That effort to separate Chauvin from police was “a wise choice” to appeal to any jurors who might be uneasy with some of the sharpest criticisms of police and calls to reform or defund them, said Daniel S. Medwed, a law professor at Northeastern University.

“They didn’t want to make it a trial about policing, but rather a trial about a police officer gone bad,” Medwed said. “That was probably a very effective argument.”