Were toxicology results in George Floyd's coroner's report a factor in legal proceedings?

1. Toxicology was reported publicly and became part of the narrative

The Hennepin County autopsy and accompanying toxicology were released early in June 2020 and list measurable levels of fentanyl (11 ng/mL) and methamphetamine (about 19 ng/mL), details that circulated widely and fed competing public narratives about cause of death ^{[5] [1] [2]}.

2. Official autopsy: “cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained” — not overdose as primary finding

The full Hennepin County report concluded Floyd “experienced a cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained by a law enforcement officer” and classified the death as a homicide; the report listed fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use among other significant conditions but did not say drugs were the main cause ^{[2] [6] [3]}.

3. Defense used toxicology to challenge causation; prosecution rebutted with expert testimony

Defense teams and some public commentators emphasized the toxicology numbers to argue that intoxicants or underlying disease could explain the death; prosecutors countered by calling toxicologists and other medical experts who testified that drugs and heart disease did not account for Floyd’s cardiopulmonary arrest while he was restrained ^{[7] [4] [1]}.

4. Court outcomes show toxicology did not prevent convictions

Despite the defense’s focus on toxicology and comorbidities, Derek Chauvin was convicted in state court, and at later federal civil-rights proceedings experts testified that drugs were not the cause; reporting and fact-checks concluded that toxicology alone cannot identify a lethal level of fentanyl postmortem and that available evidence did not support overdose as the main cause ^{[1] [8] [4]}.

5. Scientific limits: toxicology is not a standalone determinant of cause of death

Multiple fact-checking and medical-commentary sources stressed that postmortem drug levels are difficult to interpret in isolation and do not automatically indicate a lethal overdose — a point used by prosecutors and independent experts to argue that the presence of fentanyl and methamphetamine did not negate restraint as the operative cause ^{[1] [8]}.

6. Public discourse and misinformation: toxicology fueled competing political frames

The autopsy’s toxicology page was repeatedly seized upon on social media and cable shows to promote an overdose narrative — even as outlets like AP, Reuters, PolitiFact and others documented how that simplified reading ignored the full report’s homicide determination and expert testimony rejecting overdose as the primary cause ^{[2] [1] [8] [6]}.

7. Alternative medical opinions and family autopsy added complexity

Floyd’s family commissioned an independent autopsy that concluded death by asphyxiation; the coexistence of two autopsy reports, each emphasizing different mechanisms (restraint/asphyxia versus listing intoxicants as contributing) created room for legitimate medical debate and for partisan or conspiratorial readings to spread ^{[6] [3]}.

8. What reporting does not say or cannot prove from the supplied sources

Available sources do not mention any single toxicology measurement that definitively proved an overdose as the legal or medical cause of death; nor do they supply an uncontested, objective threshold demonstrating that Floyd’s measured drug levels were, by themselves, lethal — indeed, multiple fact-checks and court experts said toxicology alone cannot establish that ^{[1] [8]}.

Conclusion: toxicology results were a visible, litigated piece of evidence and were used by defense teams and commentators to raise doubt. But the official autopsy, court testimony from prosecution experts, and fact-checking reporting treated the toxicology as one factor among many — not the dispositive explanation for Floyd’s death — and courts convicted a former officer on homicide-related counts despite those toxicology findings ^{[2] [4] [1]}.