How did expert testimony at Derek Chauvin’s trial characterize the cause of death?
Executive summary
Expert testimony at Derek Chauvin’s 2021 state trial split sharply: prosecution medical witnesses testified that George Floyd died from asphyxia due to restraint, while defense experts attributed his death to preexisting heart disease, drug intoxication or a sudden cardiac arrhythmia; Chauvin’s post‑conviction filing now argues those state experts were wrong and seeks new testimony [1] [2]. The defense has pointed to experts such as Dr. David Fowler who said heart disease and a sudden heart rhythm disturbance were decisive, a view critics say was widely rejected by hundreds of other medical professionals [3] [4].
1. How the prosecution framed cause of death — asphyxia tied to restraint
Prosecutors put forward medical experts who told jurors that George Floyd’s death was due to asphyxia produced by the restraint Chauvin applied, a line of testimony the defense now contests in court filings arguing those witnesses “convinced the jury” Floyd died of asphyxia while the Hennepin County medical examiner did not reach that same formulation [1] [2]. Chauvin’s recent petition claims that testimony about asphyxia was central to the jury’s guilty verdict and is a grounds for relief if it can be shown the testimony was improper or not generally accepted [4] [1].
2. The defense’s medical narrative — heart disease, drugs, and arrhythmia
Defense experts at trial, and in later filings, offered an alternative medical story: they emphasized severe coronary artery disease, and the presence of fentanyl and methamphetamine, as causes or major contributors to Floyd’s death. Maryland’s former medical examiner David Fowler testified for the defense that Floyd died from a sudden heart rhythm disturbance related to heart disease — a position the post‑conviction filing and several outlets cite as a key defense contention [2] [3].
3. Conflict among pathologists and broader medical reaction
The defense’s heart‑disease/arrhythmia explanation was controversial outside the courtroom. After the trial, critics including hundreds of medical professionals publicly rejected Fowler’s conclusions and his methodologies; that dispute prompted reviews and, in Maryland, audits of past autopsies tied to Fowler’s work, with officials finding many in‑custody deaths that should have been reviewed more critically [3]. Chauvin’s filing contends that some state medical testimony was not “generally accepted by the scientific community,” and says it can call its own peer‑reviewed experts to make that claim [4].
4. Legal strategy: re‑litigating medical evidence
Chauvin’s 71‑page post‑conviction petition frames the medical testimony dispute as part of a broader challenge to his convictions, alleging prosecutorial misconduct and false or misleading testimony from both medical and police supervisors; the filing asks a judge to weigh whether disputed expert testimony and jury instructions deprived Chauvin of due process [2] [1]. The filing explicitly cites the idea that state experts’ cause‑of‑death testimony influenced jurors to convict, and promises competing expert evidence from groups such as the Forensic Panel [4].
5. What sources say — agreement and disagreement
Available reporting shows clear disagreement: prosecution experts linked death to asphyxia from restraint [1] [2], defense experts pointed to cardiac disease and drugs [2] [3], and many outside clinicians criticized the defense’s medical testimony as outside accepted forensic practice, prompting institutional scrutiny [3]. Chauvin’s filings and several news outlets note former Minneapolis officials also gave conflicting testimony about training and policy, which the defense says further undermined the state’s case [4] [2].
6. Limitations and what reporting does not say
Available sources document the opposing expert views and the defense’s new legal claim, but they do not supply full transcripts of all medical testimony, detailed forensic reports from the Hennepin County Medical Examiner within these excerpts, or definitive adjudications of which medical interpretation is scientifically superior; those specifics are “not found in current reporting” provided here [4] [2]. The ultimate legal question — whether disputed testimony legally warrants a new trial — will rest on courts weighing these competing expert narratives and procedural claims [2].
7. Why this matters beyond one trial
Disputes over cause of death in high‑profile policing cases shape public trust, influence policy on restraint tactics, and spur reviews of forensic practice; the Chauvin aftermath has already produced professional backlash against certain medical testimony and institutional audits, illustrating how contested expert evidence can have systemic consequences beyond a single verdict [3] [4]. Readers should note that competing expert opinions exist in the public record and that Chauvin’s legal team is expressly banking on those disagreements to reopen his convictions [4] [2].