There has been a trial going on in Minnesota for some time. Police officer Derek Chauvin is on trial for trying to save George Floyd’s life. I am sure that everyone remembers the videos and the rioting that went on last year over his death from a drug overdose.
The State of Minnesota has put him on trial for murder. Jury selection took forever. Finally, some two weeks ago, we entered the actual trial phase. The State has been attempting to present a case against Chauvin for having committed murder or at least manslaughter. Keep in mind that there are three other officers awaiting trial as well. An acquittal of Chauvin would almost certainly mean the end to any chance of convicting the other officers of anything.
The following is a summary of the first five days of testimony.
If you have been getting your info on the trial from the MSM, you probably have the impression that the prosecution has been absolutely devastating to Chauvin’s chances for acquittal. The prosecution is supposed to have wrung outstanding emotive testimony from several witnesses. In addition, according to the media, multiple “expert” witnesses have laid an almost unassailable foundation of guilt about Chauvin’s actions that fateful day.
However, legal experts have been less impressed with the prosecution’s efforts. In fact, at least one legal expert had suggested at one point during the prosecution’s case, that, if the expert witness testimony did not improve, the judge should be dismissing the case when the prosecution finished. In other words, the defense would not have to present a defense since that had been done by the prosecution witnesses.
To understand what has gone on, it is important first to understand two crucial things about criminal trials in an American courtroom. The first is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The state must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that if there are alternative explanations for something that happened that are reasonable, there should be an acquittal.
The second item is that American trials are adversarial in nature. This means that each side gets to present its case. Each side gets to respond to the evidence that is presented at the time it is presented. There aren’t supposed to be any star chamber proceedings.
Day One…One might have expected for the state to try to set a tone of just how deleterious Chauvin’s conduct was with their first witness. And that is what they tried to do. Jena Lee Scurry was the 911 dispatcher who handled the Floyd call.
The prosecution had promised in their opening statement that she was so outraged by what she observed, that she felt obligated to “call the police on the police.” However, during cross examination, defense counsel Nelson elicited testimony from her that such calls to police supervisors were not out the ordinary but rather were routine during use of force situations.
The testimony of the second witness, Alicia Oiler, was so poor that television commentators resorted to trying to convince their audiences that the state was not trying to throw the case.
The third witness, one Donald Williams, was a bystander with supposed expertise in martial arts. Williams started on Day One and continued on Day Two.
Williams appeared to lack affirmative knowledge about the subjects he was testifying on. In particular, Williams characterized Chauvin’s neck restraint as constituting a so-called “blood choke.” That involves cutting off the blood supply to the brain which requires pressure to both of the neck’s carotid arteries. All the videos of the event showed that not to be true. Further, a “blood choke” results in the loss of consciousness within seconds not minutes to achieve that physiological state. Defense counsel Nelson got Williams to admit this during cross.
One last item on this was that Williams testified that Chauvin did not remove his knee while the paramedics checked Floyd for a pulse. This seems to clearly indicate that Chauvin’s knee was not on Floyd’s carotid artery. Not good for the state’s case.
Four minors followed Williams. They provided little evidentiary value. One interesting note was the third one who testified that the officers had checked Floyd’s pulse multiple times. This is certainly another indication that the so-called blood choke did not exist.
The last witness of the day was firefighter Genevieve Hansen. At the time of Floyd’s death she had been a firefighter for just over a year. Hansen presented well during direct examination by the state. Unfortunately for the state, the actions that she recommended were such that the officers on the scene had done.
Actions she suggested that were outside of the officers’ purview like use of a breath bag or of Narcan for drug overdose even she could not provide. In short, if Floyd required such care, he’d need to wait for the paramedics or firefighter EMTs. They had been called for by the officers. The first request had been code 2 (no lights, sirens) and then upgraded to code 3 (lights and sirens) when the officers suspected excited delirium.
Again, while she presented well during direct, her testimony had little if any evidentiary value to show that the officers had done anything wrong.
Under cross examination, Hansen became a liability for the state. She was hostile and uncooperative to the point that she was admonished by the judge. This cannot fail to have a negative impact on the jury if they are trying to do their jobs honestly.
One interesting point that came out was that Hansen felt that firefighter EMTs could have gotten there faster. Defense counsel Nelson pointed out that the police do not make that determination. Rather it is the dispatcher who decides who gets sent. Such testimony once again edges the door open about reasonable doubt.
Next up was Christopher Martin, a 19-year-old black store clerk from Cup Foods. Floyd had attempted to pass the counterfeit $20 bill to him that started this whole incident. His testimony did help to fill out the narrative of what actually happened, the sequence of events, that triggered the police arriving on the scene.
Key points:
- Floyd had indeed passed a rather obviously fake counterfeit bill (after his friend had failed to pull this off in the very same store)
- Floyd appeared substantively impaired while in the store (“He did look high,” as Martin put it)
- Floyd was an unusually large man (it was what made Martin take exceptional notice of Floyd in the first place)
- Floyd had refused repeated offers to simply make good on the bad bill, pay for his cigarettes with actual money, and the whole incident would be forgotten
BTW this raises a question that does not appear to be pertinent to this case. Where did the fake $20 come from? Again, we will not likely hear anything about this in the trial since it does not appear to have any evidentiary value to either the state or Chauvin.
Obviously the above points do not paint Floyd in a very good light. However, the likelihood of this evidence being entered by the defense is probably why the state entered it. This included a lengthy video of Floyd while he was inside the store. Andrew Branca, a self-defense lawyer, who is covering the trail live, noted:
That said, the testimony was going to happen, so the state did its best to underplay it. While Floyd may have high, for example, he wasn’t so high that he couldn’t communicate verbally with enough dexterity to order cigarettes. On the other, Martin had told police investigators that Floyd’s speech was noticeably delayed, and that Floyd struggled saying words like “baseball” while in conversation with Martin.
The state played a rather lengthy video of Floyd while he was inside the Cup Foods, and throughout Floyd’s demeanor is one of someone under the influence. Swaying, weaving, odd stretching motions, wincing, lots of erratic upper body movement, a little dance step performed in the middle of the store—to the point that other store customers backed up to give him additional space—and so forth.
Naturally, to the extent that Floyd was intoxicated, that state is favorable to the officers, as it would be consistent with privileging them to use a higher degree of force in the face of non-compliance than would otherwise be the case.
This is particularly the case given Floyd’s remarkable size—testimony in court has cited him as 6’ 3” tall (although I’ve now seen Texas wanted posters that list his height as 6’ 6”) and about 230 pounds. The numbers don’t really convey this size as well as does seeing Floyd moving about a convenience store amongst other customers of more typical stature and size.
Under cross, Nelson elicited testimony that the neighborhood was a “hot block” for criminal events. The store manager carried a pistol in his back pocket. Martin himself had to restrain some bystanders from advancing on the police dealing with Floyd. Overall not good for the state’s case. But such testimony was likely to occur so the state did its best to downplay it.
Richard belfry was next. He added little to the narrative.
After him came Charles McMillan, a 61-year-old black male, who was a bystander during most of the interaction with the police. McMillan did break down on the stand which led to a short recess. While McMillan appeared to believe that Floyd had been mistreated, His testimony added little to the state’s case.
However, two moments clearly favored the defense. A video showed Floyd on the ground and then attempting to kick the officers. This led to the officers being more determined to use a full body restraint, especially the legs.
Second, during direct, McMillian was asked how Floyd appeared to him while being restrained. Eldridge was probably hoping for a reply like “it looked like he was being killed.”
However, McMillian stated that Floyd had foam running out of his mouth. When questioned by the prosecutor, McMillian re-affirmed, “Yes, foam in and out of his mouth.”
Foaming in the lungs, and by extension out of the mouth, is, of course, a notable indication of pathological fentanyl overdose. This would obviously reinforce the likely defense narrative that Floyd was killed by the three-fold fatal dose of meth/fentanyl speedball drug cocktail he rapidly ingested to avoid its discovery by the police.
Again, overall not good for the state’s case. In fact, Nelson chose not to conduct a cross.
Day Four
The first state’s witness on this day was Courteney Ross, Floyd’s lady friend. She was also an addict and shared her addiction with Floyd.
I guess it goes without saying that Ross had a breakdown while on the stand. She seemed especially distraught over the section of video where Floyd called out “Mama” as he was close to death’s door. Ross provided an emotional appeal rather than any evidentiary appeal. And once again it seemed that she was more helpful to the defense than the state.
During cross, it was revealed that Floyd’s pet name for Ross was “Mama” and was listed as such on Floyd’s cell phone. So who was Floyd calling out for when he said “Mama?”
Then there was the testimony about a previous problem George Floyd had in March of 2020 when Floyd had overdosed previously. Ross had taken Floyd to the hospital with severe stomach pain after taking pills similar to those he ingested in May. Let’s remember that in May when he died, Floyd had ingested such pills to avoid their discovery by police.
Ross had also taken pills in March that made her think she was going to die. Ross testified the March batch made her jittery and she could not sleep. Clearly a stimulany was involved. Most likely it was methamphetamine. She also testified that the March incident had resulted in Floyd having foam around his mouth (fentanyl overdose symptom). Witness McMillian had testified to such an observation about Floyd when he was restrained on the street.
Ross also testified under cross that Floyd had been “clean” for a substantial period of time. This certainly undercuts the idea advanced by the state that Floyd had a high tolerance for the drugs since he was a habitual user.
I will not dive into the tolerance issue here since I am sure there will be testimony later in the trial from medical experts on this issue.
Ross also testified that the passenger in the car with her and Floyd was Maurice Hall. According to Ross, Hall was Floyd’s drug dealer. Hall had been subpoenaed to testify. However, he invoked his right to refuse to testify under 5thAmendment. The state has refused to immunize him. So it appears that Hall’s testimony would not be helpful to the state’s case.
Again, it appears that, other than the emotional appeal, Ross’s testimony was probably a plus for the defense.
Next up was Seth Bravender, the paramedic who drove the ambulance. Bravender testified that the interval between the code 2 and code 3was about 90 seconds. The code 2 was called when Floyd bloodied his nose resisting. The code 3 was called when the officiers realized that Floyd had more serious problems than a bloody nose. This certainly undercuts the idea that the officers were slow to call for emergency medical care.
Bravender also testified to doing a “load and scoot” in handling Floyd due to the threatening nature of the crowd. They drove three blocks away before beginning paramedic activities to help Floyd. While this was going on, one officer was providing chest compressions.
All of this came out under direct questioning by the state.
More points were scored by the defense during cross. Bravender testified to the different roles of police and paramedics in these kinds of situations. He also testified to having personally seen overdose victims become violent when recovering consciousness. He stated that is standard procedure for police to accompany paramedics on overdose calls for just this reason.
There were some other good points made as well. But you get the idea that this witness was clearly better for the defense.
Next up was Derek Smith, the other paramedic. He provided little that was not already known. Andrew Branca noted:
In essence the entirety of his testimony was that Floyd was apparently dead when Smith got on scene, he was dead when the ambulance fled the three blocks, he was dead when the fire department joined him, and he was still dead when the ambulance dropped Floyd off at Hennepin County Medical Center.
One item to note here was the apparent shift by the state in beginning to try to claim that the officers should have provided care sooner. This is a far cry from the racist cop murderer theme that was present most of the summer last year and even early in this trial.
The next state’s witness was Jeremy Norton, a Captain with the Minneapolis Fire Department. The net effect of his testimony was to raise questions about why it took the fire department twelve minutes to arrive on scene. Why is unclear. However, it does nothing to support the idea that the police officers were at fault for what happened.
The last witness of the day was Sergeant David Pleoger of the MPD. He was the officers’ supervisor at the time the Floyd event took place. He routinely reviewed use of force incidents within his command.
The state wanted a statement hat Chauvin’s knee restraint was excessive force period. The judge refused to allow that kind of question. What questions that were allowed probably resulted a neutral effect on the trial.
Day Five
First up was Sgt. Jon Edwards of the MPD. Edwards took over supervision on shift change. His role was largely administrative and added little to the understanding of what took place.
Next and the last witness of the day was Lt. Richard Zimmerman of the MPD. Zimmerman is a homicide detective. Zimmerman has been a member of the MPD since 1985. Essentially his role when the event occurred, was to hand over the case to the state investigative body.
So what was his real purpose in being on the stand? The state had found someone who would say on the stand that the use of the knee restraint was a deadly force. Obviously as a police officer, Zimmerman had been trained in use of force techniques. Zimmerman stated that “it could kill someone.”
Zimmerman also stated something that was utter nonsense. When asked if a handcuffed suspect could still represent a threat to an officer, Zimmerman answered “No.”. This ignores the fact that police officers have been shot and killed by handcuffed suspects. This ignores the fact seen on video that Floyd had tried to kick the officers while on the pavement.
Zimmerman also talked about positional asphyxia and duty of care. In the end Zimmerman stated that Chuavin’s use of force was “Totally unnecessary.”
Clearly Zimmerman was ill informed about what really happened on that fateful day. Nelson did an excellent job of clarifying this. Zimmerman agreed to a long list of factors not seen on the camera footage that come into play in making use of force decisions. Zimmerman also agreed that his experience with use of force was pretty much limited to his annual training on such since his job as a detective required exposure to such situations only very infrequently.
All in all, despite the fact that the defense is limited on cross to the facts presented on direct, it was a good week for the defense. But there are two more weeks to go before the jury gets to deliberate.