Cahill calls a recess until 3:15 and then summons counsel to his chambers. Someone is in trouble. I'm guessing it's the attorney for the state.

Quote:

---

I'm guessing it's the attorney for the state.

---

He does tons of stuff I do not like, but what do you think the issue here might be?

Second-degree manslaughter seems to be an appropriate charge.

Quote:

---

A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:
(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another;

---

There was a risk in putting him in that hold position for an extended period of time knowing he had complained of difficulty breathing. IMO this is where he's convicted.

I don't see how they can prove the depraved mind aspect of third-degree murder.

schwack schwack said:

---

The state strikes anyone with even a glimmer of respect for law enforcement. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but have all of their strikes been white males?

---

You are forgetting the white female attorney the state also struck.

And I don't know if all of the state's peremptories have been used on solely white jurors since we can't see them but that is my impression yes.

The thing about a Batson these days is that there just aren't that many cases that directly involve race anymore. Even this case contains no allegations of racial animus against Chauvin nor the other officers. We don't have a Furman "N-word" type of evidence.

However, it may well be that Cahill is noticing a pattern that the state is using and that is why he summoned counsel to his chambers. That's the first time I have seen Cahill do that. Being summoned from open court to the judge's chambers is akin to being sent to the principal's office. Judge ain't happy about something.

Quote:

---

There was a risk in putting him in that hold position for an extended period of time knowing he had complained of difficulty breathing. IMO this is where he's convicted.

---

One big problem with that. The time he was in the restraint was directly impacted by the delay in response of EMS and fire department. Dispatcher gave the wrong address.

How can that be the officers' fault? They even increased the severity of the call to EMS when the knee restraint was applied, as per procedure.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

There was a risk in putting him in that hold position for an extended period of time knowing he had complained of difficulty breathing. IMO this is where he's convicted.

---

One big problem with that. The time he was in the restraint was directly impacted by the delay in response of EMS and fire department. Dispatcher gave the wrong address.

How can that be the officers' fault? They even increased the severity of the call to EMS when the knee restraint was applied, as per procedure.

---

Thanks very much for sharing your knowledge and insights. I am sure I am not the only one who appreciates them very much.

Juror #49. Male.

schwack schwack said:

---

The state strikes anyone with even a glimmer of respect for law enforcement. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but have all of their strikes been white males?

---

funny how our court system and government seems to hate anyone who actually believes in our court system, blind justice under the law, law enforcement agencies or original form of government.

He says he cannot dismiss his opinions and he can't put them aside. Strike for cause incoming.

Buh-bye.

And that was the last juror for today. Murphy's law they sent the other jurors home.

Oh and BTW, it was the state's attorney who questioned the Iraqi war vet about where he was stationed, and when. Media can use that info to identify them.

Also when the state attorney was brow beating that gal into changing her mind. He revealed she was a recent colleg grad and living at home with her parents. That provides her approximate age among other things.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

There was a risk in putting him in that hold position for an extended period of time knowing he had complained of difficulty breathing. IMO this is where he's convicted.

---

One big problem with that. The time he was in the restraint was directly impacted by the delay in response of EMS and fire department. Dispatcher gave the wrong address.

How can that be the officers' fault? They even increased the severity of the call to EMS when the knee restraint was applied, as per procedure.

---

Haven't watched the video in a long time, how long after Floyd seems unresponsive does the hold continue? I think the case may hinge on that.

At the point Floyd stops breathing, the EMS response time is it not relevant to how long you keep the hold on. If he's not breathing, you roll him over and start basic life support. He complained of shortness of breath before the hold was applied, another officer suggested laying him on his side, and the hold was kept on despite no one apparently checking his breathing or responsiveness. To me, that's where the negligence comes in. You've already acknowledged the need for medical attention but kept the hold on without checking on him.

I was out for about 2 and a half minutes.

Floyd was saying he couldn't breath when he as by himself and before they put hands on him.

Quote:

---

Haven't watched the video in a long time, how long after Floyd seems unresponsive does the hold continue? I think the case may hinge on that.

At the point Floyd stops breathing, the EMS response time is it not relevant to how long you keep the hold on. If he's not breathing, you roll him over and start basic life support. He complained of shortness of breath before the hold was applied, another officer suggested laying him on his side, and the hold was kept on despite no one apparently checking his breathing or responsiveness. To me, that's where the negligence comes in. You've already acknowledged the need for medical attention but kept the hold on without checking on him.

---

From the timing on the various body cams, it would appear to have been right about two minutes that the restraint was maintained after Floyd appeared to lose consciousness. And during the end of that time was when EMS finally rolled up.

Obviously ME's can't determine the precise moment of death in this case as he could have been unconscious and non responsive but still breathing. Not saying that happened but that the medical evidence cannot make that determination either.

The biggest mistake was not rolling him over and checking his airway and carotid for a pulse when the other officer said he could not find one in Floyd's wrist. But again EMS was arriving on scene right about then about a minute or so. Again that is based from times from the various body cams and I'm unsure if they were all synced up as to time displayed. I assume they are but haven't seen confirmation of that.

One other thing, from Chauvin's position, could he even determine if Floyd was breathing? I would think the officer on his back and the one holding his legs would have had better positioning to monitor that. Why I really want to the expert testimony on use of force, knee restraints and excited delirium.

No matter how many times I have read that autopsy report somehow missed this. Let's look again.



Paragraph VI. Toxicology (see attached report for full details; testing performed on antemortem blood specimens collected 9:00 pm at HHC and on postmortem urine)

Antemortem=before death.

Postmortem=after death.

He was not pronounced DOA at the hospital. Need a doctor to pronounce him of course but I'd expect the autopsy report to not use that precise a term as "antemortem" when the only difference being s doctor making the pronouncement. Instead the wording should say "specimens collected 9:00 pm upon presentation to HHC."

In terms of pathology reports, I have no choice but to assume words like "postmortem" and "antemortem" mean a medical determination and not just a term of art.

Doctors here? Are those determinations of antemortem and postmortem truly only dependent on doc calling the time of death and little else? Confused.

Anybody watch the interview on Court TV with Dr Cyril Wecht that aired around 5:30 today?

Pretty damning for the defense. He was very adamant that the death was by asphyxiation.

ruddyduck said:

---

schwack schwack said:

---

The state strikes anyone with even a glimmer of respect for law enforcement. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but have all of their strikes been white males?

---

funny how our court system and government seems to hate anyone who actually believes in our court system, blind justice under the law, law enforcement agencies or original form of government.

---

I was called for jury duty this past month. I asked to be rotated to May or June because of a health issue and the response, after they reviewed my answers to the questionnaire was "you're excused from all jury duty". I think they got to the part about me being a retired LEO.

Okay the second use of antemortem in the autopsy about Floyd having sickle cell/

Quote:

---

Comments: The finding of sickled-appearing cells in many of the autopsy tissue sections prompted the Hemoglobin S quantitation reported above. This quantitative result is indicative of sickle cell trait. Red blood cells in individuals with sickle cell trait are known to sickle as a postmortem artifact. The decedent's antemortem peripheral blood smear (made from a complete blood count collected 5/25/20 at 9:00 p.m.) was reviewed by an expert HHC hematopathologist at the Medical Examiner's request. This review found no evidence of antemortem sickling. The decedent was known to be positive for 2019-nCoV RNA on 4/3/2020. Since PCR positivity for 2019-nCoV RNA can persist for weeks after the onset and resolution of clinical disease, the autopsy result most likely reflects asymptomatic but persistent PCR positivity from previous infection.

---

Link

Again, use of antemortem samples. But question is, if his hemoglobin is 38% impaired from an antemortem sample? How much oxygenated blood was Floyd getting on a stress free, drug free day?

Or am I misreading that?

ItsA&InotA&M said:

---

Anybody watch the interview on Court TV with Dr Cyril Wecht that aired around 5:30 today?

Pretty damning for the defense. He was very adamant that the death was by asphyxiation.

---

The only Doctor who has claimed asphyxiation, did so before the tox and tissue sample reports came back and based his findings upon some "abrasions to" Floyd's cheek.

(Psst! Dr. Michael Baden was that doc hired by the Floyd family. Even the prosecution has refused to call him as witness.)

ItsA&InotA&M said:

---

Anybody watch the interview on Court TV with Dr Cyril Wecht that aired around 5:30 today?

Pretty damning for the defense. He was very adamant that the death was by asphyxiation.

---

Why is what this doctor is saying damning for the defense?

UTExan said:

---

ruddyduck said:

---

schwack schwack said:

---

The state strikes anyone with even a glimmer of respect for law enforcement. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but have all of their strikes been white males?

---

funny how our court system and government seems to hate anyone who actually believes in our court system, blind justice under the law, law enforcement agencies or original form of government.

---

I was called for jury duty this past month. I asked to be rotated to May or June because of a health issue and the response, after they reviewed my answers to the questionnaire was "you're excused from all jury duty". I think they got to the part about me being a retired LEO.

---

Like me being a retired trial attorney. Since we live in a rural area, that has now been also applied to The Hubs. Although as I have already posted before in this thread, he had his own (and truly felt) way of getting off jury duty in criminal trials.

BTW, I loved having LEOs on my juries even though I practiced civil law. I just wanted a juror who could apply logic to facts presented. And they already had a leg up on the law and how it works. I found that translated well to the civil setting. They already knew had to assemble the jigsaw puzzle of applying facts to the law and vice versa.

aginlakeway said:

---

ItsA&InotA&M said:

---

Anybody watch the interview on Court TV with Dr Cyril Wecht that aired around 5:30 today?

Pretty damning for the defense. He was very adamant that the death was by asphyxiation.

---

Why is what this doctor is saying damning for the defense?

---

That the knee on the throat was the sole cause of death. Nothing else was responsible for the death, not the drugs etc, just the knee cutting off the airway.

aggiehawg said:

---

No matter how many times I have read that autopsy report somehow missed this. Let's look again.



Paragraph VI. Toxicology (see attached report for full details; testing performed on antemortem blood specimens collected 9:00 pm at HHC and on postmortem urine)

Antemortem=before death.

Postmortem=after death.

He was not pronounced DOA at the hospital. Need a doctor to pronounce him of course but I'd expect the autopsy report to not use that precise a term as "antemortem" when the only difference being s doctor making the pronouncement. Instead the wording should say "specimens collected 9:00 pm upon presentation to HHC."

In terms of pathology reports, I have no choice but to assume words like "postmortem" and "antemortem" mean a medical determination and not just a term of art.

Doctors here? Are those determinations of antemortem and postmortem truly only dependent on doc calling the time of death and little else? Confused.

---

Just a guess here, but the "antemortem" specimens were probably assays done off of blood taken by paramedics and/or nurses as he was coded. Postmortem samples were likely done by the medical examiner. I wouldn't try to read too much into it otherwise, especially if you're trying to determine time of actual death vs when is was declared.

aggiehawg said:

---

No matter how many times I have read that autopsy report somehow missed this. Let's look again.



Paragraph VI. Toxicology (see attached report for full details; testing performed on antemortem blood specimens collected 9:00 pm at HHC and on postmortem urine)

Antemortem=before death.

Postmortem=after death.

He was not pronounced DOA at the hospital. Need a doctor to pronounce him of course but I'd expect the autopsy report to not use that precise a term as "antemortem" when the only difference being s doctor making the pronouncement. Instead the wording should say "specimens collected 9:00 pm upon presentation to HHC."

In terms of pathology reports, I have no choice but to assume words like "postmortem" and "antemortem" mean a medical determination and not just a term of art.

Doctors here? Are those determinations of antemortem and postmortem truly only dependent on doc calling the time of death and little else? Confused.

---

Marijuana, amphetamines, fentanyl, and morphine!

By the way, I saw that his "estate" is getting $27 million from Minneapolis. That makes him worth about 27,000,000 times more dead than he was ever worth alive.

ItsA&InotA&M said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

ItsA&InotA&M said:

---

Anybody watch the interview on Court TV with Dr Cyril Wecht that aired around 5:30 today?

Pretty damning for the defense. He was very adamant that the death was by asphyxiation.

---

Why is what this doctor is saying damning for the defense?

---

That the knee on the throat was the sole cause of death. Nothing else was responsible for the death, not the drugs etc, just the knee cutting off the airway.

---

OK. But again ... why is what THIS DOCTOR is saying damning for the defense? Is this doctor testifying for the state?

aggiehawg said:

---

ItsA&InotA&M said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

ItsA&InotA&M said:

---

Anybody watch the interview on Court TV with Dr Cyril Wecht that aired around 5:30 today?

Pretty damning for the defense. He was very adamant that the death was by asphyxiation.

---

Why is what this doctor is saying damning for the defense?

---

That the knee on the throat was the sole cause of death. Nothing else was responsible for the death, not the drugs etc, just the knee cutting off the airway.

---

Then he is an idiot, has not read any of the medical reports just went off what he saw on a small portion of video on the internet.

His opinion is worthless. he is not informed.

---

BINGO!

Quote:

---

Just a guess here, but the "antemortem" specimens were probably assays done off of blood taken by paramedics and/or nurses as he was coded. Postmortem samples were likely done by the medical examiner. I wouldn't try to read too much into it otherwise, especially if you're trying to determine time of actual death vs when is was declared.

---

Thank you so much for the response because I just want to know the truth.

But I have some quibbles and need help to resolve them.

First, if he is coding in the ambulance, he wasn't dead in the street, correct?

Second, when he codes in the ambulance, the HHC is advised of that, correct?

Third, do EMTs really take blood samples while a patient is coding? *(Asked the firefighter/EMT husband and the response was no.)

Fourth, we know when the samples were taken and where. Saying postmortem samples were done by the ME only raises other questions. Can you see where I am going here and how your response creates more doubt?

aginlakeway said:

---

ItsA&InotA&M said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

ItsA&InotA&M said:

---

Anybody watch the interview on Court TV with Dr Cyril Wecht that aired around 5:30 today?

Pretty damning for the defense. He was very adamant that the death was by asphyxiation.

---

Why is what this doctor is saying damning for the defense?

---

That the knee on the throat was the sole cause of death. Nothing else was responsible for the death, not the drugs etc, just the knee cutting off the airway.

---

OK. But again ... why is what THIS DOCTOR is saying damning for the defense? Is this doctor testifying for the state?

---

No. Not on the witness list that I have seen.

Neither is Dr. Baden nor his partner, Dr. Wilson.

In fact there has been quite the kerflufle over the prosecution refusing to call them during this pretrial stage.

I can go into the weeds on that if you need. I already did so earlier in the thread when it was a topic of argument inside the courtroom.

I was referring to the court of public opinion.

ItsA&InotA&M said:

---

I was referring to the court of public opinion.

---

To which I respond:

Quote:

---

Mob law does not become due process of law by securing the assent of a terrorized jury.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, dissent in the appeal of Leo Frank, April 19, 1915

---

Think about that before you post on this thread again.

ItsA&InotA&M said:

---

I was referring to the court of public opinion.

---

OK. But what does that have to do with the trial?

schwack schwack said:

---

Why would the prosecutor even want anyone that he had to "force" onto the jury? Unless he's trying to get them to backpedal a little bit & force the defense to use a strike. Sheesh. I like this grinning fool less every day.

---

because many in that profession, on either side of the issue, are jackasses on a power trip. They see the world as them and then everyone else.

aginlakeway said:

---

ItsA&InotA&M said:

---

I was referring to the court of public opinion.

---

OK. But what does that have to do with the trial?

---

Nothing, but it will be used by democrats and the media for more democrat state sponsored riots.

zoneag said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

ItsA&InotA&M said:

---

I was referring to the court of public opinion.

---

OK. But what does that have to do with the trial?

---

Nothing, but it will be used by democrats and the media for more democrat state sponsored riots.

---

OK.