How did expert testimony at Derek Chauvin’s trial interpret the autopsy findings?
Executive summary
Medical experts at Derek Chauvin’s trial diverged over what Dr. Andrew Baker’s autopsy report meant: Baker ruled George Floyd’s death a homicide due to “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression” and stood by that finding while not listing asphyxia explicitly [1] [2], prosecution experts argued the autopsy did not encompass the totality of evidence and testified Floyd died from lack of oxygen caused by restraint and neck compression [3] [4], and defense experts offered alternative interpretations—most prominently Dr. David Fowler—who judged the manner “undetermined” and emphasized heart disease, drug use, or other factors [5] [6].
1. The medical examiner’s autopsy and his courtroom line
Hennepin County Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Andrew Baker performed the official autopsy, labeled the death a homicide, and testified that Floyd suffered cardiopulmonary arrest during law enforcement subdual, restraint and neck compression while also saying underlying heart disease and fentanyl were contributing but not the direct cause of death [2] [1].
2. Prosecution experts: autopsy plus video equals asphyxia
Prosecution witnesses, including pulmonologist Dr. Martin Tobin and forensic pathologist Dr. Lindsey Thomas, argued that while the written autopsy was an important record, it did not by itself consider critical external evidence—most notably the video showing Chauvin’s knee on Floyd for more than nine minutes—and that combining the autopsy with that broader record supported a conclusion of fatal hypoxia/asphyxia from restraint and neck compression [4] [3] [7].
3. The defense view and the “undetermined” counterargument
Defense experts seized on gaps and language in the autopsy to challenge causation, with Dr. David Fowler testifying that Floyd’s death would more properly be described as “undetermined” and attributing primary roles to sudden cardiac arrhythmia from atherosclerotic heart disease, intoxication, or other contributors—arguments aimed at raising reasonable doubt about a direct causal link from restraint to death [5] [6] [8].
4. Where the autopsy report did and didn’t speak for itself
Witnesses on both sides emphasized that an autopsy is only one piece of a medicolegal death investigation: Dr. Baker acknowledged that the autopsy findings alone did not tell the whole story and that investigators must incorporate scene evidence and videos, while other experts noted that many asphyxia deaths show little or no bruising on internal or external exams, complicating reliance on autopsy findings alone [7] [5].
5. Strategic uses of the autopsy in court and by counsel
Prosecutors sought to reconcile Baker’s homicide ruling with their asphyxia theory by calling outside experts who placed the autopsy in context and concluded lack of oxygen as the mechanism, while the defense both leaned on Fowler’s alternative reading and highlighted autopsy details—such as heart artery narrowing and detected fentanyl—that they argued could explain death absent unlawful force, creating the central medical dispute for jurors [1] [9] [8].
6. The evidentiary reality and limits of certainty presented to jurors
Trial testimony made clear that medical conclusions rested on integration of pathology, toxicology and video/scene evidence; experts differed not only in conclusions but in methods and emphasis, with prosecution experts focusing on physiological mechanics of respiratory failure and defense experts prioritizing cardiac disease and intoxication, and several witnesses acknowledging limits—e.g., autopsies can miss signs of asphyxia and not all samples were tested in ways cited in later analyses—leaving jurors to weigh competing expert interpretations [4] [5] [7].