The Upcoming Show Trial

Yes, I'm referring to the Derek Chauvin trial. I've linked to articles by George Parry in the past, for his sound analysis of legal matters:

George Parry is a former federal and state prosecutor who practices law in Philadelphia and blogs at knowledgeisgood.net.

Today he has a major article on the upcoming Chauvin trial, and it's well worth your attention. If this trial goes down as planned by the Left it may mark a turning point in America--the Left certainly hopes so:

Derek Chauvin’s Trial: Countdown to a Kangaroo Court

The idea of an “impartial jury” is laughable.

Here, I'll simply draw attention to Parry's points regarding the prosecution's case, without too much of the detail that Parry provides about the prejudicial actions surrounding the preparations for the trial. Parry's major point in the article, which is not my focus, is that the trial venue should be moved far away from Minneapolis because--for the reasons he explains regarding the prejudiced environment in MP--a fair trial is impossible. Thus he prefaces his article with a quote from Justice Holmes:

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.

We'll begin at the point that Parry draws attention to the manifest weakness of the prosecution case--which draws the whole process into question. Just by the way, the fact that Chauvin was willing accept a plea deal that would have landed him ten years in prison--before all the evidence came out and was made available to the defense team--speaks volumes about the criminal justice system in America. On the other hand, the lengthy quote from an FBI 302 of the Bureau's interview of the medical examiner serves as a reminder of the thorough, unbiased work and spirit of integrity that can still characterize investigations by FBI field agents.

I'm quoting all of this at some length to provide links to Parry's other work on this case, as well as to cite Parry's lengthy quote from the FBI's 302:

But is an acquittal even possible? Didn’t the arrest video clearly and unequivocally show in real time the police defendants calmly and deliberately murdering Floyd in broad daylight while wearing body cameras recording their every move and before eyewitnesses with video cameras? Didn’t Mayor Frey himself pronounce them guilty the day after Floyd’s arrest and demand that they be fired by the police department?

...

So, since Chauvin is clearly guilty and his conviction is in the bag, why are the authorities preparing for World War Three?

The answer is simple. As I have attempted to explain in several previous articles in The American Spectator (“Who Killed George Floyd?,” “The George Floyd Fall Guys,” and “Minnesota v. Derek Chauvin et al.: The Prosecution’s Dirty Little Secret”), in sharp and devastating contrast to its widely broadcast and selectively edited version, the full and complete arrest video and the findings at autopsy combine to make a compelling defense case that the police did not kill Floyd.

As depicted in the unedited video, Floyd repeatedly shouted that he couldn’t breathe well before he was on the ground with Chauvin’s knee on the side of his neck. This occurred because, as found at autopsy, Floyd’s lungs were filled with fluid brought on by a lethal dose of fentanyl, which depresses respiration and is known to cause pulmonary edema.

Further to this point, I was privileged to narrate a video analysis of Floyd’s arrest (linked to here) produced by Centaur Film Works, which will walk you through the evidence that undercuts the prosecution case.

...

Despite vigorous opposition by the prosecution, the court has granted the defense motion that Chauvin’s trial be televised. In other words, the defense wants the world to see all the evidence, and the prosecution doesn’t. Why? Because once you get past the heavily edited and misleading video evidence and review all of the relevant proof, it becomes clear that the police did not cause Floyd’s death.

More importantly, despite its legal obligation to timely provide the defense with exculpatory evidence, the prosecution delayed production of a devastating FBI 302 report (linked to here) of a July 8, 2020, interview of Hennepin County Medical Examiner Andrew Baker regarding Floyd’s autopsy. The prosecution didn’t cough up this 302 until October 28, 2020, at which time the defense learned that, in the 302, Dr. Baker “defined the mechanism of death as Floyd’s heart and lungs stopping due to the combined effects of his health problems as well as the exertion and restraint involved in Floyd’s interaction with police prior to being on the ground” (emphasis added).

Here are some other quotations from the Baker 302:

• Baker could not provide an answer if “but for” the actions of the officers would Floyd have lived. Baker could not predict what would have occurred. Baker did not know if Floyd would have lived but for the officer’s [sic] actions. 
• Baker did believe that because of Floyd’s heart disease and intoxicants, the stress from the events that occurred with Minneapolis police officers was more than Floyd could tolerate.
• Floyd’s heart was larger than it should be. There was no evidence that Floyd’s airway was literally blocked shut. When viewing the body camera footage, the pressure did not appear to be directly over Floyd’s airway. Floyd would have been unable to speak if pressure was directly over his airway.
• Officer Chauvin’s positioning on Floyd’s body does not fit anatomically with occluding Floyd’s airway.
• The absence of petechiae weighs against strangulation. Petechiae occurs [sic] due to vascular occlusion that causes blood vessels to rupture. 
• The struggle between officers and Floyd weighed into Baker’s opinion because physical exertion increases heart rate, releases adrenaline, and increases respiratory rate as well as cardiac demand. All off these things increased the likelihood of a bad outcome.
• Fentanyl may cause pulmonary edema in some individuals. Evidence of pulmonary edema was found during Floyd’s autopsy. This evidence was that Floyd’s lungs were heavy compared to normal lungs. Additionally, Floyd’s lungs were were diffusely edematous. Baker defined edematous as “full of fluid.”

There’s more, but you get the idea. No wonder the prosecution was reluctant to produce Dr. Baker’s 302. One is left to wonder at the size of the laundry bill for the prosecutors’ underpants after it landed in their inbox.

Now, as you can see, before a fair and impartial jury, Derek Chauvin would have more than a fighting chance at acquittal. But that assumes that a fair, impartial, and unintimidated jury can be drawn from amidst the traumatized population of the Hennepin County war zone.

How can Chauvin even remotely hope to receive a fair trial before an impartial and non-terrorized Hennepin County jury when the previously burned and looted city of Minneapolis appears to be primed to explode if Chauvin is acquitted?

Is there a rational juror who would ever vote to acquit Chauvin knowing that doing so would subject the juror and the juror’s family, friends, property, and peaceful existence to threats, harassment, and mob violence?

What's the point in this exercise? How about this: To get Americans used to "woke justice". This is a start. The hoped for George Zimmerman show trial flopped, but this trial will take place in an environment--as described graphically by Parry--conducive to the desired outcome.