How did the autopsy findings factor into the criminal charges against Derek Chauvin in 2020?
Executive summary
Two independent autopsies and a later autopsy review concluded George Floyd’s death was a homicide, findings prosecutors made central to proving causation between Derek Chauvin’s restraint and Floyd’s death [1] [2]. Medical testimony at trial tied the official autopsy to the elements of the charges—showing insufficient oxygen from restraint—while the defense relied on toxicology and heart-disease theories to argue alternate causes, a dispute that persists into post-conviction litigation over preserved tissue samples [3] [4] [5].
1. What the autopsies actually said, in plain terms
The Hennepin County medical examiner and a privately commissioned family autopsy both concluded Floyd’s death was a homicide, with the official examiner identifying the police subdual and restraint as the primary cause and the family’s pathologist describing “asphyxiation from sustained pressure” as the mechanism contributing to death [1] [2] [6]. Prosecutors emphasized those findings during the case, calling on multiple physicians to explain how positional restraint and compression can produce hypoxia—the forensic language linking conduct to fatal outcome [3].
2. How prosecutors translated autopsy findings into criminal proof
Prosecutors used the autopsy determinations to establish causation and to support the degrees of murder and manslaughter charged against Chauvin, presenting expert testimony that Floyd died from insufficient oxygen caused by the restraint, and arguing that the medical conclusions fit the required legal elements of reckless and culpable conduct [3] [7]. The autopsy evidence bolstered the state’s narrative that restraint—not solely underlying disease or intoxication—was the proximate cause, permitting jurors to connect observed police conduct to criminal liability [7] [3].
3. The defense response: toxicology, heart disease, and competing experts
From the start, the defense framed toxicology and preexisting heart disease as alternative explanations, pointing to fentanyl and methamphetamine fragments recovered and arguing those, along with cardiac pathology, could explain Floyd’s collapse; forensic testimony about pills and toxicology was admitted and used to sow reasonable doubt about exclusive causation by restraint [4] [8]. Those counterarguments have continued into appeals and post-conviction motions: Chauvin’s lawyers have argued ineffective assistance for not pursuing further tissue testing and recently secured judicial permission in later proceedings to examine autopsy samples for possible heart pathology corroborating an alternative cause of death [5] [9] [10].
4. What the autopsies meant for the charges, verdict and sentence
The homicide rulings made the path from evidence to charges more direct: prosecutors charged Chauvin with second-degree unintentional murder and other counts, and medical testimony based on autopsies was central to the guilty verdicts the jury returned [3] [2]. Those same factual findings supported a prosecution request for an enhanced sentence after the judge found Chauvin had treated Floyd with “particular cruelty,” a judicial finding tied to the nature of the conduct established at trial [8]. The autopsy-based causation evidence therefore functioned both to prove criminal liability and to justify the seriousness of penalty sought by prosecutors [3] [8].
5. Ongoing disputes, legal strategy and limits of the record
Despite the centrality of autopsy conclusions at trial, the record shows the findings were contested—defense experts and later litigation have sought additional testing of preserved tissue to advance a competing heart-disease theory, and courts have permitted some discovery on that front, illustrating that scientific interpretation remained litigable after conviction [5] [9]. Reporting and court filings reveal that while the autopsies underpinned the charges and verdict, factual disputes about contribution from drugs or disease persist and have become grounds for appeals alleging ineffective counsel rather than direct factual exoneration [10] [8]. This account is drawn from trial reporting, official autopsy conclusions and subsequent court actions; if additional forensic reports exist beyond these sources, they are not reflected here.