Too bad the jurors aren't allowed to know this

'Lackluster performance' by Chauvin defense leaves experts debating trial's outcome, NBC News, 4/18/21

Mark Osler watched with astonishment as a medical expert for the defense testified in Derek Chauvin's murder trial.

Osler, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minnesota, said he wondered why, in a racially charged case, the defense would rely so heavily on a "white expert," who was raised in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and trained in South Africa during apartheid.

Ultimately, he said, he decided they likely had no better options. The defense called just seven witnesses, including only two experts: a use-of-force expert and the medical expert, Dr. David Fowler.

"I really thought that the defense would have more arrows in their quiver — but I would imagine they had trouble finding credible fact and expert witnesses given the nature of the case," he said.

((the following is an interesting snippet about the only other defense expert, Barry Brodd -Progree))

Prosecutors were also able to poke holes in the testimony of the defense's use-of-force expert, Barry Brodd, who testified that Chauvin didn't use deadly force.

Brodd had testified that Chauvin's actions were justified, in part, because Floyd was not compliant. A compliant person, he said, would have been "resting comfortably" on the pavement while he was pinned under Chauvin's knee.

"Did you say 'resting comfortably'?" prosecutor Steven Schleicher asked Brodd.
"Or laying comfortably," Brodd responded.
"Resting comfortably on the pavement?" Schleicher asked.
"Yes," Brodd said.

He eventually conceded that Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck likely caused Floyd pain and therefore could be considered force.