As the murder trial continues for former Minneapolis Police Department officer Derek Chauvin, two legal analysts are completely baffled by his defense.
On Tuesday, April 12, CNN legal analysts Laura Coates and Charles Ramsey were asked to weigh in on the arguments laid out by Chauvin's defense team. Coates criticized Chauvin's defense team as she suggested that their arguments lacked substance.
"Let me bring in CNN's legal analysts Laura Coates as well as Chief Charles Ramsey for more on this really quick," CNN anchor Kate Bouldan said. "Laura, can I get your take really quickly? What you think of what the defense is presenting right out of the gate."
According to Coates, none of the defense team's arguments have been unique. She also said they have failed to present a perspective that justifies the defense's attempt to paint Floyd as the aggressor.
"What is this, Kate? That's my reaction," Coates replied. "The idea is: is this the best that you have for what happened over the last two weeks? You got your first witness who says that George Floyd was compliant. He's a former officer who actually had an encounter with George Floyd where he began with having a gun and knew that there was not a lethal threat to him. Put it away and he was compliant."
Coates went on to discuss Floyd's medical records. Although there have been arguments that drugs were a major factor in Floyd's death, Coates noted that the paramedic's account suggests otherwise.
She added, "You have a paramedic who is saying that his heart was normal, his respiratory system was normal. His EKG was normal. all of this so far has really actually corroborated the prosecution's case. So I'm wondering is there a point you're going to defend Derek Chauvin or are we going to have a regurgitation of what the jury has already seen which is very compelling evidence that George Floyd was the victim and the defendant in this case and not an aggressor and not a drug overdose victim."
Chauvin trial / CNN www.youtube.com
Former Police Chief Charles Ramsey also shared offered an opinion similar to Coates' argument. He noted that if nothing changes quickly, the defense team's case may unravel sooner rather than later.
"I don't know if it's going to improve," he said. "If it doesn't then this is not going to last very long in terms of the defense presentation. But you've had two witnesses now that really didn't contribute anything and contradict what the prosecution has put on. And they're talking about past events that have absolutely nothing to do with May 25th of last year."
"I don't get it," Ramsey added. "If I was the defendant, I would be a little nervous right now."