we have protective. violent. unscripted on al-jazeera. 'd closing arguments are to begin shortly in the murder trial of derek cho over and over the death of george floyd will be live in minneapolis. you're watching others around life from a headquarters and. also coming up russian authorities say alexina volley has been moved to a prison hospital the jailed opposition leader has been on a hunger strike for nearly 3 weeks another record a single day surging coronavirus infections in india its capital will be under a curfew for when. the 1st powered flight on another planet nasser's

helicopter ingenuity makes history by taking off and landing on mars say. hello it's day 16 of the dairy chosen trial in the u.s. city of minneapolis the prosecution and defense teams will begin their closing arguments in just a few moments the former policeman is accused of murdering george lloyd by kneeling on his neck for more than 9 minutes last year the case triggered worldwide protests demanding racial justice let's get to mark also has a professor of law at the university of st thomas he's joining us from minneapolis thanks so much for your time so big day today with the closing arguments starting just tell us what you're going to be looking out for. yeah i think one thing that

everyone is waiting to hear is exactly how the defense is going do try to create reasonable doubt we know what the prosecution will do with their closing argument which is that they'll set out the elements that they have to meet and then talk about the evidence that goes to each of those elements on the defense side it's been a little murky what their primary defense is going to be probably have to do with what caused the death of george white but this is their chance to really make it clear for the jury and the judge has an important role to play because he's going to be instructing the jury on both law that they will use to decide this case. right and that is something that they have been working out over the last couple days and we know that on friday they had a meeting to figure out what those instructions will be and those instructions claim a central role because when the jury tries decide for example what recklessness it switches the the heart of the $33.00 murder charge they'll be given instructions

that they'll be pointed to to try to understand what that word means in this context the jury instructions will also tell them what to do once they start their deliberations such as 1st choose a 4 person who's going to direct that discussion and even though i mean what happens next is in the hands off the jury and those 12 people just give us a sense off what the mood is like minneapolis just ahead of this verdict very important verdict. yeah it is it is a different kind of time here of the day was out in the city yesterday you know and one street corner on each corner of that block there was a national guard armored vehicle with national guardsmen standing nearby with their assault rifles standing in a line and this was just in

a commercial district this was it near the courthouse and so certainly there's a very different atmosphere here now even than we've seen earlier in the trial that clearly they're anticipating the possibility of civil unrest in the wake of an acquittal ok thank you so much for speaking to us from minneapolis mark osler let's stay with this and bring in our correspondent john hendren and john hendren he's joining us from just outside the courthouse so so john we are expecting closing arguments by both the prosecution and the defense just tell us how this is all going to play out. well there are no limits for how long closing arguments can go for each side but most lawyers suggest about 60 to 90 minutes is optimal and typical in a case like this there are limits to how long you can hold the attention of 12 jurors and you want to make salient points that they can remember so 60 to 90 minutes is kind of

a standards we expect each side to fit roughly within that amount of time and that's consistent with the amount of time that each side spent with your opening arguments after that happens the judge will offer the jury instructions here are the things you need to consider here is what the law says and then send them off to a hotel where they will be sequestered or isolated until they come up with a decision and during that time they can ask to re watch some of the videos or some of the testimony they'll have a computer in the room normally when this happens the jury comes back into the courtroom to do that but right now with the covert 1000 restrictions they are being required to stay in one spot where they are for all of that and if they've got questions for the judge or the lawyers about the law they can do that as well but that's all going to be remote the is zoom or some kind of video conference so this will be a little bit unusual and one thing that court watchers will be looking for is how

long they take to deliberate now it's going to take a little while because there are 3 charges murder in the 2nd degree murder in the 3rd degree and manslaughter we are seeing the family you'll be able to see them soon walking by right now on their way to the court that is the family of lawyers of george floyd any case all of this will go on for a matter of could be hours could be days and the longer it takes the more speculation there will be that that jury is having difficulty coming up with a decision if they come back with a quick decision well then we know this was a pretty easy. the choice for them and john howard many other american cities preparing for the. well as the family is preparing to walk by as i can point you to across the street where. that is a hotel that is boarding up you can see the truck where they're pulling all of the plywood out of and that is typical of what's going on here the people you see

walking by by the way are family and supporters of george floyd there is reverend al sharpton here walking by the camera as you look right now and. reverend sharpton what are you expecting today sir just as. you heard it right there the reverend al sharpton a civil rights leader here supporting the floyd family saying that today he expects justice in those closing arguments. but to get back to your question as the family walks toward the courthouse at the end of this street there this has been a city in suspended animation since may 25th since the death of george floyd downtown has been boarded up often on since then and it's now being heavily boarded up again george floyd square the place where george floyd died is surrounded by barricades it is leased by local residents and it has become

a memorial for blocks for george floyd and all of that has built up to this trial we have the trial of derek show event later this summer in august we expect to have the trial of 3 other officers but chauvelin is really the face of this trial and so everybody here in this town is waiting to see what the verdict is and i got to tell you every time i talk to somebody about this everyone on whatever their view is of the trial talks about they're concerned that if people are not satisfied with the verdict that we could have the same kind of social unrest and arson and nothing to . let me just. just let me go to the trial that is the judge just started speaking about the senate at this time i want to strike you in the law a political to this case you must follow and apply the rules of law as i give them to you even if you believe the law is or should be different you have each been given a copy of these instructions to follow along as i read and you may take your copy

with you when you retire to the jury room nevertheless you should listen carefully and attentively as i read them to you now please note that the titles of the individual sections of these instructions are not a part of the instructions but merely places headings to assist you in finding a topic deciding questions of fact is your exclusive responsibility in doing so you must consider all the evidence you have heard and seen in this trial and you must disregard anything that you may have heard or seen elsewhere about this case i have not by these instructions nor by any ruling or expression during the trial intended to indicate my opinion regarding the facts or the outcome of this case if i have said or done anything that would seem to indicate such an opinion you are to disregard it you must consider these instructions as a whole and regard each instruction in light of all the others the order in which

the instructions are given is of no significance you are free to consider the issues in any order you wish the defendant is presumed innocent of the charges made this presumption remains with the defendant unless and until he has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant has the fact that the fed has been brought before the court by the ordinary process is a law and is on trial should not be considered by you in any way suggesting guilt the burden of proving guilt is on the state the defendant does not have to prove his innocence. proof beyond a reasonable doubt is such proof as ordinarily prudent men and women would act upon in their most important affairs it reasonable doubt is the doubt based upon reason and common sense it does not mean a fanciful or caprices doubt nor does it mean beyond all possibility of doubt a fact may be proven by either direct or circumstantial evidence or by both the law

does not prefer one form of evidence or the other a fact is proven by direct evidence when for example it is proven by witnesses who testify as to what they saw heard or experienced or by physical evidence of the fact itself a fact as proven by circumstantial evidence when its existence can be reasonably inferred from other facts proven in the case for example if a person watches deer crossing a snow covered field the person has direct evidence of deer walking in the field because the person sees it if the person does not see deer but finds deer tracks in the snow the deer tracks are circumstantial evidence the deer walked in the field because that factual conclusion can reasonably be inferred from the tracks found in the snow now attorneys are officers of the court it is their duty to make objections they think proper and to argue their client's cause however the arguments or other remarks of an attorney are not evidence if the attorneys or i

have made or should make any statement as to what the evidence is that different from your recollection of the evidence you should disregard the statement and relies on your own memory if an attorney's argument contains any statement of the law that differs from the law i give you disregard the attorney's statement. the state has brought 3 charges or counts against the defendant each count charges a separate and distinct offense you must consider the evidence of political to each count as though or the only accusation before you for consideration and you must state your findings as to each count in a separate verdict and influenced by the fact that your verdict as to any other count or counts is in favor of or against the defendant the defendant may be found guilty or not guilty of any or all of the offenses charge depending on the evidence and the weight you give it under the court's instructions i'm about to instruct you

on the law that you are to apply to the charges in the defense but before doing so i would going to define a few words and phrases that appear more than once in the elements of the charges and the defense that follow the words and phrases being defined are bold in the written copy of the instructions you will be receiving you should use these definitions for these words and phrases in your deliberation attempted means that the defendant didn't act which was the substantial step toward and more than mere preparation for causing the result and that the defendant did that act with intent to cause that result there are several forms of bodily harm relevant to some of the charges or the defense bodily harm means physical pain or injury illness or any impairment of a person's physical condition substantial bodily harm means bodily harm that involves a temporary but substantial disfigurement that causes a temporary but substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member

or organ or that causes a fracture of any bodily member great bodily harm means bodily injury that creates a high probability of death that cause a serious permanent disfigurement or that causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily harm. to cause death causing death or caused the death means that the defendant's act or acts were a substantial causal factor in causing the death of george floyd the defendant is criminally liable for all the consequences of his actions that occur in the ordinary a natural course of events including those consequences brought about by one or more intervening causes if such intervening causes were the natural result of the defendant's acts the fact that other causes contribute to the to the death does not relieve the defendant of criminal liability however the defendant is not criminally liable if the superseding cause cause the death is superseding causes a cause

a comes after the defendant's acts alters the natural sequence of events and is the sole cause a result that would not otherwise have occurred to know to have knowledge or new requires only that the defendant believes that the specified facts exist intentionally or intentional means that the defendant either as the purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified or believes that the act performed if successful will cause the result in addition the defendant must have knowledge of those facts that are necessary to make his conduct criminal and there are set forth after the word intentionally or intentional with intent that with intent to or intended means that the defendant either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the results specified or believes that the act performed if successful will cause that result it is not necessary that the

defendant have the intent in advance the necessary intent can develop during the commission of the act police officer means an employee of a law enforcement agency was licensed by the board of peace officer standards and training charged with the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of the general criminal laws of the state of minnesota and who has the full power of arrest. a law enforcement agency is a unit of state or local government that is authorized by law to grant full powers of arrest and to charge a person with the duties of preventing and detecting crime and enforcing the general criminal laws of the state of minnesota the minneapolis police department is a law enforcement agency for these purposes the definition of any word or phrase with a specific legal meaning that appears only once in the elements or the defenses will be defined where it appears later in these instructions. the defendant is charged in count one with murder in the 2nd degree in connection with the death of

george floyd under minnesota law under minnesota law a person causing the death death of another without intent to cause the death of any person while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense is guilty of the crime of murder in the 2nd degree the defendant is charged with committing this crime or intentionally aiding the commission of this crime the elements of the crime of murder in the 2nd degree while committing a felony are 1st element of the death of george floyd must be proven 2nd element the defendant cause the death of george floyd 3rd element the defendant at the time of causing the death of george floyd was committing or attempting to commit the felony offense of assault in the 3rd degree it is not necessary for the state to prove the defendant had an intent to kill george floyd but it must prove that the defendant committed or attempted to commit the underlying felony of assault in the 3rd degree there are 2 elements of assault and 3rd degree 1st event an assault

a george floyd assault is the intentional infliction of bodily harm upon another or the attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another the intentional infliction of bodily harm requires proof that the defendant intentionally applied unlawful force to another person without that person's consent and that this act resulted in bodily harm. second defendant inflicted substantial bodily harm on george floyd it is not necessary for the state to prove that the defendant intended to inflict substantial bodily harm or knew that his actions would inflict substantial bodily harm or only that the defendant intended to commit the assault and that george floyd subsisting in substantial bodily harm as a result of the assault the 4th element the defendant's act of place on or about may 25th 2020 in hennepin county if you find that each of these elements has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant is guilty of this charge if you find that any of

the elements have not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant is not guilty of this church unless you find the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is liable for this crime committed by another person or persons according to the instructions below that alyson page 8 under the heading liability for crimes of another. the defendant is charged in count 2 with murder in the 3rd degree in connection with the death of george floyd under minnesota law a person causing the death of another by perpetrating an act evidently dangerous to others and evincing deprived mind without regard for human life but without intent to cause the death of any person is guilty of murder in the 3rd degree the defendant is charged with committing this crime or intentionally aiding the commission of this crime the elements of the crime of murder in the 3rd degree are 1st element the death of george floyd must be proving 2nd element the defendant caused the death of george floyd 3rd element the defendant caused the death of

george floyd by an intentional act that was imminently dangerous to other persons a person commits an act eminently dangerous to others when the act is highly likely to cause death for the element defendant acted with a mental state consisting of reckless disregard for human life. the defendant's act may not have been specifically intended to cause death and may not have been specifically directed at the particular person whose death occurred but must have been committed with a conscious indifference to the loss of life that the eminently dangerous act could cause a 5th element the defendant's act to place on or brought may 25th 2020 in an open county if you find that each of these elements has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant is guilty of this charge if you find that any of these elements has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant is not guilty of this charge unless you find the state has proven beyond

a reasonable doubt that the defendant is liable for this crime committed by another person or persons according to the instructions that are listed on page 8 under the heading liability for crimes of another the defendant is charged in count 3 with manslaughter in the 2nd degree in connection with the death of george floyd under minnesota law whoever by culpable negligence whereby he creates an unreasonable risk and consciously takes the chance of causing death or great bodily harm to another person cause the death of another is guilty of murder manslaughter in the 2nd degree the defendant is charged with committing this crime or intensely aiding the commission of this crime the elements of manslaughter in the 2nd degree are 1st element the death of george floyd must be proven 2nd element the defendant cause the death of george floyd by culpable negligence whereby the defendant created unreasonable risk and consciously took a chance of causing death or great bodily harm culpable negligence is intentional

conduct of the defendant may not have intended be harmful but that an ordinary and reasonably prudent person would recognize as involving a strong probability of injury to others 3rd element the defendant's act to place on or about me 25th 2020 in hennepin county. if you find that each of these elements has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant is guilty of this charge if you find that any of these elements has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant is not guilty of this charge unless you find the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is liable for this crime committed by another person or persons according to the following instruction on liability for crimes of another the following instructions apply to all 3 of the charges i've just given you the defendant is guilty of a crime committed by another person or persons only if the defendant has played an intentional role in aiding the commission of that crime and may no reasonable effort to prevent the crime before it was committed intentional role includes

intentionally aiding advising hiring counseling conspiring with or per curiam another to commit the crime the defendant's presence or actions constitute intentionally aiding only a 1st the defendant knew another person or persons were going to commit or were committing a crime 2nd the defendant intended that his presence or actions aid the commission of that crime if the defendant intentionally aided another person or persons in committing a crime or intentionally devised hired counsel conspired with or otherwise procure the other person or persons to commit the defendant is also guilty of any other crime the other person or persons commit while trying to commit the intended crime if that other crime was reasonably forseeable to the defendant as a probable consequence of trying to commit the intended crime the defendant is guilty of the crime under this theory of intentionally aiding in the commission of a crime by another person or persons only if the other person or persons commit the

crime the defendant is not guilty for aiding advising hiring counseling conspiring or otherwise procuring the commission of one of the charge crimes unless the crime is actually committed. the defendant had or the state rather the state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally aided another person in committing the charge crime no crime is committed if a police officer's actions were justified by the police officers use of reasonable force in the line of duty in affecting a lawful arrest or preventing an escape from custody the kind and degree of force a police officer may lawfully use in executing his duties is limited by what a reasonable police officer in the same situation would believe to be necessary and use of force beyond that is not reasonable to determine if the actions of the police officer were reasonable you must look at those facts which

a reasonable officer in the same situation would have known at the precise moment the officer acted with force you must decide whether the officer's actions were objective we reasonable in light of the to tell you the facts and circumstances confronting the officer and without regard to the officers on subjective state of mind intentions or motivations the defendant is not guilty of a crime if you used force as authorized by law to prove guilt the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's use of force was not authorized by law you are the sole judges of whether witness is to be believed in of the weight to be given a witness's testimony there are no hard and fast rules to guide you in this respect in determining believability and weight of testimony you may take into consideration the witnesses interest or lack of interest in the outcome of the.

interest or lack of interest in the outcome of the. all right apologies we seem to have a technical issues with our feed from a many apple lists we were just so we're going to try and get it back as soon as we can so that we can listen in once again to what the judge is saying right now but what he's doing and what he's been doing for the past 10 to 15 minutes or so is he has been reading instructions to the jurors on the law so this of course before the attorneys both the prosecuting attorneys as well as the fence attorneys begin their closing arguments that's what we're going to see take place today let's bring in mark osler once again as we wait to restore that feed from minneapolis mark you're with us once again. joining us from minneapolis mark so we were talking earlier on

about the significance of what the judge had to say now and laying out the foundations and the framework for the jurors what do you make of what he said so far. well one thing that i point out is that the judge has reversed the order that we often see the instructions most commonly are given after the closing arguments right before the jury goes into his deliberations and so as the very last part of the trial and then the judge of course controls the order of the trial and it was reversed that in this case now listening to the instructions so far i'm sure that one thing that journeys were listening for very carefully because emphasized by both sides was the instruction on causation and the reason that's so important is because as the judge has explained that direction open cause the death is an element of all 3 of the counts and so if the jury finds there is reasonable doubt

and cause of death then there would be an acquittal on all of the counts one of the things to the judge made clear in the instructions and this is really at the core of the case was that derek shogun doesn't have to a bend the only market place to apologize that is life television and live events i apologize but we're going back to the courtroom and we will speak to you throughout the hour thank you this information was presented to assist you as an aide in your understanding of the witnesses testimony and to help explain the facts the schools by the records other documents testimony and other evidence that was received during the trial if any charge summary or animated video is not consistent with the facts or figures shown by evidence in the case as you find them you should disregard the charge or summary or animated video and determine the facts from the underlying evidence earlier during these instructions i define certain words and

phrases and you are to use those definitions in your deliberations if i have not defined a word or phrase you supply the common ordinary meaning of that word or phrase. during the trial ever all down objections to certain testimony and exhibits you must not concern yourself with the reasons for the rulings since they are controlled by rules of evidence by admitting into evidence testimony and exhibits as to which objection was made i did not intend to indicate the wait to be given such testimony and evidence you were not to speculate as to possible answers to questions i did not require to be answered you were to disregard all evidence and statements of attorneys that i have ordered stricken or have told you to disregard and with that i ask you to put your instructions on your career as we listen to the closing arguments of counsel. the stairway to proceed to closing. may proceed.

members of the jury. his name. was george. jr and he was born on october $14973.00. north carolina.