Minnesota trial of Derek Chauvin (killer of George Floyd) follow along thread

the emt stated that she could have used portable resuscitation unit, that would have been available at the scene.

the defence seems to be sticking to the fentanyl cause of death over anything that the policemen did.

that defence doesn’t seem to take into account that the officers should have moved mr floyd to his side or administered aid.

redirect was brutal for the defence.

Dr Tobin came very well prepared. The defense shouldn’t have persisted in cross examination. It just made them look bad.

Can you elaborate? What happened?

really blunt questions on whether bruising or evidence of being held down would show up on autopsy. the answer was no, and he gave the example of him not having bruised buttocks from sitting on a hard pew in church.

they then went through everything found in george floyd’s autopsy, did this cause his death, did that cause his death, answer no and no and no.

The defense didn’t make any big blunders. They just didn’t get anywhere trying to discredit the Doctor’s findings. They didn’t reveal anything new.

The doctor did a good discrediting the theory that Fentanyl impaired Floyd’s breathing. He actually counted Floyd’s breathes based on some of the video.

His own fellow officer wanted to turn Mr. Floyd on his side and Chauvin was having none of it. He seemed to have a serious “you’re not messing with my authority” kind of vibe. Big ego wouldn’t let him back down and look what it’s done.

So stupid.

Thanks. I found Tobin’s testimony to be compelling, but incredibly stressful to read.

I didn’t see the need for Dr Smock. He’s a police surgeon. He duplicated the other doctor’s testimony.

It’s been awhile since I’ve seen a comb-over that extreme.

They are setting up why the autopsy did not show oxygen deprivation. The 2 doctors today showed how it would only show in the blood and video. Not marks on the body or swelling in the throat or neck.

The prosecution is doing a master class in how to set up a case. Building fact by fact. They are anticipating what the defence will do and getting in front of it.

They have gotten ahead of the drug issue by having his girlfriend testify. Painting a sympathetic picture of George Floyd. Blunting the scary man on drugs that the defence may try.

They had bystanders come in and testify that they were in disbelief, frustrated, and helpless. Blunting the defence that the crowd was threatening.

They had policemen come in and state that what was done was not proper procedure. Blunting the “ this is how things are done” defence.

Today they had an extraordinary doctor who wrote the book on pulmonary functions, come in and fact by fact lead the jury in how this death occurred and why it won’t show in a physical autopsy. Blunting the defence of “ that isn’t what the autopsy said “.

I had seen the leg movements of mr Floyd and knew it was related to oxygen deprivation, dr Tobin gave me details on that, that I didn’t know. I believe the defence team was taken along by dr tobin as well. They missed quite few times they should have objected.

The defence has a truly very steep cliff to climb when they start their case.

And that’s pretty much game, set, match - provided there’s not so closet klansman on the jury.

You have his colleagues saying Chauvin used excessive force, and you have a physician who testifies that said force is what killed George Floyd.

Time to get the orange jump suit ready.

IMHO, OJ got away with murder for the simple fact that lying racist cops overtly framed a guilty man…and got caught.

I hope so, but blame the victim is so strong…and Floyd is the “short skirt, fuck me heels she was asking for it rape victim” of cop homicides.

I feel like you and some others are forgetting that the defense still gets their turn. They will have medical experts who testify that Floyd died due to drugs. They will have law enforcement experts who testify that a hostile crowd left Chauvin with no choice. Maybe hold off on the celebration just yet.

i believe the jury will remember that according to dr tobin, chauvin held down george floyd for nearly 4 minutes after he died.

that is really hard to defend.

dr tobin’s testimony meshed well with the mma witness earlier. remember on the stand when mma wit. described chauvin’s movements and weight shifts, dr tobin also talked about those and what effect they had on mr. floyd. both noted chauvin’s foot being off the ground.

on cnn they had a mma trainer show what chavin did with a student. the student made the same noises that mr floyd did. the difference between being across the shoulders and on the neck was stark. of course the jury will not see that report, but it was very illuminating.

I wasn’t necessarily predicting the conviction for the obvious manslaughter/murder of a black man. I would never be so bold - not in this country, not with our history of injustice.

But point taken, I should have used language that hedged a little more. My point is, this should be a slam dunk conviction of…something. Hopefully manslaughter at least. But I sure as hell wouldn’t wager money on it. After all, it’s ordinary (usually white) citizens that have lionized cops and military over the years, to the point which they can get away with obvious manslaughter and murder more often than not

The closing argument ought to be, if you don’t think that a 9-minute knee to the neck didn’t kill him, go ahead and try it at home.

That’s certainly true. I think that’s why it was important for the prosecutor to start with a handful of cops, (including the Chief) who thought this was a criminal act. The jury can convict and still feel they support cops.

Funny. I remember watching that trial on and off at the time. I was in the IT department of a fairly large law firm, and they had the trial running continually on a big wall television in a conference room. People would wander in and out all day.

The trial lawyers in the firm, over the course of the trial, went from thinking the prosecution had a slam-dunk to predicting acquittal. Not that they thought that Simpson was innocent, but they thought the judge had lost control of the trial, and the prosecution team was incompetent and allowed obviously tainted testimony to cast doubt on their whole case.

I can’t see how that’s a possibility in the Chauvin trial. But I’m not a lawyer, haven’t been watching the trial every day. I certainly hope the prosecution is keeping the Simpson trial in mind and at the very least trying to avoid the circus atmosphere of the Simpson trial.