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

[wegs]

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, if Mr. Floyd had simply gotten into the backseat of the squad car he would still be here today. Even if he hadn't gotten into the backseat he would still be here if not for the tail pipe. If the car has a tail pipe, you must acquit!"

Stranger things, my friend.

So, Chauvin waived his right to testify this morning. Interesting, they aired live the exchange between him and the judge. Prosecution is calling back some witnesses but I think the defense is resting today. The judge will be instructing the jury later that by a defendant deciding not to testify, that is in no way indicative of guilt.

 

[Michael 345]

Stranger things, my friend

I heard few minutes ago (near midnight here Bali) Floyd O² level was 98% (normal)

This was from the expert prosecution witnesses who was called back because the defence had brought up the possibility of carbon monoxide being cause of death (tail pipe of police car)

Unfortunately I have no idea the time the 98% relates to

Apparently the defence was saying carbon monoxide MIGHT be cause of death (tail pipe of police car) and a mention of 18% Carbon Monoxide

However the expert witness (Tobin) stated with a 98% O² level the MAXIMUM Carbon Monoxide was the remaining 2% (O² and Carbon Monoxide compete for the same Oxygen carrying protein)

Now my problem is WHEN was the reading of 98% O² level made

I don't think it could be 98% if Floyd died at the scene. The O² level would not be 98% at the hospital

Also 98% seems to me to high for asphyxia to be cause of death. It also seems to be to high given Floyd's Medical history

I would put HIS NORMAL everyday level not higher than 90%

My $0.02 cents in the box

 

[wegs]

I heard few minutes ago (near midnight here Bali) Floyd O² level was 98% (normal)

This was from the expert prosecution witnesses who was called back because the defence had brought up the possibility of carbon monoxide being cause of death (tail pipe of police car)

Unfortunately I have no idea the time the 98% relates to

Apparently the defence was saying carbon monoxide MIGHT be cause of death (tail pipe of police car) and a mention of 18% Carbon Monoxide

However the expert witness (Tobin) stated with a 98% O² level the MAXIMUM Carbon Monoxide was the remaining 2% (O² and Carbon Monoxide compete for the same Oxygen carrying protein)

Now my problem is WHEN was the reading of 98% O² level made

I don't think it could be 98% if Floyd died at the scene. The O² level would not be 98% at the hospital

Also 98% seems to me to high for asphyxia to be cause of death. It also seems to be to high given Floyd's Medical history

I would put HIS NORMAL everyday level not higher than 90%

My $0.02 cents in the box

It’s all fluff imo, to confuse a jury and get even just one person to have reasonable doubt. Doubt is plausible, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to think Chauvin holds no accountability for Floyd’s death.

Chauvin still put Floyd in that position, not like Floyd chose to be near the tail pipe of the police car. It’s all white noise, I think - like this defense witness’ testimony should be superior over the Chief Medical Examiner who ruled Floyd’s autopsy a homicide? Right.

All it takes is one juror though, to have reasonable doubt that Chauvin in any way, contributed to Floyd’s death.

 

[billvon]

It’s all fluff imo, to confuse a jury and get even just one person to have reasonable doubt.

Right. That's the Chewbacca defense in a nutshell; sow FUD until you can say "this is all too confusing! If you can't figure it out, you have to vote not guilty." Also described as the "one armed man" defense - introduce a witness who mentions that they saw a one armed man near the crime scene and then fixate on that; at the end of the trial close by saying "how can you find him guilty without understanding why there was a one armed man there and what he was doing? That's reasonable doubt right there!"

 

[parmalee]

It’s all fluff imo, to confuse a jury and get even just one person to have reasonable doubt.

I've always found this one of the most problematic aspects about a jury of peers. Some of this is enough to confuse those with extensive medical backgrounds, let alone a bunch of randos, most with virtually no medical expertise.

Don't know if you've scene the Netflix docuseries, The Staircase, but the prosecution in that case employed some seriously dodgy "experts." Their "methods," for establishing that the woman could only have died as a result of being pushed, were anything but scientific--really, they were outright bullshit. They also exploited some of the jury members' propensity towards homophobia and the like. Certainly, the series was clearly biased towards the defendant in that case, but, all the same, the prosecution clearly didn't give a damn about ethics, integrity or anything of the sort.

 

[wegs]

Right. That's the Chewbacca defense in a nutshell; sow FUD until you can say "this is all too confusing! If you can't figure it out, you have to vote not guilty." Also described as the "one armed man" defense - introduce a witness who mentions that they saw a one armed man near the crime scene and then fixate on that; at the end of the trial close by saying "how can you find him guilty without understanding why there was a one armed man there and what he was doing? That's reasonable doubt right there!"

Yep, in this case the defense’s strategy seems to be if Floyd didn’t have heart and drug issues, he would have been able to withstand the unnecessary excessive force he experienced that day from Chauvin and the other officers. (I’m surprised the judge is allowing so much of Floyd’s health to be a consideration at all because Chauvin still shows negligence in that Floyd died while in his custody.)

Floyd’s healthy history should have zero to do with the fact that Chauvin didn’t adhere to police procedures and let a man die in his custody, if nothing else.

What’s tough about this case though is that we all know how a police officer may be treated in prison (as an inmate). That shouldn’t weigh into a verdict decision, but juries are made up of human beings who have to live with their collective decision. So it might be that a juror or two who “holds out” might be struggling with that aspect of things.

 

[wegs]

I've always found this one of the most problematic aspects about a jury of peers. Some of this is enough to confuse those with extensive medical backgrounds, let alone a bunch of randos, most with virtually no medical expertise.

Don't know if you've scene the Netflix docuseries, The Staircase, but the prosecution in that case employed some seriously dodgy "experts." Their "methods," for establishing that the woman could only have died as a result of being pushed, were anything but scientific--really, they were outright bullshit. They also exploited some of the jury members' propensity towards homophobia and the like. Certainly, the series was clearly biased towards the defendant in that case, but, all the same, the prosecution clearly didn't give a damn about ethics, integrity or anything of the sort.

I’ve been meaning to watch that series. Interestingly, we have a principle in our justice system - everyone deserves s fair trial, but we tend to only take the defendant into that equation. How about the victim? Is this trial fair for George Floyd? I ask that because a prior arrest of Floyd back in 2019 has been allowed in for evidence but not Chauvin’s record of violating police procedures in prior situations? Doesn’t seem “fair” to me.

Is the jury considering this? Thing is to your point - the medical issues imo don’t have anything to do with Chauvin’s conduct. If anything, a 20-year veteran with nearly 1000 hours of police training, should be competent enough to stop restraining someone who stated 27 times that he can’t breathe. For any reason, that he couldn’t breathe. The battle of the expert witnesses is just a distraction, imo. Honestly, police arrest people in various health conditions every day, so it sounds like victim shaming to a point.

 

[Seattle]

Floyd's prior arrest history is allowed in because Floyd isn't on trial, Chauvin is. If this were Floyd's trial, that wouldn't be let in unless perhaps at the sentencing portion.

The fact that Floyd died when in Chauvin's custody doesn't (in and of itself) show that Chauvin is negligent.

The rest of your points are valid IMO.

 

[wegs]

Floyd's prior arrest history is allowed in because Floyd isn't on trial, Chauvin is. If this were Floyd's trial, that wouldn't be let in unless perhaps at the sentencing portion.

Floyd died and his character shouldn’t be on trial. Even if the defense wants to prove a pattern of behavior when stopped by police, it doesn’t cancel what Chauvin did. Just seems unethical to me.

The fact that Floyd died when in Chauvin's custody doesn't (in and of itself) show that Chauvin is negligent.

Since Chauvin ignored Floyd’s pleas for help, (from pain Chauvin was inflicting no less) I think it does.

 

[Seattle]

Floyd died and his character shouldn’t be on trial. Even if the defense wants to prove a pattern of behavior when stopped by police, it doesn’t cancel what Chauvin did. Just seems unethical to me.

Since Chauvin ignored Floyd’s pleas for help, (from pain Chauvin was inflicting no less) I think it does.

Nothing "cancels" what Chauvin did. The goal is to try to put it all in perspective (the good, the bad, and the ugly).

 

[wegs]

Nothing "cancels" what Chauvin did. The goal is to try to put it all in perspective (the good, the bad, and the ugly).

I understand what you’re saying, but what perspective does a past traffic stop give a jury except the defense wants to be like see? He’s a guy who always resists arrest, so he deserved excessive force. (I don’t see resisting arrest except since Floyd never runs, gets out of the car, and police cuff him - the police seem to be on the attack from the get go) I guess police don’t have to show any professionalism or the ability to talk first...it’s guns drawn in these cases, it seems.

 

[wegs]

Just a side note - I think the prosecution had too many witnesses. They introduced Floyd’s health to be honest and the defense has a right to rebut. I think you can wear a jury out with long-winded testimonies of medical experts and it muddies the case. I’m not sure how that will affect the jury but I wouldn’t be entirely stunned if they acquit. (I don’t see that as the appropriate verdict but I can see that happening, especially in light of the carbon monoxide evidence from the defense being tossed in. The prosecution acted blind sided by that.)

 

[Michael 345]

Doubt is plausible, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to think Chauvin holds no accountability for Floyd’s death.

Agree I think his accountability comes under failure to provide medical care

It’s all white noise, I think - like this defense witness’ testimony should be superior over the Chief Medical Examiner who ruled Floyd’s autopsy a homicide? Right.

That is a BIG puzzle to me. The Chief Medical Examiner who ruled Floyd’s autopsy a homicide. I don't see how given the numerous factors in play. Just the same as my opinion Accidental Suicide is a opinion. Chief Medical Examiner obviously would be vastly superior to my 2 cents worth but I would contend shaky not definitive

To be definitive something like being killed in a manner (the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person (Floyd) by another; (Chauvin) murder) could not be accident or other possible cause. Again to many other factors in this case to settle on (DELIBERATE) homicide

Goes over the top to extract that from the diagnosis of the CAUSE of death

stated 27 times that he can’t breathe

With no chance he could be lying???? And a 98% O² saturation seems to rule that out

 

[Seattle]

In a way it doesn't matter that the autopsy says in the sense that it's not a "ruling". The legal determination is done in court.

I'm not sure what prior case you are talking about with Floyd and a traffic stop but he went to prison for 5 years after pointing a gun at a woman's stomach during the commission of an armed robbery in her house.

The purpose of a trial isn't to get a slam dunk for the prosecution. I do disagree with the defense bringing up carbon monoxide when they had no evidence since that just makes them look desperate after the prosecution easily rebuts that.

I would stick with Cauvin giving Floyd every chance to do it the easy way before resorting to the hard way. I would describe the scene from the point of view of a cop and how the jury shouldn't try to second guess a cop's instincts at the time.

I would point out that Floyd complained the entire time before he was even on the ground so why would anyone listen to him then. I would ignore the last few minutes when saying nothing is probably the best defense there (when in a hole...quit digging).

I would end with the jury needing to make the right decision and not the politically popular one.

 

[wegs]

I hear you ^

Personally, I think the prosecution brought in too many witnesses - some for pure emotional effect. Nothing entirely wrong with that but the video watched in its entirety is pretty chilling on its own. But they have to be careful to not overplay the video, lest the jury become desensitized - that’s been tossed around by different legal experts.

Hopefully, it’s not a hung jury.

 

[wegs]

Agree I think his accountability comes under failure to provide medical care



That is a BIG puzzle to me. The Chief Medical Examiner who ruled Floyd’s autopsy a homicide. I don't see how given the numerous factors in play. Just the same as my opinion Accidental Suicide is a opinion. Chief Medical Examiner obviously would be vastly superior to my 2 cents worth but I would contend shaky not definitive

To be definitive something like being killed in a manner (the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person (Floyd) by another; (Chauvin) murder) could not be accident or other possible cause. Again to many other factors in this case to settle on (DELIBERATE) homicide

Goes over the top to extract that from the diagnosis of the CAUSE of death



With no chance he could be lying???? And a 98% O² saturation seems to rule that out

*I* don’t think Floyd was lying since he died. (But ...Chauvin may have thought he was lying and the defense is going with the angry crowd theory.) But I’ve thought of the 98% oxygen evidence and wonder if that contradicts the testimony that he died from lack of oxygen.

 

[Seattle]

*I* don’t think Floyd was lying since he died. (But ...Chauvin may have thought he was lying and the defense is going with the angry crowd theory.) But I’ve thought of the 98% oxygen evidence and wonder if that contradicts the testimony that he died from lack of oxygen.

That's where the medical experts have to weigh in and when and how the test were taken. It's possible that his blood was oxygenated but that it was just restricted going into the brain.

 

[billvon]

I would describe the scene from the point of view of a cop and how the jury shouldn't try to second guess a cop's instincts at the time.

Yep, that's a potential strategy, one of many they are employing. And to Wegs' point:

I think the prosecution brought in too many witnesses - some for pure emotional effect.

That may be why the defense brought in so many police witnesses - to counter the narrative "we shouldn't second guess police; they have a tough job." By bringing in that many cops they can make it clear that cops think it was excessive as well, and that it's not just civilians second-guessing what he did.

 

[Michael 345]

But I’ve thought of the 98% oxygen evidence and wonder if that contradicts the testimony that he died from lack of oxygen.

It does, which again is puzzling. 98% is a good reading, especially for someone with Floyd's Medical history. I would have put his normal level to be below 90%

And if he died at the scene (as per stated his eyes flickered when he was being held down under the knee) no way would it be 98% at the hospital

Was there any question which asked "What were Floyd's VITAL SIGNS on arrival at Emergency Department hospital?"

VITAL SIGNS Pulse / Blood Pressure / Breathing - basic stuff
Blood samples taken for analysis
ADD
Level of consciousness / pupil reactions / hydration
BODY EXAMINATION
Hidden wounds - external and internal / photo and swab for analysis

My 2 cents that is what both prosecution and defence should go on EVIDENCE and does it match cause

98% O² saturation does not = asphyxia

 

[wegs]

It does, which again is puzzling. 98% is a good reading, especially for someone with Floyd's Medical history. I would have put his normal level to be below 90%

And if he died at the scene (as per stated his eyes flickered when he was being held down under the knee) no way would it be 98% at the hospital

Was there any question which asked "What were Floyd's VITAL SIGNS on arrival at Emergency Department hospital?"

VITAL SIGNS Pulse / Blood Pressure / Breathing - basic stuff
Blood samples taken for analysis
ADD
Level of consciousness / pupil reactions / hydration
BODY EXAMINATION
Hidden wounds - external and internal / photo and swab for analysis

My 2 cents that is what both prosecution and defence should go on EVIDENCE and does it match cause

98% O² saturation does not = asphyxia

Yea, I believe that the evidence pointed to Chauvin's actions not being the sole cause of Floyd's death, but a strong contributing factor. And that he didn't try to save his life.