Fact check: What were the findings of George Floyd's autopsy report?

1. Official autopsy: The county’s clearest legal framing of “homicide” and complicating medical findings

The Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s 20-page autopsy report states unequivocally that George Floyd’s death was a homicide and attributes the immediate cause to cardiopulmonary arrest in the context of law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression. The report documents external injuries such as bruises and abrasions and details underlying pathological conditions including severe arteriosclerotic heart disease, an enlarged heart, and hypertensive heart disease. Toxicology in the official report identified fentanyl and recent methamphetamine use among the “other significant conditions” that might have affected his physiological state. The county phrased its conclusion to link the restraint to the cardiac and pulmonary arrest while also noting comorbidities and drug presence, making the ruling both a forensic determination and a medical accounting of contributory factors ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. Independent autopsy: Family’s experts center asphyxia from compression as the cause

A separate autopsy commissioned by George Floyd’s family arrived at a homicide determination as well, but with a different forensic emphasis: the independent examiners concluded Floyd died of asphyxia caused by neck and back compression, describing how sustained pressure cut off blood flow to the brain while weight on his back impaired respiratory mechanics. That independent report framed the mechanical restraint—position, weight on the back, and neck compression that limited diaphragm function—as the direct means of oxygen deprivation, with other factors such as restraints and positioning listed as contributory. The family’s examiners explicitly sought to contest narratives that foregrounded preexisting health problems or drugs as primary causes by highlighting the causal role of compression in producing fatal asphyxia ^{[4] [5]}.

3. Where the reports align—and where they diverge—on cause versus contribution

Both autopsies agree on a central point: George Floyd’s death was a homicide occurring while he was being restrained by law enforcement. The divergence lies in forensic nuance: the county report frames death as cardiopulmonary arrest “complicating” law enforcement subdual, and it enumerates preexisting heart disease and the presence of fentanyl and methamphetamine as significant conditions, potentially influencing physiological vulnerability. The independent report sharpens the causal arrow toward asphyxia from neck and back compression, prioritizing mechanical restraint as the proximate mechanism. These differences reflect distinct forensic approaches—one that documents an array of physiological contributors and another that isolates the physical act of compression as the proximate lethal mechanism—creating space for competing narratives about primary versus contributory causes ^{[6] [5] [1]}.

4. How follow-up reporting and fact-checking treated competing claims after the autopsies

Reporting and later fact-checks emphasized that a later claim asserting a new autopsy said Floyd died of an overdose was false, reaffirming that the official 2020 medical examiner’s report remains the authoritative county finding and that the family’s independent autopsy did not contradict the homicide ruling but differed in mechanism emphasis. Fact-checking outlets and county statements reiterated the presence of fentanyl and methamphetamine and underlying cardiac disease as documented facts while rejecting narratives that reduced the death to a simple overdose. Journalistic summaries published around the time of release noted the county provided the report with the family’s consent and highlighted bruises, abrasions, and COVID-19 as additional medical notes in the official paperwork ^{[7] [2] [3]}.

5. The broader evidentiary and public-policy implications that remain after the autopsies

The two autopsies—county and independent—deliver a consistent legal classification (homicide) while supplying contrasting forensic narratives that shaped public understanding, prosecutorial charging, and political debate. The county report’s inclusion of comorbidities and drugs introduces medical context that can inform legal defense and counterclaims, while the independent report’s focus on asphyxia underlines the tactical and procedural critique of restraint methods. Both reports are factual inputs that do not by themselves determine criminal or policy outcomes, but they do frame issues for courts, juries, and policymakers by clarifying mechanisms of death and listing contributing factors. Observers and decision-makers have used both reports to argue different lessons about law enforcement practice, medical causation, and accountability ^{[6] [4] [1]}.