EXPLAINER: How is 'reasonableness' key to Chauvin's defense?

Full Screen
1 / 4

In this image from video, Dr. David Fowler, a retired forensic pathologist and former chief medical examiner for the state of Maryland testifies as Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill presides, Wednesday, April 14, 2021, in the trial of former Minneapolis police Officer Derek Chauvin at the Hennepin County Courthouse in Minneapolis, Minn. Chauvin is charged in the May 25, 2020 death of George Floyd. (Court TV via AP, Pool)

CHICAGO – Attorneys and witnesses have used the words “reasonable” or “unreasonable” often at the trial of the former Minneapolis police officer charged with murder and manslaughter in George Floyd's death.

It's no coincidence. The concept of reasonableness has been crucial at trials of officers ever since the landmark Graham v. Connor ruling 32 years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Here is a look at the issue and the key role it's likely to play as Derek Chauvin's trial draws to a close.

WHAT WAS GRAHAM V. CONNOR ABOUT?

Before the Graham v. Connor ruling in 1989, lower courts were often at odds about how to determine whether an officer on trial used an unreasonable, and therefore illegal, amount of force.

Graham v. Connor involved a 1984 arrest in North Carolina in which officers manhandled diabetic Dethorne Graham, brushing off his pleas for treatment when he said he was having a potentially deadly insulin reaction.

It bore some similarities to the arrest of Floyd last May 25, when Floyd repeatedly said he couldn't breathe as Chauvin, who is white, kneeled on the Black man’s neck for nearly 9 1/2 minutes.

WHAT CRITERIA DID THE HIGH COURT SET?