Obviously, we want expert opinions to be credible, to avoid what Rebecca is talking about, which is an expert who just says whatever the attorney who hired him wants the expert to say. 

Consequently, there is a vetting process.  Prior to testifying, an expert witness must submit a report that is given to the other side during discovery.  

The report contains a lot of information.  First, you will get the expert's  credentials, including their education, professional experience, etc.  Based on this information, an attorney can object to an expert if he feels the expert is not qualified to testify concerning the subject matter the expert is retained to discuss.  If there is an objection, a separate court hearing will take place (usually outside the presence of the jury) to determine whether the expert will be allowed to testify.

Next you have the expert's opinion, which must be very detailed and include all of the evidence the expert considered when forming the opinion, along with the factual and scientific basis for the opinion.  The expert cannot offer testimony that goes beyond the scope of the expert report.  So before the trial, each side already knows exactly what the other side's experts will say, and has the opportunity to rebut the testimony with their own experts.  

Finally, you have information regarding the expert's previous opinions.  The expert report must list any articles or books published by the expert, a list of cases wherein the expert previously testified, which side the expert testified for, and a brief summary of the substance of their prior testimony.  This enables attorneys to mine the experts past opinions for information that contradicts their present testimony, thereby discrediting the expert as a gun for hire, who is willing to say whatever is wanted.

It is true that experts can charge for their time, and they are very expensive (hundreds of dollars per hour).  That is one area in which I agree with Rebecca.  The system is unequal because a wealthy party can afford outstanding expert witnesses (OJ had the best in the business), whereas a poorer defendant might not have any experts.  In criminal cases this disparity usually operates in favor of the state, rather than the defendant.

  

If the issue of drug use was being introduced to show that Floyd was a bad guy, then I would agree with you 100%. Floyd's character is irrelevant with respect to how this situation was handled by the police.  

The issue is that Floyd had Fentanyl in his system, and at least one doctor stated it was an overdose amount.  

The warning label that comes with a Fentanyl patch says the following (Fentanyl Patch: Uses, Dosage, Side Effects & Warnings - Drugs.com) :

"Fentanyl can slow or stop your breathing...Fatal side effects can occur if you use this medicine with alcohol, or with other drugs that can cause drowsiness or slow your breathing."

On the videotape, Floyd is heard complaining that he can't breathe even before he is placed in the police car.  Some have opined that he was already in the beginning stages of a fatal drug overdose.

Whether you agree with this argument or not, I don't understand how you can possibly say the defense is not entitled to raise it, or that the information is irrelevant.  It relates directly to the cause of death.  

Here is the problem for Chauvin as I see it:  If its wrong to kneel on the neck of a healthy person for 9+ minutes (which I believe has been well established), then it is even more wrong to kneel on the neck of a person who is already experiencing respiratory problems, which Floyd clearly was.  No matter which experts you find more persuasive, it doesn't change the fact that the police response was wrong; criminally wrong in my opinion.  So I feel that the jury will see through this and Chauvin will be convicted.  

Some of the things that you say are confusing, or that seem to have no purpose will be given context and pulled together into a coherent narrative during closing arguments.

After looking at all the evidence, and listening to the arguments, here are my thoughts:

Minnesota has two types of second degree murder; intentional and unintentional. 

I don't think the state proved that Chauvin intended to kill Mr. Floyd.  

In order to convict Chauvin of unintentional second degree murder, the state would have to show that Chauvin "caused the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense...with force or violence."

He was found guilty of second and third degree murder and second degree manslaughter. Justice has prevailed.

It is a shame that it ever came to this. But it sets a precedent that may make black lives safer in this country. Let us hope that A) this begins a resolution of this damned catastrophe and B) these killers realize WHY black lives matter.

He starts serving jail time today.  Sentencing will be in 8 weeks.  

I think he'll be safe in prison.  In Nevada, convicted offenders the state knows will be targeted by other inmates (ex cops, child sex offenders, people who have left gangs and testified against other gang members, celebrities, etc) are often sent to a separate facility.  

When I was working for the Innocence Project, our client was convicted of a heinous sex offense against a child.  He was shipped out of Vegas to the Lovelock Correctional Facility in northern Nevada for his own safety. When we went to see him, I remember seeing OJ Simpson in the yard.

I've heard that most other states do the same thing with convicts in high profile cases like this, to protect them.  

Yes.  The defense moved for a mistrial, based on the theory that Maxine Waters' comments could have prejudiced he jury.  The judge denied the motion, but acknowledged it could be grounds for an appeal.

Biden deliberately (and smartly) waited until jurors were sequestered, so his comments would not influence them. 

I don't see this going anywhere.  A successful appeal would not mean Chauvin gets acquitted.  It would result in the first trial being declared a mistrial, and a new trial being held.  But where would you do that?  There has been extensive nationwide media coverage of this case, so you'd be hard pressed to find a jury pool that is untainted from the defense point of view.  There's no reason to believe that a jury in another state would be more impartial than the jury in Minnesota was.