Prediction: George Floyd verdict--Not Guilty.

 A jury might find Derek Chauvin Not Guilty

Open your mind. Consider it. Prepare yourself. 

We might be seeing the American system of justice working the way it is supposed to--with the defendant putting on a well-funded, well-lawyered defense.

Derek Chauvin was the police officer with his knee on the neck of George Floyd. The video showed the apparent slow suffocation of a man on his stomach, handcuffed, helplessly pleading for his life, and then dying before our eyes. It is not too soon for readers to do what jurors in that trial are being asked to do: Consider the case with a mind free of prejudice and to give the defendant the presumption of innocence.

The trial is unusual. More typically, the defendant has fewer resources for a defense. The defendant would face a series of charges, with each carrying a long sentence and the defendant is offered a deal to plead guilty. 

This one is going to trial. A jury might decide "not guilty."

1. The 15-person jury (12, plus three alternates) could find reasonable doubt that Chauvin killed George Floyd. George Floyd was a very sick man before the police came onto the scene. He had two powerful drugs--fentanyl and methamphetamine--in his system and people often die from that. Officer Chauvin appeared to be restraining Mr. Floyd with his knee. There is a plausible, non-criminal reason for that. Perhaps he was waiting for Mr. Floyd to settle down so he could be brought to jail or a hospital without thrashing around; he was being careful and compassionate, not murderous. 

The defense could argue the impassive expression on Chauvin was not indifference. It was stoic, experienced patience, waiting for arrestee's emotional outburst to end. 

What about the cries of "I can't breathe?" The defense can argue the fact that he could talk was proof positive that he could breathe, and was therefore OK. The arrestees talk of breathing might be considered by an experienced policeman to be drug-induced emotional panic. Perhaps the breathing arrestee was worried about not being able to breathe.

What was the officer's knee doing?  Medical experts will testify that the knee does not block breathing. It was on his neck, not his throat. Inexperienced viewers of the video could be excused for mis-understanding, but the policeman and the medical experts will confirm the same thing: The side of a neck is not the windpipe. The defense will argue the video exonerates the policeman for stopping breathing.

Lawyer: A tragic accident

Bottom line: The defense can argue George Floyd died because he was a walking time bomb, an obese man sky high on fentanyl and methamphetamine, who died while the officer was waiting for him to calm down enough to take him into a squad car safely.

Is it crazy to think this way?  My readers may disagree with it, but it isn't crazy. 

2. It takes a unanimous jury, and some people believe implausible things. People shape evidence to fit their frame, not the other way around.  Apparently a full majority of fully functioning adult Republicans insist wholesale fraud took place in the 2020 election took place and it justified overthrowing the election. Apparently at least 8.5% of the American population--one out of twelve--believes that Bill Gates is attempting to insert microchip controls into vaccines and that Hillary Clinton and other Democratic leaders had--or still has--a side-hustle running a child brothel business. Some group of people on the left--certainly more than 8.5%--thought Pete Buttigieg set in motion a conspiracy two years before the night of the Iowa caucuses to arrange a vote-count ambiguity so Buttigieg could go to the cameras and announce his pleasure at having won the vote.

3. Cops are more believable and sympathetic than are people with a known criminal history. Derek Chauvin was a cop; George Floyd had a criminal history. We can leave aside issues of race--although, as always, it is imbedded--but we know that a great many jurors, especially law-abiding White ones, start with a presumption that cops are good guys with a tough job. Others disagree. People with experience observing police corruption and biased policing look at it differently. They see policemen as crooks-in-blue-uniforms. The defense attorney attempted to get those people off the jury and to get people inclined to believe policemen onto it. 

4. Put George Floyd on trial. The defense may do this delicately. George Floyd, has, on record, a violent past. Before the scene with the knee, Mr. Floyd was rough and hard to subdue. Chauvin, as the defense will explain it, was involved in an accidental overdose situation, and both men are victims. Make Officer Chauvin a sympathetic victim?  Really? When the defense establishes that George Floyd was a large, strong, violent criminal hopped-up on drugs, yes. At least for one juror.

Prediction:

1.  I predict the jury will find Chauvin not guilty of any form of murder. They might agree to convict on some minor offense. 

2.  I predict that there will be furious reactions resulting in civil unrest. Many on the left will see it as confirmation of racist-tainted justice and an indictment of our justice system. 

There is another way to look at it. The indictment of our justice system is that most defendants do not get an aggressive, well-funded defense and a real jury trial. Given that the cause of Mr. Floyd's death is arguably ambiguous, Chauvin can be judged to be what he is presumed to be: not guilty. That is exactly what the law, the Constitution, and the civics textbooks say should happen.

I have made up my mind in this case: of course Officer Chauvin killed George Floyd, with cruel indifference to his suffering and risk of death. That is why I would not be qualified to be on the jury, nor will most of my readers. The jury includes people who presented themselves as awesomely un-informed and un-opinionated. I suspect some jurors will be open to seeing the death of George Floyd the way that Officer Chauvin's attorney will describe it.