Thursday, April 08, 2021

This Isn't Really A Defense, Either

If I recall my torts law classes correctly (and Crim Law, but I never practiced the latter, and law school was many decades ago), there is a settled concept in law that you take the victim as you find them.

So if your negligence is the cause of an injury, and it turns out the person you injured had a weak heart (a Hollywood scenario, granted) and dies subsequent to the injury and because it exacerbated an underlying condition, you are responsible for the wrongful death.  You don't get out of it by arguing "I didn't kill her, her heart did!"

Everything in a trial depends on the jury charge.  So the defense may be hoping to get questions to the jury that include some exculpation for pre-existing conditions in George Floyd.  Odds are that won't happen (never say never, but I think the rule about what you did and what they suffered not being an escape hatch, holds), but they hope to get the jury to decide to answer the questions put to them in a way that lets Chauvin off the hook because, after all:  drugs.

It's an appeal to ignorance and probably racism (black people use drugs, which make them superhuman, or more than they already are, and people who use drugs deserve the wages of their sin, which is death).  It's also a Hail Mary (as in a pass you throw and pray is caught by your guy).  

The law, in other words, doesn't allow for such an absurdity; not as a matter of law, anyway.  Whether the jury finds it to be a fact (as in finding Floyd didn't die because Chauvin knelt on his neck for 9 minutes) is another matter.

That's why the prosecution is putting on evidence like this, though:
Gotta give the jury a reason not to buy the bullshit.  And they probably aren't:

2 comments:

  1. I wonder if the prosecutor could ask him if George Floyd would have died of something else if Chauvin wasn't kneeling on his neck for nine minutes and more. It amazes me how easy it is for them to get an alleged medical expert to say such nonsense, but, then, I just read through what the psychiatrist said in a murder case from almost sixty years ago and wondered if any psychiatrist anywhere today would think what he based his conclusions on was reliable medical science, today. Yet it allowed someone to get out of prison and kill someone else.

    ReplyDelete
  2. To be clear (it's unclear, I now realize), the doctor's testimony is for the state. The defense has been raising, as it can, the issue of Floyd's drug use, his physical condition, anything they can to imply cause of death was not a knee on the neck for 9 minutes. The doctors testimony is about how that knee on the neck WAS the cause of death. JMM has it right, but the defense has to argue something in defense of Chauvin.

    ReplyDelete