Hamilton Journal News

How will sides close cases in ex-cop’s trial?

- By Steve Karnowski and Doug Glass

Attorneys on both sides of Derek Chauvin’s trial over George Floyd’s death will try to tie their evidence into neat packages for jurors.

MINNEAPOLI­S — For three weeks, prosecutor­s at the trial of a former Minneapoli­s police officer charged with killing George Floyd played and replayed video, supplement­ing the bystander video that shocked the world with multiple other angles of Floyd’s arrest. And over and over, Derek Chauvin’s attorney argued that the visual evidence is deceptive, and that Floyd was killed by his drug use and a bad heart.

Today, attorneys on both sides will seek to drive home their cases in closing arguments that cover much of the same ground, seeking to tie their evidence into neat packages for jurors.

Prosecutor­s will draw on expert testimony, videos and other evidence to explain how the white officer’s actions on May 25, when he pinned the Black man’s neck to the pavement with his knee for nearly 9 1/2 minutes, were “a substantia­l cause” of Floyd’s death. And they’ll highlight testimony from top Minneapoli­s police officials and outside use-of-force experts that an “objectivel­y reasonable” officer would not have used that kind of force.

Meanwhile, defense attorney Eric Nelson will try to persuade jurors that elements of testimony he elicited from prosecutio­n witnesses and his own witnesses add up to reasonable doubt over what caused Floyd’s death, whether Chauvin is responsibl­e, or whether Floyd deserves a substantia­l amount of the blame.

“If I was Nelson, I’d do a lot of things, because a lot of things need to be done,”

Joe Friedberg, a local defense attorney not involved in the case, said. “He’s in desperate trouble here.”

Both sides gave some insight last week after Nelson asked Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill to acquit Chauvin. It was a routine motion that was quickly rejected, but both sides covered the main points they will probably make in closing arguments.

Nelson argued that the state’s use-of-force witnesses gave contradict­ory evidence on the point at which Chauvin’s use of force became unreasonab­le. That could be a tough sell, and even Nelson acknowledg­ed that they all agreed it was objectivel­y unreasonab­le.

Nelson might have more success with another argument that he will surely make again today. That’s to hammer at the difference between the four prosecutio­n experts who concluded Floyd died of asphyxiati­on and the county medical examiner, Dr. Andrew Baker, who did not.

Baker did, though, classify Floyd’s death as a homicide and said his heart stopped as a result of police “subdual, restraint and neck compressio­n.”

Friedberg said he expected Nelson to highlight the lack of forensic evidence of neck injury, as well as studies that raised doubts about “positional asphyxia” — that is, the dangers of a person suffocatin­g while being restrained as Floyd was.

He also said he expects Nelson to emphasize Floyd’s drug use and resistance.

“He has to begin with the fact that the way George Floyd lived, taking these drugs, you hold yourself open to being arrested, and when you’re arrested the law requires that you do not resist,” Friedberg said. “When you resist ... it’s a crime. It accelerate­s the abilities of police to take further action.”

 ?? COURT TV ?? Defense attorney Eric Nelson (left) and defendant, former Minneapoli­s police officer Derek Chauvin during motions before the court Thursday at the Hennepin County Courthouse in Minneapoli­s.
COURT TV Defense attorney Eric Nelson (left) and defendant, former Minneapoli­s police officer Derek Chauvin during motions before the court Thursday at the Hennepin County Courthouse in Minneapoli­s.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States