George Floyd death / Derek Chauvin trial - Sidebar week 2

[kittythehare]

Yes, and if perhaps I was to hide some pills in my mouth because I didn't want to get in trouble with law enforcement, and then I got all stressed out and a struggle ensued, I might (deliberately, or inadvertently), crush or chew some of those pills. Some of the active ingredient might then, get absorbed through my oral mucosa, even if I spat some out, and/or swallowed some. Crushed up pills, will generally absorb faster, (volume ratio) IMO.
For example, if a dog were to chew some butorphanol pills without authorization (!), the vet would want to know how many pills of what strength were possibly ingested, examine the oral cavity, and vomitus for exidence of said pills. This would help determine the possible level of intoxicant absorbed, which could help determine the amount of naloxone to administer, and other further care.

Likewise if the poor sad animal expired for no known reason and blood results showed an insufficient quantity of medicines to kill him, one might wonder what else he had ingested.

 

[Cubby]

But prosecutors don't have to prove that Chauvin's actions alone caused Floyd's death, according to Minnesota's guidelines for jury instructions in criminal cases. According to the state and the defense's proposed jury instructions, "  'To cause' means to be a substantial causal factor in causing the death. … The fact that other causes contribute to the death does not relieve the defendant of criminal liability."

Cause of death at issue in Derek Chauvin trial

 

[CrimeAway]

Likewise if the poor sad animal expired for no known reason and blood results showed an insufficient quantity of medicines to kill him, one might wonder what else he had ingested.

And if he was in someone else's custody at the time, and there were any concerns about exactly why he expired, the veterinarian might send his body to the local vet school to do a very thorough necropsy (animal version of an autopsy or post mortem examination), including all relevant specimens.

 

[MsBetsy]

Yes, and if perhaps I was to hide some pills in my mouth because I didn't want to get in trouble with law enforcement, and then I got all stressed out and a struggle ensued, I might (deliberately, or inadvertently), crush or chew some of those pills. Some of the active ingredient might then, get absorbed through my oral mucosa, even if I spat some out, and/or swallowed some. Crushed up pills, will generally absorb faster, (volume ratio) IMO.
For example, if a dog were to chew some butorphanol pills without authorization (!), the vet would want to know how many pills of what strength were possibly ingested, examine the oral cavity, and vomitus for exidence of said pills. This would help determine the possible level of intoxicant absorbed, which could help determine the amount of naloxone to administer, and other further care.

I don't think a doctor or first responder would wait that long to administer naloxone. It's usually administered if the patient passes out or has trouble breathing. It's a safe drug so they can start with a small dose and keep administering it every few minutes if needed.

Anyway, I think the only potential evidence the defense has are the pills with his saliva, but even that doesn't prove anything if the toxicology results don't indicate acute fentanyl toxicity. Imo

 

[CrimeAway]

But prosecutors don't have to prove that Chauvin's actions alone caused Floyd's death, according to Minnesota's guidelines for jury instructions in criminal cases. According to the state and the defense's proposed jury instructions, "  'To cause' means to be a substantial causal factor in causing the death. … The fact that other causes contribute to the death does not relieve the defendant of criminal liability."

Cause of death at issue in Derek Chauvin trial

That's why the legal arguments are so interesting to me in this case.

So far the prosecution has provided witnesses who have testified that IMO:

1) Mr Floyd was not resisting (shortly) after being placed face down.
2) Neck restraint was taught, but not in the manner used by DC
3) Officers are trained/should know to put someone in recovery position after prone restraint.
4) Officers train in CPR.

Defense has poked holes in some of 1-4, IMO. 1-4 are all involved, AFAIK in the reasonableness doctrine of Graham v Connor.

5) Mr Floyd died due to the hypoxia caused by the restraint.
6) Prosecution agrees that cardiomegaly and atherosclerosis of the cardiac arteries were present.
7) Prosecution agrees that fentanyl and methamphetamine (amongst other substances), were found in Mr Floyd's blood.

Prosecution argues that #5 was the substantial causative factor in Mr Floyd's death, and therefore DC is responsible.
Defense has been trying to question that assertion, and I expect they will continue to do so.

What else does the prosecution have to do to prove cause?
What doubts have been raised by the defense so far?
What does the defense have to do to overcome the prosecution's case?

I'm not getting much of anything else done, but I am eagerly awaiting what we will hear next week.

 

[CrimeAway]

To me, it is pretty simple.

Would GF have died on that sidewalk that day, that moment if DC had not been kneeling on him?

Nope.

The defense has a very, steep hill to climb if I can't see a way out for DC. And I am very pro LEO.

I respect your opinion.
Personally, I think that DC is guilty of something. I'm just not sure if I can decide what (if any) of the counts he can legally be found guilty of, (beyond a reasonable doubt), at this point.

ETA: If I ever ended up in the legal predicament that the 4 Officers face now, I would hope that I would have access to compentant counsel, an exploration of all the facts at hand, a fair court proceedings, and NOT trial by media.

 

[Gibbo214]

Yes, and if perhaps I was to hide some pills in my mouth because I didn't want to get in trouble with law enforcement, and then I got all stressed out and a struggle ensued, I might (deliberately, or inadvertently), crush or chew some of those pills. Some of the active ingredient might then, get absorbed through my oral mucosa, even if I spat some out, and/or swallowed some. Crushed up pills, will generally absorb faster, (volume ratio) IMO.
For example, if a dog were to chew some butorphanol pills without authorization (!), the vet would want to know how many pills of what strength were possibly ingested, examine the oral cavity, and vomitus for exidence of said pills. This would help determine the possible level of intoxicant absorbed, which could help determine the amount of naloxone to administer, and other further care.

That would be a rather quick effect, though dont you think? IMO, if an effect of the drug was that quick through mucosal absorption, that is how they would always use them.

 

[dixiegirl1035]

I just went down a rabbit hole and found a 71 page article that I think is of interest as to pleading of the 5th for our passenger in this case.

I've only read the first 3 pages.... may read more later, or perhaps someone else (@CrimeAway ?) wants to take a shot at reading the first 3 to see if they too might think related to what is going on in this case.

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1701&context=facpub

ETA: Adding this so all is in one post on passenger Floyd's passenger emerges as complicated figure in Chauvin trial

ETA #2: Adding so all is in one post 3/25/21 Maurice Hall, Friend of George Floyd, Speaks to Court TV - Court TV

 

[kittythehare]

That's why the legal arguments are so interesting to me in this case.

So far the prosecution has provided witnesses who have testified that IMO:

1) Mr Floyd was not resisting (shortly) after being placed face down.
2) Neck restraint was taught, but not in the manner used by DC
3) Officers are trained/should know to put someone in recovery position after prone restraint.
4) Officers train in CPR.

Defense has poked holes in some of 1-4, IMO. 1-4 are all involved, AFAIK in the reasonableness doctrine of Graham v Connor.

5) Mr Floyd died due to the hypoxia caused by the restraint.
6) Prosecution agrees that cardiomegaly and atherosclerosis of the cardiac arteries were present.
7) Prosecution agrees that fentanyl and methamphetamine (amongst other substances), were found in Mr Floyd's blood.

Prosecution argues that #5 was the substantial causative factor in Mr Floyd's death, and therefore DC is responsible.
Defense has been trying to question that assertion, and I expect they will continue to do so.

What else does the prosecution have to do to prove cause?
What doubts have been raised by the defense so far?
What does the defense have to do to overcome the prosecution's case?

I'm not getting much of anything else done, but I am eagerly awaiting what we will hear next week.

Good analysis.
I don't actually know what further evidence, actual hardcore evidence can be found or produced by either team to bring about a different conclusion...
UNLESS mistrial due to inadequate representation for accused
incomplete autopsy or other inefficiencies and contradictions from MO offices
failure to grant immunity to witness in prison or other officers who were witnesses...
or shenanigans as described from dismissed and rehired people...

 

[missy1974]

That would be a rather quick effect, though dont you think? IMO, if an effect of the drug was that quick through mucosal absorption, that is how they would always use them.

I posted earlier, Dr. Toobin said that after taking fentanyl, it takes 5 minutes for peak respiratory depression, it will continue afterwards, but the peak would be at about 5 minutes. Here is a link to that post with a timestamp.

George Floyd death / Derek Chauvin trial - Sidebar week 2

 

[kittythehare]

I don't think a doctor or first responder would wait that long to administer naloxone. It's usually administered if the patient passes out or has trouble breathing. It's a safe drug so they can start with a small dose and keep administering it every few minutes if needed.

Anyway, I think the only potential evidence the defense has are the pills with his saliva, but even that doesn't prove anything if the toxicology results don't indicate acute fentanyl toxicity. Imo

they may also have evidence of an incomplete autopsy.

 

[CrimeAway]

That would be a rather quick effect, though dont you think? IMO, if an effect of the drug was that quick through mucosal absorption, that is how they would always use them.

You might be surprised, the dog in my example, may have been found with pill fragments in his mouth, may have been unsupervised for less than 5 minutes, and may quickly have been showing CNS depression on the drive to a veterinary clinic. (Once clinically stable, the guardian of said dog, may have trimmed said dog's nails, while he was less combative than usual)

 

[missy1974]

That's why the legal arguments are so interesting to me in this case.

So far the prosecution has provided witnesses who have testified that IMO:

1) Mr Floyd was not resisting (shortly) after being placed face down.
2) Neck restraint was taught, but not in the manner used by DC
3) Officers are trained/should know to put someone in recovery position after prone restraint.
4) Officers train in CPR.

Defense has poked holes in some of 1-4, IMO. 1-4 are all involved, AFAIK in the reasonableness doctrine of Graham v Connor.

5) Mr Floyd died due to the hypoxia caused by the restraint.
6) Prosecution agrees that cardiomegaly and atherosclerosis of the cardiac arteries were present.
7) Prosecution agrees that fentanyl and methamphetamine (amongst other substances), were found in Mr Floyd's blood.

Prosecution argues that #5 was the substantial causative factor in Mr Floyd's death, and therefore DC is responsible.
Defense has been trying to question that assertion, and I expect they will continue to do so.

What else does the prosecution have to do to prove cause?
What doubts have been raised by the defense so far?
What does the defense have to do to overcome the prosecution's case?

I'm not getting much of anything else done, but I am eagerly awaiting what we will hear next week.

Thanks for putting that together, my mind has been weighed down with all the medical stuff today, it's easy to forget that there are other factors like the one's you listed in 1-4.

OT? lol I took a break to watch the Minnesota Wild lose in overtime grrrrr!

 

[missy1974]

You might be surprised, the dog in my example, may have been found with pill fragments in his mouth, may have been unsupervised for less than 5 minutes, and may quickly have been showing CNS depression on the drive to a veterinary clinic. (Once clinically stable, the guardian of said dog, may have trimmed said dog's nails, while he was less combative than usual)

Is your dog okay?

This is why I like bouncing thoughts and ideas around with other people. We all have different life exeriences!

 

[kittythehare]

dog died RIP.
cos though the dog took some things, pet sitter hated poor dog and smothered him while pretending do committed suicide by overdose.
Then the vet pretending to do a necropsy never bothered doing a full necropsy. Owner is distraught.

 

[missy1974]

they may also have evidence of an incomplete autopsy.

Something isn't sitting with me well about Baker. I can't figure it out at the moment. I think it's really strange that they didn't put him on first, and then the other experts to back him up. It bothers me that he seemed more comfortable on the stand when the defense was questioning him than he did the State. It was very unusual to watch. I also don't recall an ME refer to other specialists as often as he did. He did the autopsy that the other experts relied on for their opinions, yet he spent less time on the stand testifying about that autopsy??? Strange IMO

 

[MsBetsy]

I just went down a rabbit hole and found a 71 page article that I think is of interest as to pleading of the 5th for our passenger in this case.

I've only read the first 3 pages.... may read more later, or perhaps someone else (@CrimeAway ?) wants to take a shot at reading the first 3 to see if they too might think related to what is going on in this case.

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1701&context=facpub

ETA: Adding this so all is in one post on passenger Floyd's passenger emerges as complicated figure in Chauvin trial

ETA #2: Adding so all is in one post 3/25/21 Maurice Hall, Friend of George Floyd, Speaks to Court TV - Court TV

Are you referring to the part about the prosecution's monopoly over granting use immunity?

It says, "if the prosecution refuses to grant immunity, the court will invoke a categorical rule against benefitting from a witness assertion of priviledge."

"Thus, the court will prevent Defendant from calling witness before the jury."

It's on page 3, after they mention the three impediments that block the defendant from obtaining evidence from the witness.

 

[kittythehare]

Something isn't sitting with me well about Baker. I can't figure it out at the moment. I think it's really strange that they didn't put him on first, and then the other experts to back him up. It bothers me that he seemed more comfortable on the stand when the defense was questioning him than he did the State. It was very unusual to watch. I also don't recall an ME refer to other specialists as often as he did. He did the autopsy that the other experts relied on for their opinions, yet he spent less time on the stand testifying about that autopsy??? Strange IMO

I wasn't going to be hanging on his every word because I figured he would only attest to what was in his autopsy.
I neither liked nor disliked him.
He persisted in withholding the word asphyxia from his testimony though the lady that works with him did use it in her testimony and so did all of the other medical experts that have testified.
So, maybe he felt he could not have used the word 'asphyxia' because he is pedantic in nature.

Still though, he should, IMO have known that there exists a therapeutic use for methamphetamine.

There is no good reason not to send stomach contents for laboratory analysis in any autopsy without a very good reason. That reason does not appear to exist.
Only a certain number of standard drugs are tested as a general rule. A tox screen doesn't analyse every substance in the planet, just the more general ones.

Suppose GF had consumed another substance that they didn't search? Suppose he died of that and not asphyxia? A substance that had the same effect as asphyxiation?

I seem to recall and correct me on this, that he released his autopsy report prior to receiving the toxicology result which fired up the protests, no end. That is merely my feeble memory of the time and I could be dead wrong.
Then yesterday he testified the RCA had 90% occlusion, yet his report stated it had 75% occlusion.
That's a very substantial difference. And his report stated this prior to him receiving the tox screen results.

Which was it?

And the shenanigans were happening as well, not fully got my head around all of those yet though.
JMO

 

[missy1974]

Suppose GF had consumed another substance that they didn't search? Suppose he died of that and not asphyxia? A substance that had the same effect as asphyxiation?

I seem to recall and correct me on this, that he released his autopsy report prior to receiving the toxicology result which fired up the protests, no end. That is merely my feeble memory of the time and I could be dead wrong.

RSBM

Your first paragraph... now you sound like Nelson

It was the charging documents that were released to the public when they charged Chauvin that created the outcry.



Preliminary finding no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation.
DocumentCloud

IIRC he got the toxicology report back before the autopsy report was complete. I believe he said he got them the morning he completed the autopsy report.

Hope that helps!

ETA: I think it was that meeting about the preliminary autopsy results that may have lead the first prosecutors no longer working on the case, or at least not directly.

 

[mickey2942]

But prosecutors don't have to prove that Chauvin's actions alone caused Floyd's death, according to Minnesota's guidelines for jury instructions in criminal cases. According to the state and the defense's proposed jury instructions, "  'To cause' means to be a substantial causal factor in causing the death. … The fact that other causes contribute to the death does not relieve the defendant of criminal liability."

Cause of death at issue in Derek Chauvin trial

When the man said, "I can't breathe.". He should have been moved to another position. There were FOUR armed, LEO there. Was GF such a threat, that he couldn't have been put in another position?

He was cuffed. Was there a safety issue to the public, the officers, GF? Once GF was in custody, under control of the officers, they were responsible for at least ensuring that he could breathe.