Dr. Mitchell seems to have considered himself part of the prosecution, threatening to attack Dr. Baker in the pages of the Washington Post if he stuck with his original report.
Post trial, Dr. Mitchell continued acting as a prosecution team member, attacking Dr. David Fowler, a Chauvin defense expert.
In the aftermath of the trial, Dr. Mitchell sent a letter concerning Dr. Fowler and his testimony to four public officials: US Attorney General Merrick Garland, Director of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention Rochelle Wollensky, Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, and Director of the Maryland Department of Health Allison Taylor.
The defense doesn't provide direct or explicit allegations of the inference it draws, but the allegation is that Dr. Mitchell coerced Dr. Baker to alter his final autopsy report by threatening him with professional reprisals if Dr. Baker did not include "Neck compression" as a contributing factor to Floyd's death.
Dr. Mitchell made it clear in his first call after Dr. Baker's preliminary report ruled out traumatic asphyxiation as a cause of death that he disagreed with Dr. Baker - even though Dr. Mitchell was not involved in the autopsy and had no access to any of the autopsy materials.
The motion contends the contents of both conversations, and Dr. Mitchell threatening to publish an Op-Ed in the Washington Post critical of Dr. Baker amounted to "Coercion" under the law, and that the defense should have been provided with evidence of the contacts between Dr. Baker and Dr. Mitchell given Dr. Mitchell's connection to the prosecution evidenced by the November 5 meeting with four members of the prosecution team.
If the prosecution was aware of Dr. Mitchell's coercive behavior toward Dr. Baker and the latter changed his finding as a result of that behavior, the prosecution had an obligation to turn over that exculpatory evidence to the defense.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/05/a_legal_system_corrupted.html
No comments:
Post a Comment