Defense introduces studies showing the safety of prone positions...

Will the prosecution introduce studies showing prone position is lethal?

Of course that is an entirely rhetorical question. If the prosecution had studies showing that the police approved and often used "prone position" was deadly, they would have led with that. In fact, they never would have bothered with the idea that Floyd was choked or that Chauvin was improperly administering the neck restraint. They would have just suggested the the prone position itself was the killer from the get-go. 

But as you recall, both of the State's own use of force experts testified that the restraint as designed is not lethal. Moreover, after looking at all the different camera angles they were able to conclude that Chauvin's knee position was also not "lethal". That testimony is consistent with both police procedures and the studies that the defense is providing. The defense is wrapping up that little bow before they even get to their own defense.

At this point the new line of medical testimony is in many ways putting the police department's use of the prone position at trial as much as the officers who used it. While there is still an argument that the prone position was misused, much of what these medical experts are arguing would be valid even under the textbook use of the tactic. 

As McCarthy argued yesterday this case is becoming less about whether the actions of the officers were something akin to brutality and is becoming more about whether the police provided the correct amount of care under the circumstance. McCarthy's point is spot on. Whether you think Chauvin is a killer or a stand up cop, the facts remain the same. Floyd died and no medical care was offered by any of the officers. The fact that he apparently was held down for a period of time after he had passed away is still a horrible and damning fact, regardless of "why" he died. 

So the question becomes whether or not a jury will want to punish Chauvin for Floyd's death, even if they no longer believe that he "choked him" or even did anything intentional to cause the death. The question is how they see the refusal to check his pulse, turn him over, or even take notice that the man he was holding down had died. Will this be seen as a mistake made in the heat of the moment or criminal negligence that requires him to be held accountable. 

I am one of those who has a fairly poor impression of Officer Chauvin in general. I believe that he likely suffers from little guy syndrome, became a police officer in part to make himself feel bigger, and is probably the sort of person who is more aggressive than the average person in most situations. But I am also quite convinced that he had no intention of killing anyone and certainly nothing during this trial so far has convinced me otherwise. But if I was sitting on the jury today, I might still be open to the possibility of a manslaughter conviction, all depending on how the rest of the trial lays out.

That, however, is a very complicated matter and will be addressed in a different post.