Monday, March 1, 2021

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

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.


  1. A judge with any integrity would dismiss this case in short order.

  2. What sort of juror didn't notice, and was unaffected by their city burning to the ground around them due to the highly publicized accounts of what the defendant did? I could not imagine an impartial jury in these circumstances.

  3. There is no such thing, IMHO, as an unbiased jury. The State has a huge advantage at the beginning of any criminal trial because the jurors are there specifically because they believe in law & order and civic minded.

    The key in picking a jury, especially in this case, will be to find at least one, and hopefully several, individuals that will allow themselves to be persuaded by the evidence to do the right thing.

    "If I show you clear, definitive evidence that my client is not guilty of the charges will you vote accordingly? Even though some of your fellow jurors will disagree with your decision?"

    It can be done.

  4. I’m going to say this as a cop that participates here who took massive offense to Chauvin’s actions. I was utterly wrong.

    Do I think Chauvin did right? No, but he did not murder or commit manslaughter and his actions was aligned with his department’s policy.

    Would I have done the same in his shoes? No, I am not him and where I work such techniques were reserved for life and death situations to the officer.

    Anyway, I will say it again, I was wrong.

    1. Two things:

      1) We were presented with deliberately edited evidence.

      2) Chauvin was a very experienced cop, but may never have been in such a public situation before. It's natural enough that he should have thought he wouldn't be misunderstood--we all mostly have a sense of our own righteousness and expect that to see us through.

    2. @TexasDude

      "Anyway, I will say it again, I was wrong."

      Duly noted.

  5. No judge will dismiss integrity or no integrity. Mayor Frey escalated this immediately and unwittingly set the stage. Any leader with any sense of emotional intelligence would have acted differently to calm the situation similar to how things played out in Kenosha after a couple days of riots. Minneapolis went on for weeks.

    In addition, my hedge is that justice will play out but they will be found guilty on something. It won't be enough and the locals and others across the country will begin to riot again. Now the question is... How will Zhou Baden act? That will be the soup du jour most likely for quite awhile. Zhou will then use this as justification to move forward with his admin's reparations strategy and bypass Congress adding another $$ trillion to the national debt.

  6. If there is a somewhat competent jury there will be an acquittal. The Daily Mail was leaked the full police body cam video where George Floyd said he was dying BEFORE the neck restraint was applied. You can see his resistance before the restraint. Once the jury is exposed to that plus the fact it was acceptable departmental policy I believe the most probable verdict would be manslaughter.

    This is like the Rodney King trial where the jury was given facts that the public was given because of the ideology of the press. The streets will explode. How the authorities will react will be interesting because Minneapolis doesn't want to become Detroit. The metro area I reside in. And they will not be able to blame Trump.

    Strap in. It is going to be an interesting summer.


  7. If they (prosecution) were so sure of their case, why are they spending $1.1 million to "pay six social media influencers to spread city-approved messaging and updates throughout the upcoming murder trial"
    "the influencers will intentionally target Black, Native American, Somali, Hmong and Latinx communities with their messaging"


    1. @Frank; then why are they adding 3-rings of security fencing wire around the courthouse?

  8. Those media organizations and public officials publicly stating that Chauvin is a murderer may learn a very expensive lesson.

    Any prosecutor who signed an affidavit for a complaint may also learn an expensive lesson. See Kalina v. Fletcher SCOTUS decision.

  9. Another good Turley article similar to this topic...

    1. I have that open in a tab, but I went for a walk before reading. Will do soon.