Today we got the defense's forensic pathologist's testimony who offered his conclusion that Mr. Floyd's heath condition and the drugs he consumed along with his proximity to the squad car's exhaust (whereby carbon monoxide can also reduce the availability of O2 in his blood) were the cause of death - a cardiac arrhythmia . Now, the jury has some testimony that contradicts the official cause of death on the death certificate. This testimony can induce reasonable doubt in a juror. It's now up to some lay jurors to evaluate differing medical & scientific data and analysis and determine which one is true. Absent being able to do that, we have reasonable doubt as to cause of death. Furthermore, the defense's pathologist ruled out asphyxia as a cause of death citing studies which were previously discussed and discounted by the State's ME. The defense's pathologist stated that the neck restraint did not interfere with any vital function and he calculated the force/weight imparted by Officer Chauvin was significantly less than his 140 lb weight (not including police equipment). The defense's pathologist also stated that bruising should have been seen if there were 50 lbs of force from a bony knee or shin on soft tissue and there was none.
The defense's pathologist would have classified the nature of death on the death certificate as "undetermined" because there were several factors at play: natural causes (heart issues), accidental (drugs), proximity of his restraint to a carbon monoxide source and whatever factor the restraint might have played are classified as a homicide. When multiple possible causes or contributing factors are at play the proper classification per guidance is "undetermined".
All in all a very good morning for the defense and the testimony they needed to inject reasonable doubt into the jury.
The cross examination this afternoon was aggressive and tried to muddy the waters of this morning's testimony but was mostly ineffective IMO. They didn't cut into any significant credibility with the exception of his testimony regarding the influence of carbon monoxide. Since the State's ME did not test for CO in Mr. Floyd's blood, there was no proof of CO involvement and the defense's pathologist did no study of how much CO would have been present in Mr. Floyd's proximity. If the car was running there is no doubt that some CO was present and any amount of CO exposure would have reduced the availability of of Oxygen in the blood. The question is to what degree.
The defense's re-direct to the prosecution's cross was effective and IMO minimized and marginalized the prosecution's points made in their cross examination.
Only Tarquin finds your analysis interesting, relevant, or compelling. You might want to think about that.
