Author Topic: Chauvin Trial and verdict  (Read 9051 times)

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17491
    • View Profile
Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
« Reply #90 on: April 22, 2021, 02:05:33 PM »
Peter writes:
What is problematic about discourse these days is the tendency to shout down opposing viewpoints rather than engage with them. You agree with the academic/cultural consensus that I disagree with, but you do not engage. You do not answer questions. You simply say, "How dare you? Everyone disagrees with you! You must be a bad person!"
I comment:
Oh, just stop. That response is not typical of you and it is unworthy of you. Iím not talking about being a ďa bad person.Ē Iím talking about seeing society the way it is. You talk about a lens. Well there are lenses and there are lenses. Some focus; some show a broader view. And some actually obscure the True View. I believe yours does.

Peter:
Your ongoing efforts to link me with white nationalism is an example. It is a mere attempt to isolate and stigmatize.
Me:
It is not. And your response is an effort to stop the discussion about it.

Peter:
And it often works; people are intimidated or shamed into refusing to discuss certain topics. But even when it works it is shameful, and it leads to a toxic environment of accusation, suspicion, defensiveness, and virtue-signalling.
Me:
I would be surprised if you are intimidated. I do not think you have an accurate view of the real situation and it has nothing to do with assumptions or lenses. And you are making improper links between the discussion of sexuality and racism as they are two totally different aspects of our society and our relationship with one another.
You write that I can ďonly point to different outcomes among racial groups.ď what measurement would you use in evaluating differences in groups access to education, housing, healthcare, equality before the law, and education? If certain groups have massively less access to these things than certain other groups, why is that? And if those certain groups happen to be people of color, and the other groups happen to be white, what is that?
You think the links are improper because you don't even try to find the point of comparison. I was not comparing race to sexuality; I was comparing areas in which a difference in foundational assumptions can lead to a disagreement with the academic/cultural consensus, which doesn't mean cluelessness or lack of understanding, but, as I said, difference of assumption. A strict 6 day, literal creationist might disagree with every scientist he comes across. That doesn't mean he is clueless about evolution or doesn't understand it. It means he starts from a different set of assumptions.

You don't even realize how much your lens affects you. I've brought it up before in this forum when Dave Benke brought up race in regard to my critique of the Super Bowl halftime show. People who grow accustomed to thinking in those terms see racism where there is none and don't even apologize when they falsely accuse people of being racist. You have persisted in your ludicrous association of me with white nationalism because you don't think such slander is anything to apologize for. That is because you don't even see it as slander. My failure to look at the world through your lens gives you permission to accuse me of such things.

That different racial groups can different outcomes without racism being the cause is obvious. It happens everywhere all the time. Different cultures value different things. Different histories lead to different conditions. Mississippi underperforms Minnesota by virtually any metric, but I don't think the U.S is systemically biased against Mississippi. I think a lot of historical and cultural factors explain the disparity. Similarly, historic racism-- redlining, segregation, etc. was really systemic racism. But that is all gone. Show me a remnant of systemic racism and I'll join you in eliminating it. The lingering of effects of past systemic racism, such as lack of ancestral wealth, lack of parents/grandparents with good education, etc. means African American are way behind other groups by many measures. That doesn't mean there is still systemic racism, it means the effects of prior systemic racism linger. And some cultural factors, such as high percentages of fatherless children, play a big role in differing outcomes, too.

In the Chauvin/Floyd case, I thought the most serious charges were a stretch. I get that this is a minority opinion, and that the jury, many infallible lawyers, and even Fox tv lawyers disagree. Okay. But the fact that they're talking about shows that it is something a reasonable person might disagree with. Nobody writes and article or goes on a talk show to declare something that nobody could possibly disagree with. The real sticking point is that I don't assume this was a racial incident and most everyone else does. And the key is that they assume it, they don't know it. I think of Chauvin and Floyd as an officer and a citizen, not a white officer and a black citizen.

Your assertion that this discussion has nothing to do with lenses or assumptions shows me that you aren't understanding anything I'm saying.

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17491
    • View Profile
Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
« Reply #91 on: April 22, 2021, 02:16:29 PM »
From someone who actually saw all the evidence, heard all the testimony and arguments of counsel, etc.

"Chauvin alternate juror says she was 'pretty uncomfortable' locking eyes with ex-cop

Juror says she 'would have said guilty'"

https://www.foxnews.com/us/chauvin-alternate-juror-interview-guilty-verdict

I realize she equivocates on whether she thought Chauvin was guilty on all counts. That would have been fleshed out in jury deliberations, of which she was not a part.
How is it possible that an alternate juror who looked at all the evidence and followed the trial could equivocate on whether Chauvin was guilty on all counts? Maybe if I had been in on the deliberations I would have changed my mind, too, but I wasn't, and neither were you or this alternate juror. So we agree that reasonable people could have some doubts about whether the most serious charges were a stretch. Either that or somehow a racist got through the jury selection process. After all, racism is the only possible explanation for having any doubts Chauvin's guilt of the most serious of the charges. I wonder what branch of the white nationalist militia that alternate juror was in. ::)

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43151
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
« Reply #92 on: April 22, 2021, 02:39:56 PM »
From someone who actually saw all the evidence, heard all the testimony and arguments of counsel, etc.

"Chauvin alternate juror says she was 'pretty uncomfortable' locking eyes with ex-cop

Juror says she 'would have said guilty'"

https://www.foxnews.com/us/chauvin-alternate-juror-interview-guilty-verdict

I realize she equivocates on whether she thought Chauvin was guilty on all counts. That would have been fleshed out in jury deliberations, of which she was not a part.
How is it possible that an alternate juror who looked at all the evidence and followed the trial could equivocate on whether Chauvin was guilty on all counts? Maybe if I had been in on the deliberations I would have changed my mind, too, but I wasn't, and neither were you or this alternate juror. So we agree that reasonable people could have some doubts about whether the most serious charges were a stretch. Either that or somehow a racist got through the jury selection process. After all, racism is the only possible explanation for having any doubts Chauvin's guilt of the most serious of the charges. I wonder what branch of the white nationalist militia that alternate juror was in. ::)


What convinces you that officer Chauvin would have treated a white suspect in exactly the same way that he treated George Floyd; that he would have used excessive force that caused his death?
"The church Ö had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Donald_Kirchner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 11523
    • View Profile
Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
« Reply #93 on: April 22, 2021, 02:40:13 PM »
Peter,

Unfortunately, sarcasm and ridicule again are manifested in your comment. That seems to be your strong suit when operating out of ignorance, in this case of what jury instructions and jury deliberations entail.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2021, 02:46:01 PM by Pr. Don Kirchner »
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but itís not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17491
    • View Profile
Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
« Reply #94 on: April 22, 2021, 02:46:53 PM »
From someone who actually saw all the evidence, heard all the testimony and arguments of counsel, etc.

"Chauvin alternate juror says she was 'pretty uncomfortable' locking eyes with ex-cop

Juror says she 'would have said guilty'"

https://www.foxnews.com/us/chauvin-alternate-juror-interview-guilty-verdict

I realize she equivocates on whether she thought Chauvin was guilty on all counts. That would have been fleshed out in jury deliberations, of which she was not a part.
How is it possible that an alternate juror who looked at all the evidence and followed the trial could equivocate on whether Chauvin was guilty on all counts? Maybe if I had been in on the deliberations I would have changed my mind, too, but I wasn't, and neither were you or this alternate juror. So we agree that reasonable people could have some doubts about whether the most serious charges were a stretch. Either that or somehow a racist got through the jury selection process. After all, racism is the only possible explanation for having any doubts Chauvin's guilt of the most serious of the charges. I wonder what branch of the white nationalist militia that alternate juror was in. ::)


What convinces you that officer Chauvin would have treated a white suspect in exactly the same way that he treated George Floyd; that he would have used excessive force that caused his death?
I have no reason to think otherwise. What makes you think he treated Floyd differently because he was black?

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17491
    • View Profile
Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
« Reply #95 on: April 22, 2021, 02:57:29 PM »
Peter,

Unfortunately, sarcasm and ridicule again are manifested in your comment. That seems to be your strong suit when operating out of ignorance, in this case of what jury instructions and jury deliberations entail.
I've only served on a jury in a criminal trial once. It was a sexual assault case. County court in Wisconsin. Listened to the jury instructions. Turned down a nomination to be foreman in favor of having the oldest one among us fill that role. Deliberated with the jury for maybe an hour or so before turning in an unanimous verdict. Since most people have never served on a jury in a criminal case in county court, I think I know more about it than the average American. Have you ever served on a jury in a criminal case?   

David Garner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 7345
    • View Profile
    • For He is Good and Loves Mankind
Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
« Reply #96 on: April 22, 2021, 02:59:17 PM »
I did not follow the trial word-for-word.  My assistant did, and as part of that I got frequent updates on what was going on.  I will say this -- it seems to me the testimony of Dr. Rich was the deal-sealer in the case.  That is, once the cause of death was determined, the jury did not have to connect many dots to get the requisite elements for a conviction.  The defense, as I said before, could not overcome the strong evidence presented by Dr. Rich that George Floyd was suffocated to death by Derek Chauvin.  This result, in turn, proximately followed a series of compounding errors made by Chauvin on scene.  He used a level of force greater than that needed to subdue the suspect and attain compliance.  Once Floyd was cuffed, there was no need for him to continue with his knee on his neck.  If that was his only error, he might not even be guilty of a crime, but then beyond that, when information was made available to him not only by bystanders, but in fact by one of his fellow officers (who asked whether Floyd should be turned on his side) and notably by Floyd himself, indicating Floyd was in distress, Chauvin continued to kneel on Floyd's neck, almost defiantly.  When EMTs arrived on-scene and wished to render aid to Floyd, they were stopped -- by Chauvin.  Dr. Rich indicated that you could pinpoint on the video the moment where George Floyd died.  The jury literally watched him take his last breath. And having watched him take it, and heard the testimony of Dr. Rich, they knew that the death was caused by the series of compounding errors made by Chauvin.

To me, the racial aspects of this go far more toward why Chauvin chose to treat Floyd in this way as opposed to (largely hypothetical) others, and far less to whether Chauvin is guilty of the crimes charged.  The jury did not convict Chauvin of racism. They convicted him of murder.  The murder charge is not, as I see it, tainted in any way by the allegations of racism, in either direction.  It stands firm on the evidence presented at trial.  I think arguments that imply that the jury was somehow wrongly swayed by the politics and sociological aspects of the case minimize how strong the case against him was.  Derek Chauvin is a murderer.  Whether he is a racist or not is an important question, and whether officers need better training to recognize how they interact with the black community is an equally important question.  But those questions do not, in any way, impact the evidence at trial.  Take race away from the discussion, and Derek Chauvin is still a murderer.  I'd rather us not lose sight of that in light of the recent rabbit trail that has emerged in this thread.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17491
    • View Profile
Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
« Reply #97 on: April 22, 2021, 03:08:21 PM »
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/04/22/dershowitz-maxine-waters-used-kkk-tactics-to-intimidate-chauvin-jury-n1441877

Alan Dershowitz thinks it should have been declared a mistrial due to intimidation. Is he an expert?

I agree that the case hinged on convincing the jury that Chauvin kneeling on him was the cause of death. I happen to think the other evidence-- the lack of damage to the throat/neck and the Fentanyl and other factors, the other video showing that Chauvin was not cutting off Floyd's breathing, etc. suggest at least reasonable doubt (again, not saying it didn't happen, just that there is reasonable doubt) about that. And without that, the most serious charges are out the window. The jury disagreed. Fine. Of course, as I mentioned way upstream, I respect the verdict. The hypersensitivity toward any hint of doubt and the assumption that those doubts must stem from racial bias if not white nationalism is somewhat bizarre, but shows just how politicized it has become. Enforcement of groupthink is the order of the day.

Donald_Kirchner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 11523
    • View Profile
Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
« Reply #98 on: April 22, 2021, 03:15:51 PM »
Peter,

Unfortunately, sarcasm and ridicule again are manifested in your comment. That seems to be your strong suit when operating out of ignorance, in this case of what jury instructions and jury deliberations entail.
I've only served on a jury in a criminal trial once.

Then you may have heard something similar to this:

"DUTIES 0F JUDGE AND JURY

It is your duty to decide the questions of fact in this case. It is my duty t0ogive you the rules 0f law you must apply in arriving at your verdict. You must follow and apply the rules 0f law as I give them to you, even if you believe the law is or should be different. Deciding questions of fact is your exclusive responsibility. In doing so, you must consider all the evidence you have heard and seen in this trial, and you must disregard anything you may have heard or seen elsewhere about this case. I have not by these instructions, nor by any ruling or expression during the trial, intended to indicate my opinion regarding the facts or the outcome of this case. If I have said 0r done anything that would seem to indicate such an opinion, you are to disregard it...

DUTIES 0F JURORS:

"You should discuss the case with one another, and deliberate with view toward reaching agreement, if you can do so without violating your individual judgment. You should decide the case for yourself, but only after you have discussed the case with your fellow jurors and have carefully considered their views. You should not hesitate to reexamine your views and change your opinion if you become convinced they are erroneous, but you should not surrender your honest opinion simply because other jurors disagree or merely to reach verdict."

These were part of the jury instructions in STATE OF MINNESOTA v. Mohamed Mohamed Noor, a very similar case.

https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-18-6859/JuryInstructions042919.pdf

So, it's not surprising in any way that the alternate had not made up her mind on all counts before going into deliberations. In fact, I would hope that she had not.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2021, 03:24:45 PM by Pr. Don Kirchner »
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but itís not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

Donald_Kirchner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 11523
    • View Profile
Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
« Reply #99 on: April 22, 2021, 03:23:57 PM »
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/04/22/dershowitz-maxine-waters-used-kkk-tactics-to-intimidate-chauvin-jury-n1441877

Alan Dershowitz thinks it should have been declared a mistrial due to intimidation. Is he an expert?

As a fellow criminal defense attorney, I might think likewise. When I heard what she said, I was outraged and thought, "Did she just nullify a 3-week trial?" But, Judge Cahill thought otherwise, and he was the one making the decision. But he did admonish lawmakers and conceded "that Waters 'may have given' the defense grounds 'on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.'Ē
« Last Edit: April 22, 2021, 03:29:05 PM by Pr. Don Kirchner »
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but itís not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

James S. Rustad

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 986
  • μολὼν λαβέ
    • View Profile
Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
« Reply #100 on: April 22, 2021, 03:26:27 PM »
What convinces you that officer Chauvin would have treated a white suspect in exactly the same way that he treated George Floyd; that he would have used excessive force that caused his death?

What convinces you that he would not have?  It is those leveling the charge of racism who are responsible for proving it.

David Garner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 7345
    • View Profile
    • For He is Good and Loves Mankind
Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
« Reply #101 on: April 22, 2021, 03:27:30 PM »
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/04/22/dershowitz-maxine-waters-used-kkk-tactics-to-intimidate-chauvin-jury-n1441877

Alan Dershowitz thinks it should have been declared a mistrial due to intimidation. Is he an expert?

I agree that the case hinged on convincing the jury that Chauvin kneeling on him was the cause of death. I happen to think the other evidence-- the lack of damage to the throat/neck and the Fentanyl and other factors, the other video showing that Chauvin was not cutting off Floyd's breathing, etc. suggest at least reasonable doubt (again, not saying it didn't happen, just that there is reasonable doubt) about that. And without that, the most serious charges are out the window. The jury disagreed. Fine. Of course, as I mentioned way upstream, I respect the verdict. The hypersensitivity toward any hint of doubt and the assumption that those doubts must stem from racial bias if not white nationalism is somewhat bizarre, but shows just how politicized it has become. Enforcement of groupthink is the order of the day.

When I suggest this view minimizes the evidence at trial, this is precisely what I mean.  Dr. Rich directly addressed the issue of Fentanyl, carbon monoxide poisoning, heart issues, etc.  He addressed them soundly.  The defense's expert, as you would expect, refuted them.  But the problem with his refutation is the prosecution got him to admit he did not have the training or expertise to render those opinions.

Had they gotten another expert who was qualified to speak to them, it might have been more persuasive to the jury, and to me.  As I surmised earlier, my best guess is they tried and could not find someone who would say what they needed to be said.  That happens in litigation frequently, including my own.  Usually, we try to settle those cases, and in this case, Chauvin offered to plead guilty to 3rd degree murder.  But in this case the prosecution would not deal, so he had to play his best hand at trial.  Which, as we've all seen, was not a particularly good hand.

As to Dershowitz, I have a ton of respect for him and his opinions.  I don't really think he's wrong so much as I think it doesn't matter.  If the verdict is overturned on appeal on those grounds, a retrial will result in a conviction unless the defense is able to come up with a better expert to testify within his expertise, and even if they do, the prosecution will have learned much about their planned defense and be prepared to refute it.  And because of that, it might not be overturned at all, because reviewing courts are allowed to say "even though this bad thing happened that could have swayed the jury, there was ample evidence in the record to support the jury's verdict" and then uphold the conviction.  Alan Dershowitz is a great trial lawyer, a consummate defense attorney and champion for justice.  But he can't change the facts of the case.

Which is to say, I'm not defending Maxine Waters, or the trial judge who refused to sequester the jury, or the people demonstrating outside.  I'm just saying the verdict stands on its own two feet, and it is a sound one.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17491
    • View Profile
Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
« Reply #102 on: April 22, 2021, 03:29:45 PM »
Peter,

Unfortunately, sarcasm and ridicule again are manifested in your comment. That seems to be your strong suit when operating out of ignorance, in this case of what jury instructions and jury deliberations entail.
I've only served on a jury in a criminal trial once.

Then you may have heard something similar to this:

"DUTIES 0F JUDGE AND JURY

It is your duty to decide the questions of fact in this case. It is my duty t0ogive you the rules 0f law you must apply in arriving at your verdict. You must follow and apply the rules 0f law as I give them to you, even if you believe the law is or should be different. Deciding questions of fact is your exclusive responsibility. In doing so, you must consider all the evidence you have heard and seen in this trial, and you must disregard anything you may have heard or seen elsewhere about this case. I have not by these instructions, nor by any ruling or expression during the trial, intended to indicate my opinion regarding the facts or the outcome of this case. If I have said 0r done anything that would seem to indicate such an opinion, you are to disregard it...

DUTIES 0F JURORS:

"You should discuss the case with one another, and deliberate with view toward reaching agreement, if you can do so without violating your individual judgment. You should decide the case for yourself, but only after you have discussed the case with your fellow jurors and have carefully considered their views. You should not hesitate to reexamine your views and change your opinion if you become convinced they are erroneous, but you should not surrender your honest opinion simply because other jurors disagree or merely to reach verdict."

These were the jury instructions in STATE OF MINNESOTA v. Mohamed Mohamed Noor, a very similar case.

https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-18-6859/JuryInstructions042919.pdf

So, it's not surprising in any way that the alternate had not made up her mind on all counts before going into deliberations. In fact, I would hope that she had not.
Not surprising to me, either. But it should have been surprising to you, since you were also not in on the deliberations, yet expressed incredulity that I expressed my doubts as to the most serious of the charges. Perhaps I, like this alternate juror, would have been convinced in the course of deliberations. Or maybe not. But upstream you seemed to think that there was no possible doubt about it, and were rather intemperate in your judgments. So I was merely pointing out that such doubts were not nearly as absurd as you were making them out.

Donald_Kirchner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 11523
    • View Profile
Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
« Reply #103 on: April 22, 2021, 03:46:07 PM »
Not surprising to me, either. But it should have been surprising to you, since you were also not in on the deliberations, yet expressed incredulity that I expressed my doubts as to the most serious of the charges. Perhaps I, like this alternate juror, would have been convinced in the course of deliberations. Or maybe not. But upstream you seemed to think that there was no possible doubt about it, and were rather intemperate in your judgments. So I was merely pointing out that such doubts were not nearly as absurd as you were making them out.

Now your comments are getting downright Stoffregenesque.   ::) Yes, I corrected your erroneous definitions of, e.g., the intent needed and depraved heart. I did not mean to be intemperate.

Please point out where "upstream I* seemed to think that there was no possible doubt about it, and [was] rather intemperate in [my] judgments." It seemed to me that I focused on the fact that the jurors who heard ALL of the evidence (and I did not), heard all the jury instructions including the definition and elements of the charges (I did not), and deliberated for nearly ten hours (I did not) gave the case the respect it deserved, arrived at the guilty verdict on all charges, and that, therefore, justice was done.

Thank you.

*If I put brackets around it, it italicizes the remainder and removes the "I."   :)
« Last Edit: April 22, 2021, 03:58:39 PM by Pr. Don Kirchner »
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but itís not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17491
    • View Profile
Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
« Reply #104 on: April 22, 2021, 04:03:23 PM »
Not surprising to me, either. But it should have been surprising to you, since you were also not in on the deliberations, yet expressed incredulity that I expressed my doubts as to the most serious of the charges. Perhaps I, like this alternate juror, would have been convinced in the course of deliberations. Or maybe not. But upstream you seemed to think that there was no possible doubt about it, and were rather intemperate in your judgments. So I was merely pointing out that such doubts were not nearly as absurd as you were making them out.

Now your comments are getting downright Stoffregenesque.   ::) Yes, I corrected your erroneous definitions of, e.g., the intent needed and depraved heart. I did not mean to be intemperate.

Please point out where "upstream I seemed to think that there was no possible doubt about it, and [was] rather intemperate in [my] judgments." It seemed to me that I focused on the fact that the jurors who heard ALL of the evidence (and I did not), heard all the jury instructions including the definition and elements of the charges (I did not), and deliberated for nearly ten hours (I did not) gave the case the respect it deserved, arrived at the guilty verdict on all charges, and that, therefore, justice was done.

Thank you.
I said people were making Chauvin out to be a monster. Charles said Chauvin was a monster. I said that, unlike Charles, I did not think Chauvin was a monster. You mistakenly thought I was saying the jury had convicted him of being a monster, which they hadnít, so you ďcorrectedĒ a mistake that hadnít been made.

The experts testified as to cause of death. The prosecution did a better job by all accounts. But I think the facts were not affected by the defense witnessís lack of expert status to make those determinations. Yes, the defense should have done a better job making the point. But I think the point was makeable. It is at least plausible to think that Chauvin didnít cause Floydís death. Maybe the deliberations would have removed all doubt. Or maybe not.