It also doesn’t help when a prosecution witness admits that it sounds like Floyd said “I ate too many drugs.” The court recessed and later called him back and he recanted, but the point was already made.
The medical evidence indicates that drugs could have caused asphyxia and that there were no physical signs of trauma which would cause asphyxia. The Prosecutors’ witness admits this.
Video evidence indicates that Chauvin may not have even been on Floyd’s neck for much of the interaction. The Prosecutors’ witness admits this.
The prosecution’s case is incredibly weak with respect to murder and manslaughter.
Murder 3 obviously doesn’t apply…it’s for people who fire guns into crowds or sell lethal drugs to people indiscriminately. For both the others, as I’ve said before, I think the case revolves around cause. I think intent is murky enough that a jury in a case like this can presume the level of intent necessary to merit the charges. But if there is reasonable doubt that Chauvin “caused” the death of Floyd, neither murder 2 nor man 2 can be sustained. I really don’t see how objective people can find proximate cause here based on what I’ve seen of the trial. Still, it wouldn’t surprise me if they did.
Yeah, the idea that the prosecution is pursuing charges that don’t apply seems really stupid to me, looks like not only is this guy as guilty as he seemed in the original video but the legal case is being successfully prosecuted. I don’t have the benefit of watching the proceedings first hand, and there is still a ways to go, but at this stage I would be surprised if the jury was convinced there is enough reasonable doubt to let Chauvin off the hook.
I don’t buy his testimony. Didn’t the autopsy show he did not die from asphyxia? The trial up to this point has been all defensive wins. Are we now saying that the prosecution is winning the case?
Have you watched any of Dr. Tobin’s testimony? If I were a member of the jury there’s no way I would find that any less than 100% credible.
Does anyone knowledgeable about US law know whether the defense are in a position to go for a plea bargain of involuntary manslaughter? If I were on the defense that’s what I’d be considering now.
The prosecution has been a bit of a train wreck so far. The emotional testimonies from the bystanders were effective, but don’t really speak to the facts of the case. Most of the witnesses who gave substantive testimony were forced to concede key defense positions (e.g., that the lack of oxygen could have been caused by drugs or preexisting conditions, that Chauvin looks to have had kneeled on Floyd’s back and not his neck in the body cam, that a hostile crowd should be factored in to how to treat a suspect and that the crowd was, in fact, hostile, that police procedures allowed the restraint and that the restraint used could be warranted in this situation).
Dr. Tobin’s testimony seems to help the prosecution, but the fact that it was so absolute and contradictory to the testimony of other prosecution witnesses should boomerang on the prosecution’s case. The defense will probably move to end the trial as a matter of law at the conclusion of the prosecution’s case, and while there is no chance of this succeeding in this political environment, based on what I’ve seen it probably should.
To anyone swayed by media accounts of this trial, I highly recommend watching the trial footage itself, without the lense through which the media is presenting the information.
