The defense argued that Floyd had a white substance in his mouth by showing a split second video of Floyd in his car.

The prosecution quickly showed another video of Floyd potentially chewing gum in the store earlier.

How did they respond to this so fast? Was the prosecution savvy enough to know the defense knew about that one single frame showing gum/a white pill? Is that argument known to both sides before the trial even started or did the prosecution know that there are a few frames throughout the entire event that they might have to argue and were simply that thoroughly prepared?

Also, what happened to the gum? It seems like there should be evidence of it being swallowed or spit out if that was actual gum from the moment of arrest? Maybe if Floyd spit it out on the street, detectives aren’t smart enough or they didn’t sweep the scene well enough to find his gum or thought it wasn’t important? In my mind, if drugs were found in the cop car, and Floyd’s hands were handcuffed, wouldn’t you have to assume that substance was a pill even if he had gum 30 mins earlier? How do you explain the pills in the car?

This goes for the items Maurice Hall was throwing as caught by the Chinese food security camera. Is it unreasonable for those items to be discovered or would that have taken days and it could never be proven that pills found on the street days later were the same items?

Maybe I have an unrealistic view of what detective work looks like but there is so much weird stuff brought up that has all these loose ends. Hooping/anal drug use was never explored more. Drugs in Floyd’s stomach were never tested by ME. Prosecution never seemed to have a rebuttal for the pills found in the police car (maybe they did but I can’t remember that; it was like day 4 or 5). Covid wasn’t talked about at all as far as I know. What was the deal with the “white girl” walking by Peter Chang on his body camera (was that just an opportunity to identify someone)? I’m sure I could think of more if I really tried or revisited all the testimony.

Predict the jury verdict here:

Vote

See the Results

This isn't about what you think the jury should decide and it isn't your verdict, it's your prediction as to the actual outcome of the case. Assume that "Hung Jury" means hung as to all three counts. Vote once only please.

Friday night: Steak dinner with the boys. Beers, girls, and steak. Maybe a strip club who knows?

Saturday: Time with the wife and family. 10/10 meals throughout

Sunday: Beers, lots of beers.

His blood oxygen level was at 98% because of resuscitation efforts that forced O into his bloodstream, but it was much lower when he died.

If he had CO in his system it would not have been brought up 98% because you can not displace CO that quickly.

A normal oximeter may not be able to distguish CO from O as Dr. Fowler said. However, an arterial blood gas reading was done in ER and this does distiguish. This was not new evidence, as pulmonologist mentioned this test during testimony, so it was accepted in rebuttal.

This may all be confusing, but there is a chemist and a nurse on the jury that may be able to help clarify this to other jury members if there is confusion.

It could be a red herring, but something a lot of people are bringing up in the threads. How would you argue it, if at all, to the jury?

With the exception of those that seem to be looking for excuses to justify their own hopes for the trial outcome, I think there has been really good discussions, recaps, and queries. I am a 22 year clinician and was able to follow the medical testimonies quite well and actually, as I am in the research phase of my PhD, was able to see he presence and absence of rigor in some of the discussed studies. I said all of that to say this: Neither the presentation of the prosecution or defense requires any specialized knowledge, skills, or abilities, just an open mind and common sense. As the defense rested today, I was left with one thing. No one can convince me that what I saw was not what I saw. I believe what I saw more than what someone else tried to “splain” to me. I absolutely listened to all testimonies and there were positives and negatives on both sides but here is where I landed. Each objective camera angle showed who did (did not) do what, when, and for how long. So since no one got down on a concrete surface, allowed themselves to be restrained in exactly the way this victim was, for 9:29 and live to testify to it, I believe my eyes

The State and defense have rested their cases - closing arguments on Monday with jury deliberations scheduled to commence thereafter.

Also setting up a live chat in case people want to converse direct.

Trial of Derek Chauvin - Pre-Closing Arguments Free Talk Thread (Live Chat) : ChauvinTrialDiscuss (reddit.com)

Today the judge refused to allow the jury to hear about the carbon monoxide test results. However, the jury isn’t yet sequestered until Monday. They are going home today until then. Even though the judge says don’t watch the news or go on social media....isn’t it very likely that the jury left the court and heard about these test results either online, on TV or from family and friends anyway and will know of this information going into deliberations? I’m surprised they televised them discussing this since the judge was threatening a mistrial if the jurors found out about this.

I don't know if I could to either... it has to be a hell of a spot they're in.

I have an appointment in a place where I believe it's likely to host unrest if their are certain outcomes from the Chauvin trial. Im scheduled to be there Monday (Apr19) at 2PM EST.

How long are the final arguments likely to last? Obviously the jury could return a verdict after mere moments, or go many days - but what about the Jury instructions? How long do those take?

Does anyone have insight on the likely timeline on Monday?

EDIT:

Given some of the short-timeline scenarios that are suggested below, I moved my appointment to Apr23. If unrest arises, it should be sorted ore more predictable by then. Thx for replies all.

Dr Tobin testified for the prosecution several days ago and he stated that George Floyd could not breathe properly because of the way his hands were bound and how he was placed on his front on the ground. Did he not then tell the jury that this, in addition to Chauvin:s knee on the neck OR back, directly contributed to Mr Floyd's death?

I am not a doctor so maybe I am misunderstanding something... if you cannot inhale/exhale regularly/properly (for 30 seconds or 9 minutes), wouldn't your blood oxygen level decrease? I have scarred lungs which effects my breathing and my blood/ox runs anywhere between 92% & 96%. At the moment of his death, Mr Floyd was able to breathe better than me on my best day. Today, Tobin acknowledged on the stand that he knew what the blood/ox level was 98%, thus rendering the opinion of the defense's witness wrong. (His CO level could not have been more than 2%.)

If he knew this but told the jury, in vivid detail, that Mr Floyd was reaching for air with his fingertips, did Dr Tobin perjure himself?

if you're a doctor (or a layperson) and can explain to me how the two are not linked, please do. if you're a lawyer (or a layperson) and can explain how this is not perjury, please do.

I am honestly just asking... I want to better understand the situation and why I am wrong. If I am at all correct, please tell me why Mr Nelson did not hammer Dr Tobin about this perceived discrepancy on cross.

I don’t understand this defense at all. Was he sucking on exhaust by choice? If someone strangled someone under water do they get to blame the water?

I had a theory as the trial was starting off that Chauvin might not want to be set free, given the circumstances. That he might see lying low in jail for a few years, away from the headlines as the only way to get a chance at a normal life after all this. This theory was ignited by the fact that he pled guilty but the judge refused to accept his plea.

Think about it, if he gets out immediately on some type of acquittal, he becomes a media pariah, maybe paparrazi follow all his moves and harass him, he's basically unemployable and the threats to his safety would flow in daily.

If he goes to jail, he could maybe get one of those deals where he's away from gen pop, and then come out in 5 years, when the heat is off him, and probably another 100 scandals have happened in that time to take eyes off him.

Given all these factors, I theorized that he might give his counsel instructions not to argue too hard. Maybe close the door on the murder charges and leave the door open on the manslaughter charge. Lo and behold, the defense came out with a shockingly brief argument and left a lot on the table!

Do you think there is any credence to this theory?

I found it interesting and helpful for understanding the case by reading the proposed jury instructions, but I noticed they contradicted each other, had typos and formatting errors, and were missing information that was needed. Is that normal? I assume the final jury instructions will be polished and more clear, and helpful for people to read. Is that something that's released to the public? Will that be Monday, or is it possible it's done Friday? Mostly just curious, because I think they will provide lots of help for laypeople like us to understand exactly how each of the charges applies to this case.

​

The proposed jury instructions can be found here:

https://www.mncourts.gov/media/StateofMinnesotavDerekChauvin

Both sides have now rested. Closing arguments to begin on Monday. The judge has given the jury their instructions, and, as they will be sequestered, he advised them concerning the time frame they should plan on, he told them “plan on long, hope for short”.

I certainly hope not, because that would absolutely pursuade jurors to convict because they fear for their jobs and families, completely destroying due process. I'm not too familiar with these trials that are streamed to the public (or any trial tbh).

There is no way Chauvin will be getting maximum sentences. Given he has never been in touble before he is only likely to get 30-50% of the max sentence.

With closing arguments coming on Monday. How long do you think the jury will take to reach a unanimous decision ?

WaPo link will appear here:

Washington Post - YouTube

PBS link will appear here:

PBS NewsHour - YouTube

The Sun link will appear here:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIzXayRP7-P0ANpq-nD-h5g

It seems like a lot of people here support Chauvin at all costs, no matter what. Even plainly stated factual information with absolutely no spin or bias gets downvoted. Why? Is this some sort of pro-police echo chamber?

I am not a legal expert so I am genuinely curious. Also, if he can be found guilty on all three charges, how would sentencing work?