetic even if they are (and many aren't of course).

If he is a good communicator he could say that he had had a rough day, Floyd was out of it and had been struggling from the beginning and Chauvin was just restraining him until the ambulance arrived knowing that they wouldn't be able to get him into the back of the squad car. Chauvin could say that he was just zoning out with the crowd shooting at him and Floyd struggling, etc.

He could say that now that he looks back on the video it doesn't look good and if he had it to do over again he would have gotten up sooner. He could point out that it's hard to second guess a tough job like that and ask the jury to put themselves in his shoes. He could say I made a mistake but I don't deserve to go to jail.

There is a reasonable case to be made whether the jury goes for it is another matter and whether he can make that case for himself without putting people off even more is unknown as well.
 
I saw a short video clip that relates to Chauvin but not directly to the trial (or maybe it does). His wife filed for divorce 6 days after the George Floyd death. The property settlement was roughly $700k for her and $400k for him.

It may be related directly to the trial as a way to reduce assets that someone could go after in a civil suit. It may, of course, just be that she doesn't want to be married to him anymore. In any event it also shows you that it's not hard to be a millionaire on paper in the U.S.

She is from Laos and works in real estate and he is a cop. Those are jobs that most anyone can get.
 
Autopsy report

https://www.npr.org/sections/live-u...eorge-floyd-had-positive-test-for-coronavirus

AND

See attached PDF
*****

Watched the trial because the doctor who treated him in the Emergency Department was on the stand

Listening to his treatment and explanations of treatments (both his and of the Ambulance crew who brought him to the Emergency Department) not a lot seemed to make sense

Sequence of events seems to go like this
  • ambulance crew arrives
  • Floyd no pulse
  • not breathing
  • placed on Chest Compression Device
  • 1-s2.0-S2666084919302803-gr1.jpg
  • would be something like above but no idea about the exact model
  • unclear if he was fully intubated with intubation tube down trachea
  • Intubation tube.jpg
  • Something like above OR
  • Guedel airways.jpg
  • Guedel airways like above
  • either way he would have been ventilated with oxygen bag as below
  • Ventilation bag.jpg
Two things stand out
  • NO mention of oxygen levels given
  • NO mention of him being placed on a Electrocardiography machine
O² levels and pulse rate RESUSCITATION Page ONE

While the doctor seemed to spend a lot of time talking about what treatment he was applying HE WAS ANSWERING QUESTIONS PUT BY PROSECUTOR

Not once did I hear prosecutor ask
  • what was his pulse rate?
  • what was his O² levels?
Most questions seemed to be about how much information was given to him about Floyd prior to Floyd arriving

Seems what he gleaned from such information Floyd had had some sort of heart attack

There's a lot of stuff seems to be steering the cause of death to asphyxia and not to Floyd dying due to drugs in his system killing him some time sooner than he would have died. Floyd's hyped up state making the drugs work faster

My diagnosis (just from the stuff I am aware of)
Accidental suicide from ingesting a lethal dose of drugs to hide them from the police and resisting arrest causing them to work faster. POSSIBLE survivable had he had had stomach pumped out before to many ingested

Verdict on accused
Accidental death of person in care from failing to be aware of arrest aggravating drug actions

POSSIBLE avoidance of death of Floyd by off loading person (Floyd) to Ambulance Crew sooner

My 10 cents worth

Sorry lot of distractions I missed few points

While Chest Compression and O² would have continued after arrival Emergency Department while he was being assessed and being connected to Electrocardiography (ECG) machine (it is unclear if he was on one from the Ambulance) if the ECG was showing FLAT LINE Floyd would have received NO treatment

At one stage it seemed to be the Emergency Department attending Doctor was saying they were giving DEFIBRILLATION to Floyd

No pulse and Flat Line - he's dead = no treatment going to bring back sorry

:)
 

Attachments

  • floyd-autopsy-6-3-20.pdf
    272.1 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:
wegs said:
Chauvin not reacted as he did, Floyd would still be alive. I think that’s a reasonable assumption.
Click to expand...

Having the advantage of now doing more checking not so

With 3 times lethal dose of Fentanyl in stomach survival verrry problematic

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
Having the advantage of now doing more checking not so

With 3 times lethal dose of Fentanyl in stomach survival verrry problematic

:)
Click to expand...
From what I’ve learned from the trial details, the autopsy ruled Floyd’s death as a homicide. The defense is picking that apart, but what are the odds that when a police officer violates protocol, uses excessive force when it wasn’t needed (according to other police officers serving as witnesses), doesn’t render care when the suspect he has cuffed and in a prone position stops resisting, then stops moving completely (the cop still keeping him restrained), and the suspect dies in his custody...that suspect dies from something totally unrelated, all at the same time? Hmm.

I’ve been hearing the phrase “objective reasonableness” coming out of the trial and does what I’ve shared above sound reasonable? Or is it a bit far fetched to think that Floyd’s death was completely unrelated to how he was handled during an arrest attempt?

But, you’re doubting. All it takes is one juror to have reasonable doubt that Chauvin was responsible for Floyd’s death.
 
Last edited:
wegs said:
From what I’ve learned from the trial details, the autopsy ruled Floyd’s death as a homicide. The defense is picking that apart, but what are the odds that when a police officer violates protocol, uses excessive force when it wasn’t needed (according to other police officers serving as witnesses), doesn’t render care when the suspect he has cuffed and in a prone position stops resisting, then stops moving completely (the cop still keeping him restrained), and the suspect dies in his custody...that suspect dies from something totally unrelated, all at the same time? Hmm.

I’ve been hearing the phrase “objective reasonableness” coming out of the trial and does what I’ve shared above sound reasonable? Or is it a bit far fetched to think that Floyd’s death was completely unrelated to how he was handled during an arrest attempt?

But, you’re doubting. All it takes is one juror to have reasonable doubt that Chauvin was responsible for Floyd’s death.
Click to expand...

Do you think it matters whether he died from asphyxiation or a cardiac arrest? Do you think Cauvin should go to prison for 20 years for this behavior?
 
Last edited:
Seattle said:
Do you think it matters whether he died from asphyxiation or a cardiac arrest? Do you think Cauvin should go to prison for 20 years for this behavior?
Click to expand...
I think the difference between manslaughter and third degree murder is that manslaughter is involving negligence (you didn’t mean to kill anyone with your negligent actions) and third degree murder suggests that a defendant had a depraved mind at the time of the crime. (In this case, that would mean Chauvin knew right from wrong but chose his actions and didn’t care if Floyd died.)

I can see either option being the verdict. Regardless of a suspect’s drug use, etc. - I think the prosecution is putting forth that had Chauvin taken a different course of action, Floyd wouldn’t have died, regardless of being high at the time of his arrest. Regardless if Floyd went into cardiac arrest or had a pre-existing heart condition, even. It would be like you have a heart attack (and die), because someone driving drunk hit your car. Had the accident not happened, you might still be alive, even though it has come out that you had a pre-existing heart condition. Should the drunk driver be acquitted for your death?

It’s all very interesting because the defense is casting doubt on second/third degree murder. I’m sure they’d want an acquittal but manslaughter is probably a next best option, in their eyes.
 
Last edited:
questions

If Chauvin is acquitted; will there be riots?

If it is assumed that an acquittal will lead to riots; will that affect the outcome of the trial?
 
wegs said:
I think the difference between manslaughter and third degree murder is that manslaughter is involving negligence (you didn’t mean to kill anyone with your negligent actions) and third degree murder suggests that a defendant had a depraved mind at the time of the crime. (In this case, that would mean Chauvin knew right from wrong but chose his actions and didn’t care if Floyd died.)

I can see either option being the verdict. Regardless of a suspect’s drug use, etc. - I think the prosecution is putting forth that had Chauvin taken a different course of action, Floyd wouldn’t have died, regardless of being high at the time of his arrest. Regardless if Floyd went into cardiac arrest or had a pre-existing heart condition, even. It would be like you have a heart attack (and die), because someone driving drunk hit your car. Had the accident not happened, you might still be alive, even though it has come out that you had a pre-existing heart condition. Should the drunk driver be acquitted for your death?

It’s all very interesting because the defense is casting doubt on second/third degree murder. I’m sure they’d want an acquittal but manslaughter is probably a next best option, in their eyes.
Click to expand...
I think manslaughter with a reasonable punishment considered his job is probably the outcome here. We'll see.
 
sculptor said:
"shouldn't" does or does not = will or won't?
Click to expand...
The voir dire process in jury selection gives both the prosecution and the defense the chance to rid out jurors that can't be impartial. The judge also gives jury instructions that deal with this.

That's all that you can do.
 
sculptor said:
If it is assumed that an acquittal will lead to riots; will that affect the outcome of the trial?
Click to expand...
Indirectly, yes. A lot of people will be outraged if he's found innocent. Since jurors are intended to represent a cross section of society, there will be outrage in the jury room as well if they are about to return a not guilty verdict. That will have an effect.
 
Prosecution didn’t do well today - I’m wondering when the defense is putting on their case. In my opinion, calling Chauvin to take the stand while risky, might help to “humanize” him. Not sure. We shall see. . .
 
wegs said:
It would be like you have a heart attack (and die), because someone driving drunk hit your car. Had the accident not happened, you might still be alive, even though it has come out that you had a pre-existing heart condition. Should the drunk driver be acquitted for your death?
Click to expand...

accidental interaction
drunk and walking down the street with your loaded handgun falling over & it goes off and kills some person walking past.

the alcohol may have caused the accident
but the intention was not there to inflict the damage
and the damage was/death was not directly inflicted, it was accidental causation

versus

applying direct force to a person with a direct action

the moment you apply direct intentional force to a person your change the entire concept.

the police officer was always in control and in charge and had many different types of weapons
maintained the physical control and superior position of control at all times

and yet still continued to apply a level of force directly

like the drunk guy falling over with a loaded hand gun in their pocket on the side walk
which shoots a child walking past with their mother.
the mother then screams and cry's and says she cant go on living and tells the drunk guy he may as well shoot her dead too
so he does

is the drunk guy accountable for the death of the mother even though she asked for it ?
was the alcohol to blame and so the death of the mother is an accident of the alcohol and so manslaughter ?

if the guy had not been drunk it would never have happened
and he did what the mother asked after the child had been shot dead by accident
and the alcohol impaired his ability to reason and control the gun like a car

would direct force of the act of shooting the mother
be the same as the police officer applying direct lethal force from a position of control ?
the force was not required.

that has been proven beyond reasonable doubt by many very solid witnesses and professionals
 
wegs said:
But, you’re doubting
Click to expand...

YES, which is why my verdict would be accidental suicide exacerbated by a multitude of circumstances

I would put the preponderance of those circumstances in Floyds basket

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top