![](https://davisvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Chauvin-Closing-765x510.jpg)
By David M. Greenwald
This isn’t your TV courtroom drama where you see a coherent narrative put on by the prosecution and defense throughout the proceedings. When I train the interns to watch trials, a key thing I remind them—keep an open mind, wait until the summations before you decide your opinion of guilt or innocence.
Why? Because until you see the whole picture there are too many disparate pieces of information.
Having watching the closing arguments, I have come to the conclusion that Derek Chauvin committed some form of murder and should be found guilty. Will he? I have seen far too many police cases starting in 1992’s Rodney King beating to offer much of an opinion. Though I think this is a different time and a different jury.
I think the defense offered a twofold defense here—one that any force was reasonable and necessary, and second that if George Floyd died it was from something other than the 9:29 seconds he was held on the ground with a knee on his neck.
To counter that defense the prosecution offered four medical experts who testified it was not a sudden cardiac arrhythmia, and one offered that it was not a heart attack.
To counter the idea that this was reasonable force, seven experts testified. That included Sgt. David Ploeger who testified that force should have ended right after Floyd was taken to the ground. And others who argued that it was “unnecessary,” “unreasonable” use of force.
But, for the sake of argument, let us say we were sympathetic to the idea that Floyd was resisting and that the initial use of force was justified. And let’s say we buy into the doubt created by the defense case that drug use or some underlying condition could have contributed to the death.
There are two key moments which the prosecution highlighted that I think undercut that defense definitively.
Prosecutor Schleicher said: “George Floyd’s final words on May 25, 2020 were, ‘Please, I can’t breathe.’ And he said those words to Mr. Officer. He said those words to the defendant. He asked for help with his very last breath. But Mr. Officer did not help. The defendant did not help, he stayed on top of him, and continued to push him down, to grind his knee, to twist his hand, to twist his fingers into the handcuffs that bound him, looking at him, staring down at times though horrified bystanders who had gathered and watch this unfold.”
He later pointed out: “Somebody’s telling you they can’t breathe and you keep doing it, you’re doing it on purpose. What else is going to happen when you push somebody down on the pavement? Everybody knows this. Everybody knows what happens when you push somebody against the pavement.”
Later, he pointed out, the response from the police was: “That takes a lot of oxygen to complain about it.”
Schleicher points out this is “indifference.” He argued, “Did the defendant ever listen? Ever consider medical attention? No one defended that decision, the failure to give CPR, not even Dr. Fowler.”
That’s a big problem for the defense. But it’s not the only point that really resonated.
The officer continued “beyond the point that he had a pulse.”
”I think he’s paying, passing out,” Officer Lane says.
Schleicher points out that “Officer Kueng can’t find a pulse.”
He argues: “Now, the greatest skeptic of this case among you, how can you justify the continued force on this man when he has no pulse? No pulse, continued the restraint, continued grinding and twisting and pushing him down and crushing the very life out of him. It wasn’t too late. He could have rolled him over, performed CPR. No. He continued. Past the point of finding a pulse, past the point where the ambulance arrives, past the point where the EMTs get out of the ambulance.”
As Schleicher points out, “Force must be reasonable. It must be reasonable at the point it starts, at the point it ends, and at all points in between officers are required to reassess the situation, to reevaluate the situation. To take in the information and react to it. The Defendant didn’t do it.”
Given those two actions, I think, even if you buy the defense case—and I tend to not buy it—it’s impossible to defend the indifference to human life.
That, at the very least, fits the definition of third degree murder: “Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.”
Those two acts alone clearly and unmistakably show depraved indifference to human life. I don’t see how a reasonable jury finds otherwise.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
While talking to my wife last night this is exactly why we both felt Chauvin should be found guilty.
I feel Chauvin will be found guilty but that said Maxine Water’s statements and the judge’s response to her actions have all but guaranteed that there will be an appeal and retrial.
The threshold to get a retrial is so high that the chance of that happening is almost zero. Remember to get a retrial, you not only have to show that the effect was prejudicial (and the facts of the case mitigate against that) but that the judge abused his discretion in failing to call a mistrial. That’s a nearly impossible hurdle.
Also the intimidation factor with Maxine Water’s actions and the pig’s blood splattered on the former home of a witness who testified for the defense I’m sure has an effect on the jurors. How could it not?
https://abc7news.com/santa-rosa-pig-blood-vandal-valdals-chauvin-defense-witness-home-barry-brodd/10524376/
I explained the standard. The judge didn’t see it as egregious enough to bounce it himself. The standard is much higher for an appellate court to do it than the trial judge.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/19/politics/judge-derek-chauvin-maxine-waters-mistrial-appeal/index.html
But if he felt so struggling he could have ruled a mistrial himself – he didn’t. That raises the bar substantially. They would have to show that (A) the jury heard the comment, (B) that it affected their decision, (C) that the decision was impacted by her comments and (D) that the judge abused his discretion in ruling otherwise. That’s a really tall bar. It’s not going to happen.
As I understand it, it takes only one juror to ‘hang’ the jury… which, unless the State drops the charges, there would be re-trial. Ms Waters’ actions might get one juror to react in a way Ms Waters did not intend…
Don’t forget there is a chance that a meteor could destroy the earth. You can’t predict juries especially in police trials, but the evidence here is pretty overwhelming. Even a hung jury or an overturn just delays the inevitable.
Don’t forget, there is a chance that you’d have a pertinent retort. Is that a meteor I see, directly over your office?
Huge difference between a mistrial, re-trial, based on procedural grounds, and those called for due to lack of jury consensus on verdict…
Based on past experiences in the jury room, the high profile nature of the case (which has been bally-hooed on one side as being about all police, on the other side as all about racism, [not a bad person’s bad actions]), I’d say there is a 8% chance of a hung jury, 92% chance of unanimous conviction, 0% chance of unanimous acquittal…
Bottom line, Ms Waters appears to have expended public funds, said unhelpful, useless, possibly counter-productive things, apparently for her self-aggrandizement… she was “out-of-line” and ‘unprofessional’, at the least… wonder is she missed any votes, or committee participation to “accomplish” her ‘mission’…
Perhaps she should move to MN, and run for Congress there…
1:25pm – helicopter circling overhead near downtown
Helicopter gone.
So that means no rioting and looting tonight?
Maybe it will be like when a sports team wins the championship?
Rioting and looting back on?
Is this appropriate humor?
Why do you think it’s humor?
Are you 100% positive there will be no riots tonight in Minneapolis?
Just a reminder: there is a limitation on comments per article—five comments per article per commenter.
Can never be 100 percent positive about any thing in life.
I’ll cancel this evening’s plans for a gratis big screen from Target, a new hamper, and a potted cactus. Better a proper verdict than free stuff.
That would be in the eye of the beholder. If you find it inappropriate, then no, it’s not.
Helicopter came back again for awhile, then left again.