Chauvin's current defenses, as manifested in opening arguments and cross-examinations of prosecution witnesses:
- I didn't do what you saw me do
- If I did do what you saw me do, what you saw me do did not kill George Floyd.
- If I did do what you saw me do, and if what you saw me do did kill George Floyd, it was the crowd's fault for distracting me.
None of those defenses seem very likely to fly, so I have a couple of suggestions for changes in defense strategy.
- A M'Naghten "insanity" defense: I suffer from schizophrenia, and the voice in my head told me to get down on one knee RIGHT NOW and talk with Mugaga, the astral being who visits me occasionally, for nine minutes about how to bring about whirled peas.
- A better variant of the existing "I didn't do what you saw me do" defense: Those videos, 911 calls, etc. are all deepfakes and the supposed witnesses are all crisis actors. In reality, what happened is that we got a call about a guy who had collapsed. When I arrived, I briefly knelt down to check his pulse (there wasn't one) and someone modified the video to extend the incident from a few seconds to nine minutes, tweaked it to make it seem like Floyd was still alive and talking to me, and green-screened in all the people yelling at me to stop killing the guy.
Maybe one of those would work.