Black and White
We are living once again in a world dominated by racial issues. Between the Derek Chauvin case about the death of George Floyd and now the Daunte Wright shooting a mere few miles away from the place where George Floyd was held on the ground under a neck choke hold for 9 minutes and 29 seconds that took his life, the news cycle is dominated by these Minnesota cases this week. Last year we were all driven to watch impeachment trial process in Congress followed by political process associated with the rancorous Presidential and Congressional elections of 2020. A great deal of that was overwhelmed by racial overtones having to do with immigration efforts to hinder the channeled growth of black and brown communities coming into the country to gradually bolster the roles of that cohort across the nation. There were also serious issues of white supremacy brought about by the encouragement (indirect and direct) from President Trump. The most notable for these was the comment made in the televised debate when he told questioner Chris Wallace of Fox News that the notoriously racist Proud Boys should “stand back and stand-by” rather than to stand down. It was noteworthy that the Proud Boys were so emboldened by that comment that they wore t-shirts with that very quote. As we all now know, one of the things the Proud Boys were standing-by for was the violent attack and attempted intervention of Congressional process and take-over of the Capitol that took place on January 6th, 2021. As was obvious, but has yet to be litigated (though it certainly will be), these devastatingly seditious actions were specifically encouraged and suggested by the “Big Lie” about election fraud claimed by Donald Trump and might have been directed and coordinated by the White House.
Last week the news was dominated by the negative corporate reaction to the efforts across the states where voter suppression legislation is running rampant. Those efforts are being driven by Republican-controlled state legislatures and while they are not specific in singling out people of color it is obvious to the most casual observers that the legislative efforts are oriented towards making it harder for people to vote and, as such, is aimed at disproportionately hampering the growing numbers of black and brown people from voting. All demographic evidence makes it clear that the United States is gradually and irreversibly becoming a nation with a majority of people of color. As such, the natural democratic reality that accompanies that is that the policies favored by brown and black people, to the extent they are widely held in that cohort, will govern the running of the country.
With that all as backdrop, let’s go back to the Derek Chauvin case, which I am watching live. I, like many fellow Americans, find the video evidence against Derek Chauvin followed by the overwhelming testimony by law enforcement officials (including those that specifically supervised Derek Chauvin) and medical and forensic specialists, to be clear indications of the fact that this man had used excessive force that caused the death of George Floyd. Naturally, it is the obligation of the defense to give contrary testimony to refute that evidence in all ways that it can. It is hard to watch these defense witnesses without wondering why they would put themselves out on such a controversial limb as to suggest that Derek Chauvin did not use excessive force in the circumstances of the arrest of George Floyd or that his death was likely not caused by the physical circumstances of his arrest. These are paid-for expert witnesses that have been sourced by defense council and it has been said by countless cable news pundits that we must be reminded that lawyers can almost always find someone willing to get paid to say whatever they want them to say. It should be noted that while most of the prosecution witnesses were not paid-for witnesses, there were several experts that I’m sure did get paid for their testimony. From what I have seen though, the defense experts are far more suspect.
For example, I am currently watching the testimony of a former medical examiner who seems to now make a business of giving such expert testimony. The first part of his testimony is the voir dire which establishes the expert’s bona fides as an expert. It is shocking to me that the defense has had to resort to calling as an expert, a man who was raised and trained in South Africa during the dominance of that country by the system of Apartheid. This case is a case about alleged specific brutality inflicted on a black man by a white police officer. But it is really a symbolic case about police brutality and the systematic imposition of harsh treatment of a predominantly white policing system on people (mostly men) of color. The defense must have been desperate for a medical expert to taut its medical theories to choose a physician with such obvious racist roots (whether real or implied by his heritage). The fact that he is being paid $350/hr. for his testimony is also telling. That may sound like a lot to some, but in the expert witness arena, that is actually a very low hourly rate for an expert, further implying that the defense had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find this witness.
I would actually say that this expert testimony crosses a line of being an irresponsible management of this defense in the broader context of the societal forces at play. The defense attorneys would doubtless say that their obligation is ONLY to their client and his defense at all costs. But I would argue that he has not only done harm to his client’s cause but he has also further inflamed the racial backdrop in this case by trying to use a South African to make their case. It would be like calling Dr. Mengele to defend Adolf Eichmann.
In the Daunte Wright case, which was also captured on camera (in this case the body cam of the officer who caused the death), there is a case to be made for accidental death. This is far less the case in the George Floyd killing. There was nothing accidental or momentarily mistaken in putting a handcuffed man on the pavement and putting all of your weight with your knee on his neck for nine minutes and twenty-nine seconds while he was repeatedly claiming that he could not breathe and that he was dying. In the case of Daunte Wright, Kim Potter, the officer who fatally shot him, claimed that she was trying to tase Wright even though she reached for her dominant-side-located gun (which was black and considerably heavier than the taser) instead of her non-dominant-side-located lighter, bright yellow taser weapon. Kim Potter will have a hard time claiming she made a simple mistake, but she does have a case to be made since the drama of police/criminal interactions are certainly stressful and subject to physical confusion. But Derek Chauvin has almost no defense against what he did. Not that it would be easy to do or expect, it would have been far easier for the country if he had simply plead guilty, thrown himself on the mercy of the court and apologized for his transgression of aggression. Now pinch me out of my dream state.
If we all cared about our societal problem of racism, what should be a black and white determination is now turned into a lot of excuses that will go down into historical infamy in the same way that the Nuremberg defense of “just following orders” has gone. I find myself differentiating Derek Chauvin from Kim Potter (both long experienced police officers) and can only hope that for the sake of societal healing, Ms. Potter takes a path of more grace than has Derek Chauvin.