Skip to main content
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track on the Olympic Games
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week for 24 weeks
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track onthe Olympics Games
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

George Floyd's brother Philonise, centre, checks in at a security entrance at the Hennepin County Government Center, in Minneapolis, Minn., on April 9, 2021.

BRANDON BELL/Getty Images

Prosecutors’ case against former Officer Derek Chauvin drew toward a close Monday with tender memories from George Floyd’s younger brother, along with another look at the harrowing video and testimony from a use-of-force expert who said no “reasonable” officer would have done what Mr. Chauvin did.

Seth Stoughton, a professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law, judged Mr. Chauvin’s actions against what a reasonable police officer in the same situation would have done, and repeatedly found that Mr. Chauvin did not meet the test.

“No reasonable officer would have believed that that was an appropriate, acceptable or reasonable use of force,” Mr. Stoughton said of the way Mr. Floyd was held facedown with a knee across his neck for up to 9 minutes, 29 seconds.

Story continues below advertisement

He said, too, that the failure to roll Mr. Floyd over and render aid “as his increasing medical distress became obvious” was unreasonable.

He said it was unreasonable as well to think that Mr. Floyd might harm officers or escape after he had been handcuffed to the ground. And in yet another blow to Mr. Chauvin’s defence, Mr. Stoughton said a reasonable officer would not have viewed the yelling bystanders as a threat.

The matter of what is reasonable carries great weight: Police officers are allowed certain latitude to use deadly force when someone puts the officer or other people in danger. But legal experts say a key question for the jury will be whether Mr. Chauvin’s actions were reasonable in those specific circumstances.

On cross-examination, Mr. Chauvin attorney Eric Nelson questioned Mr. Stoughton’s opinion that putting Mr. Floyd on his stomach in the first place was itself unreasonable and excessive.

“Reasonable minds can disagree, agreed?” Mr. Nelson asked.

“On this particular point, no,” the witness said.

Prosecutors are expected to rest their case on Tuesday, after which the defence will begin presenting its side. During 11 days of testimony, prosecution experts, including the Minneapolis police chief and medical professionals, said that the now-fired white officer violated his training and used excessive force and that Mr. Floyd died from a lack of oxygen because of the way his breathing was constricted.

Story continues below advertisement

Earlier in the day Monday, Philonise Floyd, 39, took the witness stand and lovingly recalled how his older brother used to make the best banana mayonnaise sandwiches, how George drilled him in catching a football and the way George used to mark his height on the wall as a boy because he wanted to grow taller.

He shed tears as he was shown a picture of his late mother and a young George, saying, “I miss both of them.”

His testimony at Mr. Chauvin’s murder trial was part of an effort by prosecutors to humanize George Floyd in front of the jury and make the 46-year-old Black man more than a crime statistic. Minnesota is a rarity in allowing “spark of life” testimony during the trial stage.

Philonise Floyd described growing up in a poor area of Houston with George and their other siblings.

He said Mr. Floyd played football and deliberately threw the ball at different angles so Philonise would have to practice diving for it. “I always thought my brother couldn’t throw. But he never intended to throw the ball to me,” he said, smiling.

Earlier Monday, Judge Peter Cahill rejected a defence request to immediately sequester the jury, the morning after the killing of a Black man during a traffic stop triggered unrest in a suburb just outside Minneapolis.

Story continues below advertisement

Mr. Chauvin’s attorney had argued that the jurors could be influenced by the prospect of what might happen as a result of their verdict.

But the judge said he will not sequester the jury until next Monday, when he expects closing arguments to begin. He also denied a defence request to question jurors about what they might have seen about Sunday’s police shooting of 20-year-old Daunte Wright in Brooklyn Center.

In the wake of the shooting, protesters broke into about 20 businesses, jumped on police cars and hurled rocks and other objects at officers in Brooklyn Center, about 16 kilometres from the heavily fortified Minneapolis courthouse.

The Brooklyn Center police chief later called the shooting accidental, saying the officer who fired apparently meant to draw a Taser, not a handgun.

Mr. Stoughton, the use-of-force expert, said the officers who subdued Mr. Floyd should have known he was not trying to attack them when he struggled and frantically said he was claustrophobic as they tried to put him in a squad car.

“I don’t see him presenting a threat of anything,” Mr. Stoughton said, adding that no reasonable officer would conclude otherwise.

Story continues below advertisement

Mr. Stoughton also pointed to instances when Mr. Chauvin should have been aware of Mr. Floyd’s growing distress: After one officer suggested rolling Mr. Floyd onto his side, Mr. Chauvin said no. The 19-year police veteran ignored bystanders who were shouting that Mr. Floyd was not responsive. And when another officer said Mr. Floyd didn’t have a pulse, Mr. Stoughton said, Mr. Chauvin’s response was “Huh.”

Mike Brandt, a local defence attorney closely watching the case, said Philonise Floyd’s testimony was irrelevant to whether Mr. Chauvin caused Mr. Floyd’s death, “but it certainly plays on the sympathy of the jury.” He said Mr. Stoughton’s testimony gave prosecutors an opportunity to leave the jury “with one more image of the video” of Mr. Floyd pleading for his life.

“It was the parting shot by the state,” Mr. Brandt said.

Earlier Monday, Dr. Jonathan Rich, a cardiology expert from Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago, echoed previous witnesses in saying Mr. Floyd died of low oxygen levels from the way he was held down by police.

He rejected defence theories that Mr. Floyd died of a drug overdose or a heart condition. Mr. Floyd had fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system, high blood pressure and narrowing of the heart arteries, according to previous testimony.

“It was the truly the prone restraint and positional restraints that led to his asphyxiation,” Dr. Rich said.

Story continues below advertisement

In fact, the expert said, “Every indicator is that Mr. Floyd had actually an exceptionally strong heart.”

On cross-examination, Nelson tried to shift blame onto Mr. Floyd, asking if Mr. Floyd would have survived had he “simply gotten in the back seat of the squad car.”

But Dr. Rich rejected that line of argument: “Had he not been restrained in the way in which he was, I think he would have survived that day. I think he would have gone home, or wherever he was going to go.”

Mr. Chauvin’s attorney is expected to call his own medical experts to make the case that it was not the officer’s knee that killed Mr. Floyd. The defence has not said whether Mr. Chauvin will testify.

Our Morning Update and Evening Update newsletters are written by Globe editors, giving you a concise summary of the day’s most important headlines. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies