about 18 minutes, cutting off part of his instructions. >> good morning members of the jury. [silence] >> members of the jury, before closing arguments i will give you some instructions on the law. you have a copy on your seat and i would encourage that you follow along as i read them to you. there will be a point where i will ask you to put the remaining instructions on your chair so you can listen to the

closing arguments from counsel. members of the jury and structure as follows, it is your duty to decide the questions of fact in this case. it is my duty to give you the rules of law that you must apply in arriving at your verdict. you have now heard the evidence and soon you will hear the arguments of counsel and at this time i will instruct you in the law applicable 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 cry 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 heading 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've 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 nor 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 in regard each instruction in light of all the others. the order in which the instructions are given is of no significance. you're free to consider the issues in any order you wish. the defendant is presumed innocent of the charges made and the presumption remains with the defendant unless and until he is been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. the defendant has the fact the fact that the defendant has been brought before the court by the ordinary process of 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 is ordinarily prudent men and women would act upon in the most important affairs. a reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense and it does not mean fanciful or capricious doubt, nor does it mean beyond all possibility of doubt. a fact may be proven by either direct or circumstantial evidence or by both in the law does not prefer one form of evidence over the other but the fact is proven by direct evidence when, for example, it is proven by witnesses who testify of what they, heard or experienced or, by physical evidence of the fact itself. in fact is 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 the field because the person sees it. if the person does not see deer but finds finds deer tracks in the snow the deer tracks are circumstantial evidence that the deer walked in the field because that factual conclusion can reasonably be inferred from the tracks found in the snow. attorneys are officers of the court and it is their duty to make objections they think proper and to argue their client's cause. however, the arguments or other remarks of the attorney are not evidence. if the attorneys or i have made or should make any statement as to what the evidence is that differs from your recollection of the evidence you should disregard the statement and rely solely 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 attorneys statement. the state has brought three charges or accounts, against the defendant. each count charges a separate

and distinct offense. you must consider the evidence applicable to each count as though it were the only accusation before you for consideration. you must state your findings as to each count in a separate verdict, uninfluenced by the fact that your verdict as to any other account or accounts is in favor of or against the defendant. the defendant may be found guilty or not guilty of any or all of the offenses charged, depending on the evidence in the way you give it under the court's instructions. i'm about to instruct you on the law as you are to apply to the charges in the defense but before doing so i am going to define a few words and phrases that appear more than once in the elements of the charges and the defense that followed. the words and phrases being defined are bolded 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 the defendant did enact that was a 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 a function of any bodily member or oregon or causes a fracture of any bodily member. great bodily harm means bodily injury that creates a high probability of death that causes serious permanent disfigurement or that causes the permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or oregon or other serious bodily harm. to cause death, causing death or

caused the death means that the defendant's act or acts were substantial causal factors in causing the death of george floyd. the defendant is criminally liable for all the consequences of his actions that occurred in the ordinary and natural course of events. this includes those consequent is brought about by one or more intervening causes if such intervening causes where the natural result of the defendants acts. the fact that other causes can treated to the death does not relieve the defendant or criminal liability however, the defendant is not criminally liable if a superseding cause caused the death. a superseding cause is a cause that comes after the defendants acts, alters the natural sequence of events and is the sole cause or result that would not otherwise have occurred. to know to have knowledge or to new requires only the dependent believe that the specified facts exist. intentionally or intentional means that the defendant either has the purpose to do the thing

or because the result specified or believes that the act performed a successful will cause the result. in addition, the defendant must have knowledge of both facts that are necessary to make this conduct criminal and 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 this thing or cause the result specified or believes that the act performed is successful will cause that result. it is not necessary that the defendant have intent in advance and the necessary intent can develop during the commission of the act. police officer means an employee of a laundress and agency whose license by the board of peace officer standards and training and 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 laundress and agency is a unit

of state and 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 gentle 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 of the defense will be defined where it appears later in these instructions. the defendant is charged in count one with murder in the second degree in connection with the death of george floyd. under minnesota law a person causing the 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 second 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 second degree while committing a felony are,

first element the death of george floyd must be proven. second element, the defendant caused the death of george floyd and third 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 third 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 third degree. there are two elements of assault in the third degree. first, defendant and the assault of george floyd, salt is 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. only that the defendant intended to commit the assault and that george floyd sustained a substantial bodily harm as a result of the assault. for the element, the defendants act took place on or about may 25-2020 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 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 below that are listed on page eight under the heading liability for crimes of another. the defendant is charged in count two with murder in the third degree in connection with the death of george floyd.

under minnesota law a person causing the death of another by perpetrating an act imminently dangerous to others and inventing a depraved mind without regard for human life but without intent to cause the death of any person is guilty of murder in the third degree. the defendant is charged with committing this crime or intentionally aiding the commission of this crime. the elements of the crime of murder and third degree are, first element, the death of george floyd must be proven. second element, the defendant caused the death of george floyd. third element, the defendant caused the death of george floyd by an intentional act that was imminently dangerous to other persons in a person commits an act imminently dangerous to others when the act is highly likely to cause death. fourth element. defendant acted with the mental state consisting of reckless disregard for human life and the defendants act may not have been specifically intended to cause death and may not have been specifically directed at the

particular persons whose death occurred but must have been committed with a conscience indifference to the loss of life that the imminently dangerous act could cause. fifth element, the defendant act took place on or about may 25, 2020 in hennepin county. if you find that each of these elements have 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 the strong committed by another person or persons according to the instructions that are listed on page eight. this is under the heading liability for crimes of another. the defendant is charged in count three with manslaughter and third degree and under minnesota law weber by culpable negligence whereby he creates an unreasonable risk and consciously takes the chance of causing death or great bodily

harm to another person, because of the death of the other is guilty of murder of manslaughter in the second degree. the defendant is charged with committing this crime or intentionally aiding in the commission of this crime and the elements of manslaughter in the second degree our first element the death of george floyd must be proven. second element the defendant caused the death of george floyd by culpable negligence whereby the defendant created an unreasonable risk and consciously took a chance of causing death or great bodily harm. culpable negligence is intentional conduct that the defendant may not have intended to be harmful but that in ordinary and reasonably prudent person would recognize involving a strong probability of injury to others. third element, the defendants act took place on or about may 25, 2020 in hennepin county. if you find that each of these have been proven upon reasonable doubt the defendant is guilty of this charge. if you find that any of these elements have not been proven

beyond a resume without the defendant is not guilty of this charge unless you find the state is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is liable for this crime committed by another person or persons according to the following instruction about liability for crimes of another. the following instructions apply to all three of the charges that i have 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 made no reasonable effort to prevent the crime before it was committed. intentional role includes intentionally aiding, advising, hiring counseling, conspiring with or procuring another to commit the crime. the defendant's presence or actions constitute intentionally aiding only if at first the defendant knew another person or persons that would commit or were committing a crime. second, the defendant intended that his presence or actions aided the commission of that

crime. if the defendant intentionally aided another person or persons in committing a crime or intentionally advised, hired, counsel, conspired with or otherwise procured the other person or persons to commit it the defendant is also guilty of any other crime the other person commits while trying to commit the intended crime. if that other crime was reasonably foreseeable 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 intensely aiding the commission of a crime by another person or persons only if the other person or persons commit the crime and the defendant is not guilty for aiding, advising, hiring, counseling, conspiring or otherwise procuring that the commission of one of the charged crimes unless that crime is committed. the defendant 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 charged crime.

no crime is committed if a police officer's actions were justified by the police officer's use of reasonable force in the line of duty in effecting a lawful arrest or preventing an escape from custody. the kind and agree a force a police officer may lawfully use an x getting his duties is limited by what a reasonable police officer in the same situation would believe to be necessary and any 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 objectively reasonable in light of the totality of the facts and circumstances confronting the officer and without regard to the officer's own subjective state of mind and intentions or motivations. the defendant is not guilty of a crime if he 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 a witness is to be believed and whether what weight is given to the testimony. there are no hard and fast rules to guide you in this respect but in determining believability and weight of testimony you may take into consideration the witnesses interest or lack of interest in the outcome. solely for the limited purpose of showing what the effects are what affects the ingestion of opioids may or may not have had on the physical well-being of george floyd and this evidence is not to be used as evidence of the character of george floyd. during the testimony of some witnesses the parties introduced demonstrative exhibits in the form of charge summaries and animated video. this information was presented to assist you as an aid in your understanding of the witnesses testimony and to help explain the facts as disclosed by the

records and 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 chart or summary or animated video and determine the facts from the underlying evidence. earlier during these instructions are defined to certain words and phrases and you are to use those definitions in your deliberations. if i have not defined a word or phrase you should apply the common ordinary meaning of that word or phrase. during this trial and ruled on objections to certain testimony and exhibits and you must not concern yourself for the reasons of the ruling since they are controlled by rules of evidence and by admitting into evidence testimony and exhibits as to which objection was made i did not intend to indicate the weight to be given such testimony and evidence. were not to speculate as answers and not required to be answered

and you are to disregard all evidence and statements of attorneys that i have ordered stricken by or have told you to disregard. with that i would ask you to put your instructions under your chair as we listen to the closing arguments of counsel. as the state ready to proceed with closing? >> yes. >> you may proceed. >> 's may it please the court, counsel, members of the jury, his name was george perry floyd

junior and he was born on october 14, 1973 and in fayetteville, north carolina. his parents george floyd senior and larceny a joins floyd, sissy. the matriarch. you met george floyd's brother and you heard all about sissy floyd she was george floyd's mom, she was the mom of the house, she was the mom of the neighborhood. you heard about the special bond that she and george floyd shared during his life. you heard about their relationship and how he was always taking time, special

attention to be with his mother and how he would still cuddle with her in the fetal position and you heard that. from george floyd's brother you learned all about george's childhood and during his time growing up in that house george floyd was surrounded by people, by people he knew, people who knew him and people he recognized, familiar's base to pick out in the crowd. people need that. george floyd was surrounded by people he cared about and who cared about him. throughout his life, throughout his childhood, in that house, in his adolescence, into his adulthood and on may 25, 2020

george floyd died. face down on the pavement right on 38 in chicago and minneapolis and nine minutes, 29 seconds, nine minutes and 29 seconds. during this time, george floyd struggled desperate to breathe and to make enough room in his chest to breathe. the force was too much and he was trapped and he was trapped with the unyielding pavement underneath him as unyielding as the men who held him down,

pushing him, any to the neck, i need to the back, twisting his fingers, holding his legs for nine minutes and 29 seconds with his weight on him and the lungs in his chest unable to expand because there wasn't enough room to breathe, george floyd tried and he pushed his bare shoulder against the pavement to lift himself and to give his chest and to give his lungs enough room in his chest to breathe but the pavement tearing into his bearskin and as he desperately pushed with his knuckles to make space so he would have room to breathe the pavement lacerating, lacerating his knuckles while the defendant stayed on top of him for nine minutes and 29 seconds, so desperate to breathe

that he pushed with his face and with his face to lift himself and to open his chest and to give his lungs room to breathe in the pavement tearing into his skin, george floyd losing strength, not superhuman strength. there was no superhuman strength that day. there is no semen uber strength because there is no such thing as a superhuman and those exist in comic books and 38 in chicago is very real place. not superhuman's only humans, just a human, just a man lying on the pavement being pressed upon desperately crying out, a grown man crying out for his mother in a human being.

in that time and in that place while he was surrounded in life by people he knew him, faces he could pick out there was no one there he knew, he was surrounded by strangers, strangers, all of them, nine minutes and 29 seconds and he surrounded by strangers, not a familiar face to say the final words but he did say them to someone. he said them to someone he did not know by name but he knew him from the uniform he wore in the fed she wore and he called him mr. officer and that's what he called him. mr. officer. mr. officer would help when we

call the police when we need help and he pleaded with mr. officer and george floyd final words on may 25, 2020 were please, i can't breathe and he said those words to mr. officer. he said those words to the defendant. he asked for help with his very last breath but mr. officer did not help in the defendant may not help but stayed on top of him, continue to push him down and to grind his knees and to twist his hands into the handcuffs that bound him looking at him and staring and staring down at times the horrified bystanders who had gathered and watched this unfold.

the motto of the minneapolis police department is to protect with courage and to serve with compassion. george floyd was not a threat to anyone and was not trying to hurt anyone. he wasn't trying to do anything to anyone, facing that day, that did not require 1 ounce of courage and none was shown. no courage was required but all that was required was a little compassion and none was shown on that day. george floyd said i'm not trying to win and this was a call about a counterfeit 20-dollar bill.

all that was required was compassion. humans need that and people need that. more fundamental than that, more practical at that time and in that place with george floyd needed was oxygen and that's what he needed. he needed to breathe because people need that, humans need that, to breathe and he said that in the defendant heard him say that over and over he heard him but he just didn't listen and he continued to push him down and to grind into him and to shimmy to twist his hand for nine minutes and 29 seconds that he begged, george floyd bagged until he could speak no more and the defendant continued this

assault when he was unable to speak the defendant continued when he was unable to breathe, the defendant continued beyond the point that he had a pulse beyond the point that he had a pulse in the defendant continued this assault, nine minutes and 29 seconds and when the ambulance arrived, the ambulance was here in the defendant continued and stayed on top of him and he would not get up and he would not let up and he stayed on him grinding into him in continuing to twist his fingers and to hold him down and he had no pulse, he was not breathing and he was not responsive and the defendant had to know what was right beneath him, right beneath him. he saw the video and you saw the point when the ambulance arrived

and finally after a paramedic got out in the defendant still did not get up in the paramedic tapped him and finally the defendant got up and they lifted mr. floyd onto that gurney and you saw the way he was not, there was nothing there. his head had to be held to prevent it from falling to the ground and he was completely limp in the defendant had to know that and he was there and he was on top of him and he was on top of him, on top of him. sometimes you ask for the truth and sometimes you insist on the truth and the truth is the defendant was on top of him for nine minutes and 29 seconds and he had to know and he had to

know. the medical examiner would find the cause of george floyd's death to be cardiopulmonary arrest, complicating law enforcement some dual restraint and that compression and what you saw the defendant and the other officers are doing to george floyd caused his death in the medical examiner ruled the death a homicide in the death at the hands of another and what the defendant did to george floyd killed him. it was ruled a homicide in the defendant was charged with murder. he was charged with murder and charged with manslaughter and the defendant at the time was a police officer and it may be

hard and it may be hard for any of you to imagine a police officer doing something like this and remember, injury selection and we talked about bias and we talked about setting biases and preconceived notions behind well, imagining a police officer committing a crime might be the most difficult thing you have to set aside because that's just not the way we think of police officers. we trust the police we trust the police to help us and we believe the police are going to respond to our call for help and we believe they will listen to us and this is a strong and this runs deep and it's difficult to set this aside and i want you to consider that even after with the bystanders after they saw what they saw and after they saw the shocking display of abuse of

police power and and a man murdered in front of them genevieve hansen she called the police. donald williams saw this and you hurt him and he testified and he called the police, nine -year-old and what did she suggest, you need to call the police on the police and that's our expectation even after seeing this, even after witnessing this our expectation is that the police will help and with reason and with good reason because policing is the most noble profession, it is. it is. to be very clear this case, this case is called the state of minnesota versus derek chauvin in this case is not called the state of minnesota versus the

police. it is not. policing is a noble profession and it is a profession. you met several minneapolis police officers during this trial and you met them and they took the stand and they testified and they make no mistake this is not a prosecution of the police but a prosecution of the defendant and there is nothing worse for good police than a bad police who does not follow the rules and who does not follow procedure and who doesn't follow training and who ignores the policies of the department as a motto of the department to protect with courage and to serve with compassion and chief air redondo, the chief of police in minneapolis police deferment to the stand and he testified and told you what that badge that he wears over his heart means and it's a public service and a public trust and they are there

to help us and it's a professional organization and there are standards and there are rules and there is a code of conduct and there is a use of force policy and there is extensive training. the police are first responders and are who we call for help and they help us heard they have cpr training but there is more training than simply use of force and is more to policing than putting handcuffs on people and hauling them away, to be truth. there are other kinds of training, procedural justice and there's crisis intervention training and there's medical training and there is defense tactics and de-escalation in all of this training, hundreds, hundreds of hours of training and you met the people who staff the training center and they told you. we don't train this.

they told you that. the sanctity of life and the protection of the public of those are the cornerstones of the minneapolis department use of force policy and protection of the public and all of the public, all the human beings that make up the public and the defendant, he did not do that because that day his badge just was not in the right place and the defendant was a police officer and he was. again, you need to set aside the notion that it's impossible for a police officer to do something like this and the defendant is on trial, not just for being a police officer and that is not the state versus the police but he's not on trial for who he was but he is on trial for what he did and that is what he did.

that is what he did. nine minutes and 29 seconds. that is what he did. he did not follow training in those hundreds of hours of training that he had, he did not follow the departments use of force rules and he did not perform cpr and he knew better and he just didn't do better, he just did not do better. remember during opening statement, or an opening statement counsel said that the defendant followed the rules and followed training and did you hear evidence of that? did you hear evidence of that from the stand? or did you hear something quite different and the chief of police testified and violated their use of force policy and he violated their de-escalation policy and he violated the duty to render emergency aid and no, you heard the trainer lieutenant

marshall we don't train this and this is not who we are. no, that representation was simply wrong and that is just a story what the defendant did was not policing but the defendant did was an assault and i will discuss the law with you in a bit here and explain the courts already provided you some instructions on second-degree murder and you know in the laws of the state that if you commit in a certain level of assault the felony level assault and a person dies as a result of your assault you are guilty of murder. it's as simple as that. what the defendant did here was a straight up felony assault and this is not policing but it was unnecessary and it was gratuitous and it was disproportionate and he did it on purpose, no question in this

was not an accident. he did not trip and fall and find himself upon george floyd's knee and neck, he did what he did on purpose. it killed george floyd. that force for nine minutes and 29 seconds, that killed george floyd and he betrayed the badge and everything it stood for. it is not how they are trained and it's not following the rules and this is not an anti- police prosecution but a pro police prosecution. the defendant abandoned his values, abandoned the training and killed a man and why? right out in the public, right out in broad daylight, in front

of several bystanders as they looked in shock and horror of why and it all started over a call of an alleged counterfeit 20-dollar bill but george floyd's life was taken for something worth far less, far less and you saw the photo and you saw the body language and you can learn a lot about someone by looking at their body language and defendants facing helmick road and they were pointing cameras at him and recording him and telling him in challenging his authority and his ego and his pride, not the kind of pride that makes you do better or be better but the kind of ego -based pride that the defendant was not going to be told what to do. he was not going to let the

bystanders tell them what to do but he was going to do what he wanted, how he wanted for as long as he wanted and there was nothing, nothing they could do about it because he has the authority and he had the power of the badge and the other officers in the bystanders were powerless and they were powerless to do a thing in the defendant he chose pride over policing and remember charles mcmillan, 61 years old, interesting man and you remember when he testified and had the glasses and if any of you in the front row when he walked by happen to notice issues and if you looked at issues you probably saw your reflection in his shoes and you dressed for court like it was the most important day of his life, interesting man and he was there and he is narrating this horrific scene throughout and you hear in the video and he

called out to george floyd and said, you can't win, you can't win in george floyd replied i'm not trying to win, not trying to win, i'm scared. but the defendant, the defendant was trying to win and he wasn't going to be told what to do and he wasn't going to take the challenge to his authority and he was trying to win. george floyd paid for it with his life. now, also need to be clear that this is not the trial of george floyd. george floyd is not on trial here. you've heard things about george floyd that he struggled with drug addiction and that he was being investigated for allegedly passing a fake 20-dollar bill and there was never any evidence introduced that he knew was fake in the first place but he is not

on trial. he did not get a trial when he was alive and he is not on trial here. the defense claims that he was noncompliant, noncompliant. well, let's revisit what happened before the nine minutes and 29 seconds. it is memorial day, may 25, 2020 and george floyd sitting in a car in the driver seat with two friends. now, previously had been in the store and he was walking and he was talking and he was breathing, as alive as any person, any human, in this room. back to the car and he is with his friends but there's a tap at

the window and he looks to his left and this is what he sees, this is what he sees. within seconds of the approach officer lane tapped on the window and within seconds he pulls his gun and holds it inches from george floyd's face and starts shouting profanities, show me your [bleep] hands, show me your [bleep] hands and screaming at him and this is within seconds. i can tell a lot about someone by looking at their body language and how does mr. floyd look in this photo, terrified?

an officer on the driver side and an officer on the passenger side lane orders floyd to put his hands on the steering wheel and he does and that's not resistance but compliance and laying orders floyd to get out of the car and he does and that's not resistance but compliance in the order him and they want him handcuffed and he is handcuffed and that's not resistance but compliance and if you call that to testimony but he wasn't properly double locked and so they continue to ratchet and they're not on correctly but there on too tight and throughout and you listen to the video, throughout the video you can hear the sound of those handcuffs ratcheting tighter and tighter in the floyd is trying to explain to the police that his wrists hurt, impervious to pain. please. his wrists hurt, no one listens to him but it continues and they

tell him to go over to the dragon walk and that's not resistance but compliance and they ask him to sit down and he sits down, not resistance but compliance and not trying to escape, not trying to evade arrest, not trying to assault anybody, shoot anybody come stab anybody punch anybody but no, compliance. sits down on the ground and ask him his name and he gives his name and he doesn't. that's not resistance but compliance and ask him to get up and he gets up and they ask him to go across the street and he goes across the street. where is the resistance? where is that? they take him over to the car, okay, they take him over to the car and george floyd is a big guy. as you can see here, he's almost as big as officer lane and he's

a big guy. he's a big person in the back of the squad car is not. that's what they wanted him to get into and so george, that looked, he looked at that and what to think that look like? like a little cage. he tried to explain himself to the officers that he had anxiety and that he had claustrophobia and he explained this over and over and they wanted him to get in the back of this little car and, you know, he just was not able to bring himself to do it and was not able to bring himself to do it. [background noises] let me count to three and i'm going in.

please. >> he's trying to work up the ability to get in the car and he's explaining himself repeatedly and you can see this is where the defendant and officer callister coming to the scene. we will look at what they saw in a minute but they start to come to the scene and a 19 year veteran of the police force with all the training that involved and over 800 hours of training, 40 hour crisis intervention training course, the scenario -based training where they are taught to recognize the signs of someone who is experienced a crisis. the crisis. you know, he could not bring himself to get in and sometimes people can't bring themselves to get in and this is not new and this is not groundbreaking but people have emotions and people have things happen to them and

the police trained for this and they recognize this and you don't get to meet the police on your best day very often. you don't call the police and say everything is fine just wanted you to no, right, that does not happen. there's a whole range of humanity out there and the whole range of different issues and it could be anything, it could be a death in the family and that can cause extreme emotional response and that if you recall when officer lane approach the car george floyd talked about losing his mother, he lost her in 2018 and those wounds still right there on the surface, the motion because it could involve a divorce, finding bad financial news, mental illness, mental health issues like drug and alcohol abuse and all of those

things can cause someone to not resist but just not be able to bring themselves to comply, at that moment, at that time and this is nothing new. but they train for, they plan for it, they prepare for, they have a policy on it and recognizing persons in a crisis, your member the chief took a stand and testified and he testified that they have 4000 calls for service for persons in crisis every single year and this is nothing new. they are there on a 20-dollar counterfeiting charge and they train for this, they know about this. now, george floyd certainly had his struggles, as you know that, state put in evidence of that and courtney ross testified that he struggled with an opioid addiction. you knew that, this is nothing new but the difference on

may 25-2020 the officers would not listen to him and would not look at the signs and recognize the signs of what they had prepared for in the reasonable officer and the defendant's place with all his training and all his experience including that 40 hour crisis intervention course and subsequent refresher course should have known that and should've recognized that but floyd was trying to get into the car and trying to work up the courage and said he would count to three and he just cannot do it. so the defendant arrives on the scene and surveys the scene and saunters up to the car and he slipped on his gloves. [background noises] >> you can't win, you can't win.

not get in the car. >> he knows, he knows. >> don't do me like that, man. i'm claustrophobic. i'm claustrophobic, man. [inaudible] >> so, they don't listen, they just shove him into the car and into that black tiny backseat. use of the look on his face and you saw the look on george floyd's face when he glanced over into that car and it looked like he had seen a monster looking into that car, clearly this trained officer should have recognized that and understood that that moment and that time what is your goal and we are

where did this critical thinking model go? where did that go? where you taken information, reassess the information and consider what is the goal and what is the plan you are therefore a $20 counterfeiting charge. allegedly. the chief testified and they generally don't put people in custody for that so why is it necessary to shove him into the car? they made a judgment call and decided to shove him into the car but the predictable thing to happen happened, right, and he just cannot be in the back of that car and so they pulled him out and they pull amount and watch what happens. pull him out of the car. [background noises] >> , and out. >> thank you, thank you. on the ground.

>> all right, folks. to get him out of the car he is handcuffed and he is on his knees and he is not there are four officers there, for officers and what did george floyd say once they pulled him out of the car? thank you. thank you. now, a reasonable officer and the defendant's position at that time should have recognized and understood that he wasn't trying to escape and was not trying to punch anyone, stab anyone but no, not trying to do that. the problem was the back of the car, just like george floyd tried to explain over and over that the problem was the back of the car so if you can give him the benefit of the doubt that they made a bad judgment call and shoved them in the back of the car, at least when he came out in the struggle it was over and he was on his knees and he was saying thank you and done

and no need and could have been over there but what did they do? they took him from this position and handcuffed on his knees and they pushed him down onto the ground and did not need to, not at all. for what? he is handcuffed. they pushed him down into what is you now know from watching the evidence in this case the prone recovery position and when he is down in the ground he's initially pushed and literally in the prone recovery on the side and that allows the chest to expand and provides room for the lungs to expand and take in air so they can breathe. that is a step that protects against the known danger of positional asphyxia and they have him there and he is right

there and so then what happens after? they take him incredibly out of the recovery position and prone him on the ground for what? the prone position is a transitory position in a position you use to secure someone in handcuffs and when you're done with that you immediately roll them on their side and that is the position he was in an protein him was completely unnecessary and this is where the excessive force begins. this is where the nine minutes and 292nd start because they didn't just lay him prone. ...

countdown began. now, you need to pull back and take a look. you've learned a lot about policies and procedures and tactics. you have to pull back and say would, but for the defendants actions, pushing him down, george floyd have died that day? was it drugs, did he die of a drug overdose in that time? maybe it was the tailpipe were his enlarged heart. maybe not. use your common sense. use your common sense. believe your eyes. what you saw, you saw. now, i talked to you a little bit about the law.

the judge has already instructed you, and it's necessary to go over this a couple of times, and you've learned you've got to go to medical school year, there's benefits to being a jury. you go to medical school, you've got the free parking, great lunches, now you get a little bit of a free law school education. the judge gave you a preview of that. we are going to go through that again. he's going to give you a copy of those instructions. you have them. you get to keep those and use those during your jury deliberations. he's told you that you have to decide these issues in any order. you can do it the way you all see fit. i will be making some suggestions to the order i think you should do things, like focus your deliberations and make the conversation a little easier, a little more focused, but you have these jury instructions and

i think that it's important for you to follow the judge's instructions to the letter, the words and the definition the judge gives you the mean what they say they mean. and know that the state is required to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. he read this to you proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof ordinary men and women would act upon in their most important affairs and reasonable doubt is based on reason and common sense, not a fanciful or capricious about or beyond all possibility of doubt. so, reasonable doubt is just as the name implies. it's a doubt that is reasonable, based on reason and common sense. you are not required, nor should you leave your common sense at the courthouse steps. you must rely on your common sense. that's why you're here. we need you to apply the

standards to the facts and be a judge of the facts and apply those to the law. so proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a high standard the state has met here. the state doesn't need to prove its case beyond all doubt and it doesn't need to prove its case beyond what i will call unreasonable doubt, a delta not based on common sense, but based on nonsense. and you are not required to accept nonsense. you're not required to accept the notion that after the defendant kneeling on mr. floyd for nine minutes and 29 seconds in a dangerous prone position, handcuffed, restrained, pressing down on him that after that, he was writhing in pain and suffering that isn't even a use of force.

because it isn't likely to produce pain. a witness testified to that. you're not required to believe something that just flies in the face of common sense to believe that you would have to completely abandon all notion of common sense not likely to produce pain. you don't have to accept someone who says that. you would be better off asking a 9-year-old. you're not required to accept the proposition that the car did it, that the car killed george floyd. you are not required to accept that or to consider that it's the bystanders fault for distracting the defendant. you're not required to believe this amazing coincidence that after this on nine minute and 22nd restrained that at that

point even though he was walking and talking and even though he was breathing and interacting with people. is that common sense or is that nonsense you know george floyd struggled with drug addiction and drug use. he develops a tolerance. you know the toxicology report says in terms of the level and what the testimony was about that. it is nonsense. believe your eyes. what you saw happened happened. it happened. the defendant pressed down on george floyd so his lungs didn't have the room to breathe.

doctor tobin told you that. doctor rich, the experts, the experts that testified. we can rely on doctor smock, doctor rich, doctor eisen felt. like that commercial, they know a thing or two because they've seen a thing or two. they know a thing or two. doctor tobin knows a thing or two about how this works. so, looking at the charges -- and this is a little bit different layout than you see in the printed jury instructions, and they are not replicated completely, but it's meant to be sort of a guide for you to look at the different elements in a particular context. so the charge of murder and manslaughter in the second degree, the judge read to you what the loss of those things

are and the law breaks down the different charges into things called elements. first element, second, and each of these have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the state for the defendant to be guilty of those charges. those are the elements that are required and the only elements required like other preconceived notions you may have some ideas from watching tv about other cases and shows and you might have other ideas as to what the law requires but again you know how it's lunch time in court, the judge tells you when it's time to go, same thing. you know what the charges are and elements because the judge tells you so you need to follow that. so, talking about murder in the second degree first, the death

of george floyd must be proven and must be proven that the defendant caused the death of george floyd. and the fact that other causes may have contributed doesn't relieve the defendant of any criminal liability. for murder in the second degree that the defendant at the time of causing george floyd's death was committing or attempting to commit assault in the third degree as a felony level assault under the laws of minnesota, and assault -- it showed that he intentionally applied unlawful force to mr. floyd without mr. floyd's consent, resulting in bodily harm and the defendant and selected a substantial bodily harm on george floyd and that this act took place on or

about may 25, 2020 in hennepin county. so, as to the first element, george floyd died. that was established by the emergency room physician. george floyd was pronounced dead at the hennepin county memorial hospital on may 25, 2020 so that element told us that. and again, you can consider these elements anyway you want to consider them. my suggestion is that you consider them in the order as it is listed here and in order of the elements just because there is a lot here. thirty-eight witnesses testified. there's a lot of exhibits that were offered and it is easy to talk about everything at the same time. but it will help focus your

deliberations if you look at these different elements in order to have sort of a logical way to focus your deliberations, so i encourage you to do that but you can do it anyway you want. second element that the defendant caused the death of george floyd causation, what does that do? it means the defendant's acts or act for substantial causal factors, substantial causal factor in causing the death. he's criminally liable for all of the consequences of his actions that naturally occurred including the consequences brought about by intervening causes. the fact that other causes may have contributed to george floyd's death doesn't relieve the criminal liability. you have defined the nine minutes and 29 seconds of compression with his knee on his neck and on his back, being held

down was a substantial factor in george floyd's death. now if there was a superseding cause, the defendant wouldn't be criminally liable. those are causes that come after the defendant's acts that alters the natural sequence of events and is the cause of death that we don't have that here of how george floyd died. this is the use of force when we talk about the use of force it's defined by the different witnesses who testified looking at what happened from the point that his knee went to his neck and back. the assault started and how long it lasted nine minutes and 29 seconds. that's what killed george floyd. that's why he died the force

pinning him to the ground, that's what killed him. this was a homicide. you heard this from forensic pathologists, the experts. the experts have weighed in, and doctor lang in the field of told you that mr. floyd died and ruled this a homicide. he told you that the cause and manner of death, the restrained by law enforcement, what they did killed him. we told you that. doctor tobin, remember he told you specifically how it happened. he walked you through that, the asphyxia. he told you how it happened. then the other doctors that testified, doctor smock, rich, they told you how it didn't happen. it wasn't a sudden cardiac event

or heart attack or drug overdose. it wasn't any of those things. doctor tobin came back and explained it wasn't carbon monoxide, no. you know how george floyd died, and you heard this. specifically, doctor tobin provided a fairly extensive detail and was very clear george floyd died as a result of a low level of oxygen. a low level of oxygen caused the brain injury and an arrhythmia that caused his heart to stop. that's not a cardiac event it's not that his heart disease, that didn't cause him to die. it was the low level of oxygen. it was the asphyxia that caused him to die. we know that happened because they observed the restrained of

20:24 and anoxic seizure. doctor tobin told you that and even doctor fowler told you that. and after mr. floyd experienced a seizure, he passed out. his pulse stopped, his heart stopped. that cardiopulmonary arrest was the result of the police sub duel and restrained and neck compression. we know from doctor tobin he didn't die from a cardiac event as has been suggested. george floyd who isn't in perfect health, sure he had narrowed arteries, no question about that he was still experiencing stress even before the officer shoved him onto the sidewalk unnecessarily, gratuitously, disproportionately. but none of this caused george floyd's heart to fail.

his heart failed because the defendant's use of force that deprived mr. floyd of the oxygen that he needed, that humans need to live. and doctor tobin knows because he is a pulmonologist. he is a long doctor. he is a lungs doctor. he's also a respiratory physiologist and the only person that testified that is able to calculate lung capacity and volume. and he can do that. doctor baker couldn't do it. he deferred to the pulmonologist. doctor fowler couldn't do it. he said he would defer to a pulmonologist. doctor tobin that also happens to be a critical care physician, he spent years treating patients for intensive care that experienced respiratory failure, and doctor tobin literally wrote the book on the subject and he

was able to tell you what this looks like and what he was able to observe, what he was able to observe was oxygen deprivation. it was asphyxia. it was asphyxia because under the conditions that mr. floyd was being restrained, that the defendant put him in, that cut off his oxygen, it would have cut off oxygen of someone who was perfectly healthy, the forces that were used in the situation, right, involved multiple factors. george floyd was handcuffed [inaudible] he was placed, shoved prone onto a sidewalk. the knees pushing on his neck and back downward, the pavement, the force of the pavement being unyielding, it was like he was in a vice. he was being squeezed in a vice. he calculated, right, between

chauvin, the defendant, officer kueng pushing down on him, approximately 90 pounds of force, and the position and the force combined such that it was as if, it was as if -- reduction of air capacity to the point that mr. floyd was desperately trying to make space to breathe, pushing his shoulder, pushing his face against the pavement to lift up to give space to breathe. his lung capacity, based on doctor tobin's calculation, had just being in the prone position, even though he heard some studies from the defense say the prone position is not dangerous, doctor tobin disagreed. he said that the lung capacity was reduced by 24%, just by the prone position, 43% when you consider the additional

pressure. doctor tobin's opinion corroborates the police training and what the police have known for 30 years. but there's a danger in the prone position and the danger is positional asphyxia and the worst thing that can happen with positional asphyxia is death. and it wasn't just the lungs, the pressing up against the neck. remember it reduces the capacity of air flow so that it is as if mr. floyd was breathing through a straw. shallow breaths didn't produce enough oxygen, not enough oxygen to get to the lungs and that is what killed george floyd and here's what didn't. this wasn't a sudden cardiac arrhythmia. doctor smock told you that,

doctor tobin, they agreed not a sudden cardiac arrhythmia. that isn't how this looks. doctor baker, no medical evidence of a heart attack. we heard from doctor rich who treats people that have heart attacks and he found there was nothing on his review, nothing in george floyd's heart to suggest death originated from the heart. nothing. you know, over the course of the case you heard a lot of things that didn't happen. hypotheticals that don't apply. you know why george floyd died and how he died. you heard a lot about drugs and his struggle with addiction. some things he isn't a perfect man. who is?

no one is. you heard about drugs in the car, pills in the car, in the squad car does he have a pill in his mouth, none of this matters because you know what is drug level was. you know that from the toxicology report. if drugs are found in the car, they are not in george floyd's system. there's no point in talking about those. let's talk about what was in his system. in the toxicology report, and you heard from doctor eisenschmidt, that it was well below the ratio of people that died from a fentanyl overdose. it was even below the median. and george floyd's methamphetamine level, that was 94% lower than the group of the

population driving under the influence. they treated presentations of both fentanyl and methamphetamine but these drugs didn't kill george floyd. we know that he had a tolerance because they used drugs in the past and the experts all agreed and videos showed george floyd didn't die the way someone who dies from a fentanyl overdose dies. his breathing didn't slow down. he didn't fall asleep or go into a coma. the only dr. in this case that actually calculated george floyd's respiratory rate and the best doctor to do so, given his training and experience, he stated that the fentanyl in his

system didn't depress his respiration. he did not die of a drug overdose. that is not how he died. he didn't die of excited delirium if you've heard of excited delirium. doctor smock testified about excited delirium and explained george floyd didn't exhibit any of the signs of excited delirium one of which is super human strengths. nonsense. there is no superhuman strength. you heard him. you saw him. he was not impervious to the pain. paraganglioma suggesting the tumor that is called an incidental tumor, relatively

rare, maybe because his headache, that causes death at that particular moment in time at that time and that place after the restraint, after the subdural, the tumor that caused his headaches, that killed him? no. that is just a story. doctor rich specifically testified that he looked in george floyd's medical records and he didn't find references to headaches. and you heard about carbon monoxide. that the car killed him. doctor tobin came back and explained, right, this car, which had a catalytic converter, that was outside, that was a hybrid, and there is no evidence that it was even on, that that did not kill him. he explained carbon monoxide saturation levels, i'm sorry, oxygen saturation levels and based on his calculation of the

oxygen saturation, 98%, at most it could have been a 2% carbon monoxide, same as anybody else, same as people walking around, talking, breathing. it wasn't carbon monoxide. that is just a story, and it is simply wrong. you don't have to be doctor tobin to recognize this, it's probably nice to be doctor tobin but you don't have to be him to recognize this. you can see this with your own eyes. you can see what happened, that he couldn't breathe. you can see that he couldn't breathe. the defendant was on top of him, with his knees pressing down. but of course you saw how his body sort of deflated into the ground past the point of consciousness. there were multiple moments in time, ladies and gentlemen, multiple moments of time things

could have gone different. and that george floyd would have lived. if he was left in the side recovery position in the first place or placed in the side recovery position, and shortly after the restraint, he wouldn't have died. their own force witness testified that putting somebody in the side recovery position is a pretty easy thing to do, not complicated. the professor said you just rotate them 90 degrees, quick. could have done that. relieved the pressure. could have done cpr, chest compressions. was supposed to and had a policy that he was supposed to follow. the duty to provide medical aid. you are not just supposed a phone that in. you provide training and medical

aid. even doctor fowler was critical that nobody started to cpr, so that should have been done. he had the training and he knew better. he just didn't, george floyd didn't have to die that day, he shouldn't have died that day, but for the fact the defendant decided not to get up and not to let him, george floyd died. and these actions were a substantial factor in george floyd's death. and these actions, make no mistake, these actions were not policing. these actions were an assault. so, as the judge instructed you, for second degree murder, and it is actually very simple if you find the defendant committed this third-degree assault while

committing the assault, he caused george floyd's death, the defendant is guilty of murder. that is the way that it works in minnesota. there's two elements. the defendant assaulted george floyd. what does that mean? the intentional infliction of bodily harm upon another or the intent to do so and infliction of bodily harm that requires proof that the defendant intentionally applied unlawful force to another person without that person's consent, and the act resulted in bodily harm. intentional. did it on purpose. he did the thing on purpose. bodily harm, physical pain, illness or impairment of a person's physical conditions. so again, to be very clear, the state doesn't have to prove that the defendant had an intent to kill george floyd.

this was an intentional act that you see before you. he did this on purpose, and that's clear. again, he didn't trip and fall and find himself there. and this is also unlawful force. officers are only authorized by law to use reasonable force, and this wasn't reasonable force, as i will explain. george floyd clearly didn't consent to having the defendant's knees on top of him for nine minutes and 29 seconds. when you hear someone gasping for a breath, calling for their mother, that you need to get off, how could you think anything else, that he didn't consent to this? what we don't have to prove about intent or that the defendant intended to cause george floyd harm, don't have to

show that. you don't need to find the defendant was trying to cause harm or have the purpose to conclude that this is an assault. the state doesn't have to show the defendant intended to violate the law. we don't have to show that. we don't have to show that the defendant intended to kill him. the only thing about the defendant's intent that we have to prove is that he applied force to george floyd on purpose. but this wasn't an accident, and that is pretty simple. if you are doing something that hurts somebody and you know it and you keep doing it, you are doing it on purpose. i can't breathe. >> somebody's telling you they can't breathe and you keep doing it, you are doing it on purpose.

what else is going to happen when you push somebody down on the pavement? everybody knows this. everybody knows what happens when you push somebody against the pavement, you learn this pretty early on. we learn this pretty early on. assault in the third degree requires the defendant inflicted substantial bodily harm on george floyd. substantial bodily harm meaning temporary but substantial loss or impairment and function of a bodily member or organ, organs, the lungs, the heart, temporary loss of consciousness qualifies as substantial bodily harm, certainly permanent loss of consciousness. it would constitute substantial

bodily harm and you look at this point in the restraint and see the absence of expression, the absence of muscle tension. he was unconscious. that is substantial bodily harm that he did that. so, when you consider the charge of second-degree murder, try to break it down into parts. the defendant caused george floyd staff. he did. the state proved that beyond a reasonable doubt. and at the time of causing the death, the defendant committed or was attempting an assault in the third degree and that's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt with those being proved in the venue. second-degree felony murder.

the defendant is guilty. so, going back and talking about murder in the third degree you can see there's elements in common. there are some differences that we've already discussed. the first element the substantial causal factor and the fifth element about venue, may 25, 2020 in hennepin county. so, for third-degree murder, the difference for third-degree murder is the defendant had to cause george floyd staff by committing an act that was eminently dangerous and perform without regard to human life and again the state is not required for this charge to show how the defendant intended to kill george floyd, that he committed

an act that was eminently dangerous and performed without regard of human life. and it must prove, the state must prove that the act was highly likely to cause death, that the defendant acted with reckless disregard for human life, that he was consciously in different to loss of life that his actions could cause. the defendant's act was eminently dangerous to others and likely to cause death to mr. common sense in and of itself would not suffice the dangers of prone restraint, positional asphyxia has been known in the law enforcement community for about 30 years. this is known as common sense wasn't enough. the defendant's own use of force

witness admits that and again when we talk about danger, what is the danger of the positional asphyxia, it's death. the medical experts who know a thing or two. doctor tobin, doctor rich, they agree the defendant's actions created a high risk of death and the defendant consciously disregarded the loss of life's s actions could cause and did cause. he knew the risks of positional asphyxia. everybody and law enforcement knows that but he had other warnings not just from training but other warnings from people. he's not even resisting arrest right now. >> he's passed out. >> he's not even moving right now. you think that's cool? you think that's cool right now?

you're a bum for that, bro. you're stopping his breathing right now. it was plain and apparent right there to everybody what was happening. he was unresponsive, passed out, he's not talking. what are you doing. we know the defendant chose not to listen to bystanders, not to these bystanders but how about fellow officers on the scene? >> roll him on his side? >> roll him on his side? >> he's staying put where we've got him, that's what the defendant says. roll him on his side means roll

him into the side recovery position. he could have listened to the bystanders and fellow officers in his own training. he knew better, he just didn't do better. he knew that kneeling on somebody's neck in addition to the positional asphyxia because the pressure is dangerous. anyone can tell you that. a 9-year-old can tell you that, did tell you that. conscious indifference, do you want to know what indifference is, what it sounds like. >> my stomach hurts, my neck hurts, uh-huh get me some water or something, please, please.

i can't breathe, officer. [inaudible] >> in difference. leisurely picking rocks out of the tire, commenting about the smell of a man's feet when you are pressing down, as his voice slows and fades as he tells you you're going to kill me i can't breathe. my stomach hurts. uh-huh. my neck hurts. uh-huh. everything hurts. it takes a lot of oxygen to complain about it. in difference. did the defendant ever listen,

ever consider medical attention? that is a failure to give cpr, no one defended that even doctor fowler. this isn't protection, courage, and is certainly, certainly is not and was not compassion. it was the opposite of that. back to the instructions of third-degree murder. when you are deliberating ask yourselves did the defendant caused the death of george floyd by an intentional act that was eminently dangerous to others? absolutely. the state proved that. did the defendant act with the mental state consisting of reckless disregard for human

life? a conscious indifference to the loss of life that the eminently dangerous act could cause, yes he did. and you will find based on that that the state has proved as charged back to the charges let's talk about manslaughter in the second degree, and again you can see that there are some elements in common. first, third in common with the other charges. so, what's different about manslaughter in the second degree the defendant caused by culpable negligence, culpable negligence where it created an unreasonable risk and

consciously took a chance of causing death or great bodily harm and again, the state does not need to prove that he intended to kill george floyd. the defendant may not have even intended to be harmful but that ordinary and reasonably prudent person would recognize a strong probability of injuries to others. you can look for yourself and you can see exactly what was happening. bystanders who were at the same looks for themselves and was plain to them. they took video. you saw it. strong probability of injury and width of the defendant his specialized knowledge about the dangers of positional asphyxia

and common sense if you put your knee on somebody's neck there is a probability of injury, he knew that, tomac. great bodily harm that creates a high probability of death. permanent or protracted loss or impairment to the function of a bodily member or organ, the heart, the lungs, loss of consciousness. would an ordinary and reasonably prudent person know that this is dangerous, everybody that watched knew that it was dangerous. a 9-year-old knew it was dangerous. the defendant knew what he was doing, because he was right on top of him but his negligence goes beyond his intentional assault of mr. floyd. his negligence includes his failure to act in your custody

means in your care. in your custody means in your care. there is a duty to provide medical assistance. that includes not only calling the ambulance, but you have to use your knowledge, your training as a first responder. you are required to perform cpr. it is a requirement. he failed to do it. he had at the training. he knew how to do it. you've seen the records exhibit 119. we can take a look at all of the and services and all of the hours. he knew what to do. he just didn't do it. he knew better but he didn't do better. he wouldn't even let genevieve hansen, the off-duty firefighter. he wasn't going to do himself, he could have let someone else do it but he didn't. he had the knowledge and tools but he just ignored.

when you consider this charge the defendant caused george floyd's death by culpable negligence where he took an unreasonable risk and took a chance of causing death or great bodily harm you will find that element has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of second-degree manslaughter, all three charges. after all of this, you have another question you have to address after seeing all of this, finding the assault and the murder committed, the manslaughter committed you have another thing to consider and that is was this just okay, was this fine because the defendant was a police officer, was this an authorized use of force, was

it justified? it was not. let's look at the instruction of the kind and degree made lawfully using, executing his duties and limited by what a reasonable police officer in the same situation would believe to be necessary and forced beyond d that is just not reasonable when you look at the facts that a reasonable police officer in the same situation would have known at the precise moment that the officer acted with force, looking at the totality of the facts and circumstances to see whether these actions, the defendant's actions were objectively reasonable. was this reasonable? no. we sell the instruction that the law does not provide an excuse.

it does not. let's start with the most basic of promises. restraining george floyd in this manner on the ground, prone, handcuff, body weight on top of him, start with a promise that that in fact was the use of force. the defense called a witness that testified and that wasn't a use of force because it wasn't likely to produce. likely to produce pain. humans feel pain.

you need to reject it and let's discuss the standard of what would a reasonable police officer do. what would a reasonable police officer do? you don't look at those from george floyd's perspective. it's not what he reasonable person would do [inaudible] have shown over and over because he didn't act as a reasonable officer would remember charles mcmillan? the defendant explained his actions and the basis of his actions to charles mcmillan.

here's what he said. [inaudible] >> that was his justification for using this level of force. he is the big sizable guy, he might be on something. we have to control. control is the restraint. you know the standards and you've heard the standards. you know the difference between a risk and a threat officers are authorized to use force to respond to a threat. they are not authorized to respond to the risk. anybody poses a potential risk big, small, in between.

it's merely a risk. it's not a threat. force is not authorized against someone because they are on something and it conceded that the combination of the two in large isn't a justification for the use of force. that isn't what they get to do. so the defendant's entire basis, his explanation to charles mcmillan at the time at the scene, right afterwards.

it isn't procedure, it's not the use of force policies were following the rules. we talk about things that could have happened, potentials, hypotheticals. you need to focus on what did happen. he wasn't able to comply. they should have recognized that. they do it all the time. they had him handcuffed, they had plenty of resources, they had a fifth one off in the distance and cuffed behind his

back. he wasn't going anywhere or doing anything. he didn't need to be put in the prone position to facilitate handcuffing that the defendant stayed on top of him, grinding his knees into him, pressing down on him continuing to twist his arm against the handcuff, pain compliance [inaudible] the rib hobble, you've heard about that and considered using it and thought about using it. but if you are going to restrain someone like that completely holding them down, the policy

authorizes the use of the rib hobble. they didn't do that. the policy about applying the rib hobble you had to put the first immediately in the side recovery position. why didn't they do that? the conduct didn't warrant it. you heard that comment. they talked about that so they held him in this dangerous position. a reasonable officer wouldn't do that. a reasonable officer follows rules. a reasonable officer follows training. the risk is deadly force and you recall the tactics and control it's just not authorized when

someone is passed out, on the ground, unresponsive. you can't even claim that he was engaged in passive resistance at this point. they kept saying get up and get in the car and george floyd said i will. i can't. he doesn't even have the opportunity. he's saying he will get up and get in the car. it must be reasonable at that point it starts and ends and all points in between to take in the information and react to it and the defendant didn't do it. the defense has made the argument that the crowd justified the defendant's use of

force like the blame should fall on the bystanders for displaying concern over a man's life. it's a distraction that there was some concern that the defendant doesn't appear to concerned. it was in the bystanders fault. the 19 year police veteran, a field training officer. it's being filmed by some civilians and there's policy about filming. they understand civilians can film them. they know that. it isn't something new or earth shattering or even particularly noteworthy. the sergeant you recall from the

lapd. he talked about people throwing rocks and bottles. they are expressing concern. this isn't a justification for assault or murder. in the cross-examination that reasonable minds can disagree, some of the witnesses don't line up exactly where the force begins or what exactly they should have done that don't get caught up in that. consider the testimony as a whole. officer after officer. they told you, the chief of police, that this conduct violates the use of force policy, violates the department's core values.

violated his duty of care. he failed to render aid. remember, the commander, now inspector who was in charge of all training looked at this and said i don't even know what this is. i don't know what this modification is. this isn't how they train. he said without equivocation it is not. we don't train our people to do this. you can present a thousand hypothetical situations and talk about what didn't happen. all day long until next week but when you talk about what did happen on that day and at that time, that's what they said, use of force unreasonable.

it should have ended after mr. floyd was on the ground. his supervisor said that. lieutenant zimmerman, the oldest serving or most years of service on minneapolis police department, longest-serving, correct myself, longest serving member of the department, what did he say? he said this is totally unnecessary, not reasonable, only reasonable force is authorized. the expert witness, los angeles police department is trained thousands of police officers. he looked at this. this is objectively unreasonable force. professor stoden, former police

officer, university of south carolina law school professor, this use of force was unreasonable, disproportionate and it violates national standards. the experts agree because the force has to be reasonable when it starts and it has to be reasonable when it ends. what is happening if you look at the bottom, he's handcuffed and on the ground. he's saying i can't breathe 27 times within the first four minutes and 45 seconds of this encounter he is saying that. and the defendant continues to kneel on his back and neck, continues the dangerous restraint. george floyd says 8:22:24 my stomach hurts, my head hurts, everything hurts. the defendant heard those words. was george floyd resisting when he was trying to breathe?

no. the defendant heard it and acknowledged it and all he did is mock him. uh-huh. it takes a lot of oxygen to complain. that's what he said. it takes a lot of oxygen to say that. george floyd, in his final words, to the defendant please, i can't breathe. i can't breathe. calling out for help to the man in uniform. the defendant stayed right on top of him, ignored it, continue doing what he was doing, facing the crowd, grinding his knee, twisting his hand. i think he's passing out, officer lane said. officer kueng can't find a pulse. the greatest skeptic of this case among you, how can you

justify the continued force on this man when he has no pulse? continued the restraint, continued twisting and pushing him down and crushing the very life out of him. it wasn't too late. they could have rolled him over and perform cpr. he continued past the point of finding a pulse. past the point of the ambulance arrived. past the point of the emts get out of the ambulance. what is the goal? what's the plan, what are we trying to accomplish? this was over a 20-dollar bill, allegedly. what is going on? ..

>> house. >> he is guilty of second-degree manslaughter. all of them. because this was not a justified use of force you cannot justify the use of force. it is impossible. not if you apply the rules or standards a sworn officer to protect and serve a sworn

officer with the oath that they take. at the beginning of my comments i talked about george floyd life he was surrounded by people who cared about him surrounded by familiar faces people he could look out to in the crowd but in death he was surrounded by strangers. they were strangers but you cannot say they did not care. you can't say that they were randomly chosen from the community people from the community randomly chose by fate coming from different places and going to different places and they had different purposes. all of them. and the members of the community all converged by fate for that one single

moment in time to witness something to witness nine minutes 29 seconds. of shocking abuse of authority to watch a man die. there was nothing they could do about it. because they were powerless. utterly powerless even seeing this happening they cried out at first. pointed out you can get up off of him. they got more and more desperate as they watch this go on and on and there was nothing, nothing they could do. all they could do was watch and gather what they could. gather their memories. gather their thoughts and impressions and those precious recordings.

they gathered those up and brought them here and they got up on the stand and testified and bore witness to what they sought to this outrageous act. they told you about it and they gave you what they had. their thoughts and impressions and memories they gave you those precious recordings so you can see this from every single angle. they gave that to you. they are powerless to do anything with that. randomly selected people from the community. you got a summons in the mail. and here you are. all converged on one spot. our system, we have power the

power actually belongs to us, the people. we give it to the government in trust for us to hold and use appropriately. sometimes we take it back. sometimes when something is really important we reserve those decisions for ourselves. the state, we have power. the judge has power. but he cannot convict the defendant. that power belongs to you. you have that power and only you. have the power to convict the defendant of these crimes and in so doing declare that this use of force was unreasonable, it was excessive, grossly disproportionate. it is not an excuse for the

shocking abuse that you saw with your own eyes. you can't believe your own eyes. this case is exactly what you thought when you sought first. when you saw that video. it is exactly that. you can't believe your eyes. it's exactly what you saw with your eyes. it's exactly what you knew. it's what you felt in your gut. it's what you no know in your heart. this wasn't policing. this was murder. the defendant is guilty of all three counts. all of them. there is no excuse. thank you.

>> members of the jury we will take a 20 minute break we'll also take a 20 minute break after the defense argument before the states rebuttal and finalevevevevevevevevevevevevevv