George Floyd death / Derek Chauvin trial - Sidebar week 3

[Factoria]

On a "lighter" hypothetical. You're wrongfully charged with murder. Which of the attorneys in this case would you hire to be your defense? I know defense/presecutors are trained differently, but who has given you the impression that they're the best lawyer in this court room? For me, I'd hire Schleicher with Nelson being a close second. I hope this doesn't violate WS rules...was just something I kept thinking as I've watched the entire trial.

I'd probably hire Hall's lawyer.

 

[BoyThatsWeird]

I just went back to read about the jurors... from the sounds of this, will she even be able to explain it to others??? @Tippy Lynn do you recall this line of questioning?

No. 89: White woman, 50s
She said she’s a cardiac care nurse who lives in the suburbs.

She was questioned in depth about her medical training and whether she would second-guess police on resuscitation efforts. She was also asked whether she would reference her nursing experience during deliberations. She said she could avoid it, and would not act as an expert during deliberations.

“I think I can be impartial and listen to instructions and go with what I’m given and ignore the outside stuff,” she said.

Your post reminded me of something I was thinking about during jury selection. Potential jurors were asked something similar to the part I bolded above. Are you able to put aside your education, knowledge training and base your decisions on what you've heard in court through expert witnesses. It never made any sense to me. The most basic example that I thought that shows how it doesn't make sense to me is if an expert witness testifies that 2+2=5. Obviously this is an extreme example, but I think it illustrates my point. Are jurors supposed to put their knowledge/education aside and trust the "expert" witness? Maybe I misunderstood the reasoning of these questions...

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Is the nurse on the jury allowed to testify to the other jurors about medical issues while deliberating? Isn't the jury only allowed to consider evidence that was given to them in court? JMO

ETA Thanks Missy1974. You answered my question.

 

[dixiegirl1035]

Does anyone here know: Are all Exhibits available somewhere for public access? I'm specifically looking for EMS reports (I think they're called 'run sheets'), and I'm not even sure whether those full reports were entered as exhibits that the jury will have access to in deliberations, demonstrative exhibits that they will not have access to, or if jurors are meant to rely solely on their memory of the paramedics' testimony in the courtroom.

WHY did no one ask of Mr. Smith what the monitor showed GF's O2 saturation to be when they first began monitoring?!?! He did testify on direct examination that he was monitoring for heart rhythm, electrical activity, CO2, pulse ox... (and possibly other things ~ I had a hard time deciphering all that he said). Surely they all had access to the actual reports from EMS, and all of this information would have been recorded. Considering the fact that the State's position is that GF's cause of death was low oxygen, this would be KEY information, IMO. We know that ABG measured O2 sats at 98%, and CO2 sats at 89% in the ER, but that (those? possibly multiple draws?) blood draw was done at least half an hour after resuscitative efforts by EMS had begun (including CPR and mechanical ventilation), which I presume would have increased O2 levels, even though George was not really responding to the treatment. This really irks me...

Based on my own research (because it wasn't directly addressed in the courtroom, as far as I could find), I believe that the extremely elevated CO2 sats (89%, where normal is between 35 - 45%, per Dr. Tobin's original testimony) likely can be related in some way to determining O2 levels, but presumably not in the exact same manner as CO levels, as those are more absolute in their relativity. Once CO binds to hemoglobin protein, it cannot be displaced by O2 (so Carbon MONOxide levels could not have been more than 2% at any time), but I don't believe that to be true of CO2. The gas exchange of the breathing process as it relates to O2 and CO2 seems to be more complex; I'm not an expert in the field, and having some difficulty understanding the exact calculable formulae. (Please help me, Dr. Tobin! lol)

I bring this up because being reminded of that ABG reading of O2 saturation of 98% brought forward in yesterday's testimony really jumped out at me as being contradictory to the State's claim of COD being 'low oxygen'... (I have a regular, resting O2 sat of 93, due to a chronic health condition and I haven't dropped dead yet! I live, work, walk my 75-pound dog every day, all without supplemental oxygen therapy.) I can't help but wonder if any of the jurors would find that rather odd as well, and possibly raise some reasonable doubt as to COD. Hopefully, the juror who is a nurse will be able to explain to anyone who may pose that during deliberations, as they won't have opportunity or means to independently research as I have done. Causes me some concern. All MOO.

So much in here to address. But keep in mind as you correctly have stated, that carbon dioxide (which you exhale) is totally different than carbon monoxide poisoning (from exhaust theory). Carbon monoxide poisoning has no antidote. It sticks to hemoglobin like white on rice, vs. carbon dioxide which is easily replaced through more oxygen to balance.

MOO.

ETA: Testimony can only be reread in court. Only *exhibits* are back with jury. *Demonstrable exhibits* are not allowed in deliberations @Factoria.

 

[MsBetsy]

One of the officers did testify that the car was running, they turned it off when it was loaded for towing or something.
I think the State could have left the carbon monoxide thing alone and been better off without leaving the jury with that testimony yesterday. They have 4 days to sit on it. JMO

I think it was the defense that brought up the carbon monoxide poisoning, when Dr. Fowler gave the jury misleading information. The State had no choice but to respond. It was Dr. Fowler who had referred those kinds of questions to a pulmonologist, which would be Dr. Tobin. He explained why Dr Fowler's claim was impossible.

If the officers left the car running, then they should have not only known the dangers of positional asphyxiation, but also for carbon monoxide poisoning. Imo

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I’ve never watched a full trial and this was the first one I’ve watched from start finish. My perspective might be totally off but I got the impression that the defense didn’t really try to prove anything. Instead the just tried to sprinkle a bunch of different “reasonable doubt” scenarios. Didn’t try to prove the carbon monoxide was a large factor, or that he certainly overdosed, or that DC's knee wasn’t on his neck, or that GF says “I ate too many drugs”, or that the crowd was an aggressive threat, or that GFs narrowing of arteries caused his death, or that the enlarged heart/high BP caused the death, and on and on and on. I feel like they just threw a bunch of "reasonable doubt" at a wall and hope that it sticks with one juror.

That sounds right to me.

During trial, the prosecutor must prove the defendant’s guilt of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution fails to meet this burden, the jury (or judge) must acquit the defendant. Defendants don’t need to prove their innocence. Still, they have the right to defend themselves by attacking the prosecution’s case and trying to raise reasonable doubt. Even if the prosecution succeeds, the defense might be able to raise defenses showing that the case should be thrown out or the defendant’s conduct was justified or excused

Common Defenses to a Criminal Charge

 

[Factoria]

So much in here to address. But keep in mind as you correctly have stated, that carbon dioxide (which you exhale) is totally different than carbon monoxide poisoning (from exhaust theory). Carbon monoxide poisoning has no antidote. It sticks to hemoglobin like white on rice, vs. carbon dioxide which is easily replaced through more oxygen to balance.

MOO.

ETA: Testimony can only be reread in court. Only *exhibits* are back with jury. *Demonstrable exhibits* are not allowed in deliberations @Factoria.

Yes, I'm sure the Carbon DIOxide levels were due to GF's inability to breathe freely ~ normal exhalation is how we get rid of CO2 naturally, and it's replaced by oxygen as we inhale (if breathing is uninhibited). Carbon MONOxide is an entirely different issue, and I don't believe was of any consequence for GF in this situation. So, I am confident that death was directly caused by GF's inability to breathe freely... but will the jurors accept that as certain beyond a reasonable doubt, based solely on what was presented in Court?

 

[dixiegirl1035]

Your post reminded me of something I was thinking about during jury selection. Potential jurors were asked something similar to the part I bolded above. Are you able to put aside your education, knowledge training and base your decisions on what you've heard in court through expert witnesses. It never made any sense to me. The most basic example that I thought that shows how it doesn't make sense to me is if an expert witness testifies that 2+2=5. Obviously this is an extreme example, but I think it illustrates my point. Are jurors supposed to put their knowledge/education aside and trust the "expert" witness? Maybe I misunderstood the reasoning of these questions...

There are sooooooooooo many scholarly articles on this subject. This is just one that I found.

I believe this specific one to be a good read and is relevant to discussion. MOO
https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1127&context=faculty_lawreviews

ETA: After reading completely, an excellent read MOO

 

[dixiegirl1035]

I think it was the defense that brought up the carbon monoxide poisoning, when Dr. Fowler gave the jury misleading information. The State had no choice but to respond. It was Dr. Fowler who had referred those kinds of questions to a pulmonologist, which would be Dr. Tobin. He explained why Dr Fowler's claim was impossible.

If the officers left the car running, then they should have not only known the dangers of positional asphyxiation, but also for carbon monoxide poisoning. Imo

I don't recall testimony on training or ??? on dangers of CO poisoning through training and experience from trial . Many discussions on positional ashyxiation.

Can you direct me to who/when discussed such training and experience?

 

[Katerz]

I will admit that I've often been pages behind in threads, so it's entirely possible that some posts you've read may have been removed before I got there... And, I may be wrong in thinking that posts stating an opinion that some of GF's actions may have been a contributing factor in his death don't read as 'victim blaming' in my opinion. I don't believe anyone here thinks that George Floyd deserved to die. JMO.

BBM. Nobody deserves to die. Especially like this.

 

[Factoria]

BBM. Nobody deserves to die. Especially like this.

Agreed. 100%. For the record, and as I've stated multiple times in these threads, I believe that DC is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as to the primary causal factor in the death of GF. Still undecided on which charge(s) until I see the final version of the Judge's charge. It's okay for us to agree to disagree on things... I want to hear everyone's opinions.

 

[MadMcGoo]

Family is LE but i also had a cop tell me I can do what I want and get away with it,, SMFH #BLACK LIVES MATTER Not all LE are good

I’m sorry you had that experience.

 

[MadMcGoo]

I do not believe at all Mr. Floyd deserved to die. He is a victim. ETA: I see much, much more here than simply a fake bill or a knee on the neck.

I’m well aware that most people disagree with my opinions. That’s ok, they’re just that - opinions. I strongly disagree with a lot of statements made here and elsewhere about this case. But I respect the right we have to share and discuss them.

 

[missy1974]

Does anyone here know: Are all Exhibits available somewhere for public access? I'm specifically looking for EMS reports (I think they're called 'run sheets'), and I'm not even sure whether those full reports were entered as exhibits that the jury will have access to in deliberations, demonstrative exhibits that they will not have access to, or if jurors are meant to rely solely on their memory of the paramedics' testimony in the courtroom.

WHY did no one ask of Mr. Smith what the monitor showed GF's O2 saturation to be when they first began monitoring?!?! He did testify on direct examination that he was monitoring for heart rhythm, electrical activity, CO2, pulse ox... (and possibly other things ~ I had a hard time deciphering all that he said). Surely they all had access to the actual reports from EMS, and all of this information would have been recorded. Considering the fact that the State's position is that GF's cause of death was low oxygen, this would be KEY information, IMO. We know that ABG measured O2 sats at 98%, and CO2 sats at 89% in the ER, but that (those? possibly multiple draws?) blood draw was done at least half an hour after resuscitative efforts by EMS had begun (including CPR and mechanical ventilation), which I presume would have increased O2 levels, even though George was not really responding to the treatment. This really irks me...

Based on my own research (because it wasn't directly addressed in the courtroom, as far as I could find), I believe that the extremely elevated CO2 sats (89%, where normal is between 35 - 45%, per Dr. Tobin's original testimony) likely can be related in some way to determining O2 levels, but presumably not in the exact same manner as CO levels, as those are more absolute in their relativity. Once CO binds to hemoglobin protein, it cannot be displaced by O2 (so Carbon MONOxide levels could not have been more than 2% at any time), but I don't believe that to be true of CO2. The gas exchange of the breathing process as it relates to O2 and CO2 seems to be more complex; I'm not an expert in the field, and having some difficulty understanding the exact calculable formulae. (Please help me, Dr. Tobin! lol)

I bring this up because being reminded of that ABG reading of O2 saturation of 98% brought forward in yesterday's testimony really jumped out at me as being contradictory to the State's claim of COD being 'low oxygen'... (I have a regular, resting O2 sat of 93, due to a chronic health condition and I haven't dropped dead yet! I live, work, walk my 75-pound dog every day, all without supplemental oxygen therapy.) I can't help but wonder if any of the jurors would find that rather odd as well, and possibly raise some reasonable doubt as to COD. Hopefully, the juror who is a nurse will be able to explain to anyone who may pose that during deliberations, as they won't have opportunity or means to independently research as I have done. Causes me some concern. All MOO.

ETA: Now that I'm more caught up, I see that I'm not the only one who's concerned or confused about this, and am off to check out some of the links provided by others. TY!

I have been researching it too and will also be going back to some testimony to see if I can find any additional information. Thanks for the info from the EMT testimony, I can skip it now LOL

From what I have been reading, it's not as simple as it sounds and Blackwell should have had Tobin explain it if he could.

I could not find that any of the labs that were done in the ER or runsheets were introduced as exhibits, but will pay attention if I do.

Who knows though.. maybe the jury will think nothing of it?

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I have been researching it too and will also be going back to some testimony to see if I can find any additional information. Thanks for the info from the EMT testimony, I can skip it now LOL

From what I have been reading, it's not as simple as it sounds and Blackwell should have had Tobin explain it if he could.

I could not find that any of the labs that were done in the ER or runsheets were introduced as exhibits, but will pay attention if I do.

Who knows though.. maybe the jury will think nothing of it?

Maybe the jury will think nothing of it or they may wonder about it and why the o2 level wasn't explained better. JMO

 

[Leve]

I don't believe the Officers acted the way they did because GF passed a fake $20. Thats like saying Tanya Slaton got 10 years for an expired tag. Yes, a state trooper pulled her over for an expired tag. Then he smelled decomp and found her dead son in the trunk.

Officers were called because GF passed a fake 20 bill. Maybe he would have been just issued a ticket/summons BUT he was obviously under the influence so things progressed from there. And no, I don't believe people under the influence should be killed by LE.

 

[missy1974]

jury instruction update.... still nothing on the court site! booooo

No idea if they will be filed for sure or not, I was hoping they would

 

[Niner]

jury instruction update.... still nothing on the court site! booooo

No idea if they will be filed for sure or not, I was hoping they would

I thought I read that the Judge would have the final out today sometime... Maybe before 5pm.

 

[Factoria]

I have been researching it too and will also be going back to some testimony to see if I can find any additional information. Thanks for the info from the EMT testimony, I can skip it now LOL

From what I have been reading, it's not as simple as it sounds and Blackwell should have had Tobin explain it if he could.

I could not find that any of the labs that were done in the ER or runsheets were introduced as exhibits, but will pay attention if I do.

Who knows though.. maybe the jury will think nothing of it?

Yes, I'm guilty of being uber-analytical of EVERYTHING, ALL THE TIME, so it's very possible that I'm honing in on something that others may not question. Glad to hear I'm not the ONLY one, though! lol

 

[missy1974]

Yes, I'm guilty of being uber-analytical of EVERYTHING, ALL THE TIME, so it's very possible that I'm honing in on something that others may not question. Glad to hear I'm not the ONLY one, though! lol

lol no, I'm seeing questions everywhere about it.

The answers are conflicting, which is why I wish they had him clarify. I think Blackwell dropped the ball on that one, I think he was so nervous that the wrong thing was going to be said he wasn't on his toes. But that is JMO