Dr. Kory addressed the payment issue in his response above where he notes he's been retained in cases where his expert testimony contradicted what his clients requested. His testimony wasn't used, but he still got paid.
Though what's worse about the argument above is that Kory gave his testimony in the civil case, not the criminal case. Civil cases don't have the same evidence requirements for conviction. Reasonable doubt is only an issue in criminal cases. The City of Minneapolis settled its case with Floyd's family. So the civil case never went to court. The City of Minneapolis also settled two other cases involving Chauvin due to Chuavin's use of excessive force in those cases.
You are dead wrong on the admissibility of evidence in a criminal trial versus a civil trial- it’s the same standard. You either intentionally or negligently confuse the standard for conviction with the standard for admissibility of an expert opinion.
"In a criminal case, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime of which he's been accused. By contrast, a civil plaintiff must merely show that it is more likely than not that the accusations behind the claim are true. This is called the “preponderance of evidence” standard."
Weren’t his blood levels tested for fentanyl? I’m assuming that’s the marker.
Again, what level can a seasoned drug user tolerate?
Asking how much Dr. Kory got paid is in poor taste btw.
Dr. Kory addressed the payment issue in his response above where he notes he's been retained in cases where his expert testimony contradicted what his clients requested. His testimony wasn't used, but he still got paid.
Though what's worse about the argument above is that Kory gave his testimony in the civil case, not the criminal case. Civil cases don't have the same evidence requirements for conviction. Reasonable doubt is only an issue in criminal cases. The City of Minneapolis settled its case with Floyd's family. So the civil case never went to court. The City of Minneapolis also settled two other cases involving Chauvin due to Chuavin's use of excessive force in those cases.
You are dead wrong on the admissibility of evidence in a criminal trial versus a civil trial- it’s the same standard. You either intentionally or negligently confuse the standard for conviction with the standard for admissibility of an expert opinion.
You're making a straw man argument. No one is arguing about "admissibility of evidence". As noted in this link, https://billnettleslaw.com/differences-between-civil-and-criminal-cases/, the standard of evidence to get a conviction is different:
"In a criminal case, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime of which he's been accused. By contrast, a civil plaintiff must merely show that it is more likely than not that the accusations behind the claim are true. This is called the “preponderance of evidence” standard."