opportunity, he saying he will get up and get in the car, he isn't given the opportunity to do that. that is at least an attempt to comply. force must be reasonable, at the point it starts, at the point it ends and all points in between, officers are required to reassess the situation and reevaluate the situation, to take in the information and react. the defendant didn't do it. defenses made the argument that the crowd justify the defendant's use of force that the blame should fall on the bystanders. for displaying concern over a man's life? what? this was a distraction and there was some concern that the defendant doesn't appear to concerned. it wasn't the bystander's

faults, 19 year police veteran. the field training officer, over 800 hours of training, not being able to distract from the comments of a 17-year-old being filmed by civilians, there's a policy about filming, they understand that civilians can film them. they know that, it's right there, this isn't something new or earth shattering, or either particularly noteworthy, you recall him from l.a.p.d., used to patrol on skid row, he talked about people throwing rocks and bottles, they are expressing concern. they are not doing anything, this is not a justification for an assault, for murder. defenses suggested in their

cross-examination that reasonable minds can disagree, where some of the witnesses don't line up exactly, where force began, don't get caught up in that, don't miss the forest for the trees. consider the testimony as a whole. officer after officer after officer got on that stand, raised their hand, 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. failed to render aid. remember, commander, now inspector katie blackwell who was in charge of all training, looked at this is that i don't even know what this is, i don't know what this modification is. this isn't how they train.

these aren't the rules. lieutenant looked at this and he said, without equivocation, not in mpd trained tactic, it is not. we don't train our people to do this, you can present 1,000 hypothetical situations and talk about what didn't happen all day long into next week but when you talk about what did happen on that day at that time, that's what they said. use of force, unreasonable. supervisor, the force should have ended right after mr. floyd was on the ground. his supervisor said that. lieutenant zimmerman, the oldest-serving... i should say the most years of service on the minneapolis police department, longest-serving, correct myself, longest serving of the department looked at this and

said this was totally unnecessary. totally unnecessary, the use of deadly force. not reasonable. the only reasonable force is authorized. sergeant steiger, expert witness, los angeles police department, he's trained thousands of police officers. he looked at this, this is objectively unreasonable force. former police officer university of, violates national standard. the experts agree, the force has to be reasonable when it starts, has to be reasonable and it ends, what is happening? when you look at the bottom,

george floyd is handcuffed on the ground, what is he say? he saying "i can't breathe" 25 times within the first 4 minutes and 25 seconds of this encounter, he saying that end the defendant continues to kneel on his back and neck, continuing the dangerous restraint. george floyd says into the restraint at 8:22: 24. "my stomach hurts, my neck hurts, everything hurts," the defendant heard those words. was george floyd resisting when he was trying to breathe? no. no. and the defendant heard it and he acknowledged it at all he did was acknowledge him, "it takes a lot of oxygen to complain." when george floyd, in his final

words to the defendant, "please, i can't breathe." , crying out for help from a man in uniform, the defendant stayed right on top of him and ignored it, continue doing what he was doing, facing the crowd, grinding his knee, twisting his hand. "i think he's passing out," lane says, officer can can't find a pulse. now the greatest skeptic of this case among you, how can you justify the continued force on this man when he has no pulse? no pulse. continued the restraint, continued grinding and twisting and pushing down and crushing the very life out of him. it wasn't too late, he could've rolled him over, perform cpr, no, he continued past that point

of finding a pulse, past the point where the ambulance arrives, past the point where the emts were out of the ambulance prayed what's the goal? what's the plan here? what are we trying to accomplish? this was a counterfeit $20 bill, allegedly. what is going on? why? why hold him not long past that point, past that line i was crossed expo unreasonable. unreasonable. not proportionate, excessive, violated policy, violated law, it violated everything that the minneapolis police department stood for. it is not lawful. to use that phrase, "awful but

lawful," force is not lawful, it's just awful. so the defendant is guilty of second-degree murder, he's guilty of third-degree murder, he's guilty of second degree manslaughter. all of them. because this was not a justified use of force, you cannot justify this use of force, it's impossible, not if you apply the rules and not if you apply the standards. that a sworn officer to protect and serve, a sworn officer, that oath that they take. you know, at the beginning of my comments i talked about george floyd's life, how he was surrounded by people who cared about him must surrounded by familiar faces, people he could look out to in the crowd and at his death he was surrounded by strangers.

they were strangers but you can't say they didn't care. you can't say that. these people were randomly chosen from the community, people from the community randomly chosen by fate and they were coming from different places and they were going to different places and they had different purposes, all of them. random members of the community. all converged by fate at one single moment in time to witness something, to witness 9 minutes and 29 seconds. of shocking abuse of authority, to watch a man die. and there was nothing they could do about it. because they were powerless. they were utterly powerless

because even they respected the badge, even seeing this happening, they tried, they cried out at first, pointed out hey, you can get up off him, became more and more desperate as they watched this go on and on and on and there was nothing, there was nothing they could do, all they could do was watch and gather what they could, gather their memories, gather their thoughts and impressions, gather those precious recordings, they gathered those up and they brought them here and they brought them here and they got up on the stand and they testified and they bore witness to what they saw, they bore witness to this outrageous act and they told you about it and they gave you what they had. their thoughts, their impressions, their memories, they gave you those precious recordings so you can see this, you can see this from every single angle. they gave that to you.

they were powerless to do anything but that. they gave it to you. randomly selected people from the community. you get a summons in the mail. and here you are, all converged on one spot. now, our system, we have power, the power actually belongs to us, the people. and we give it to the government and trust for us to hold and to use appropriately. sometimes we take it back, sometimes when something is really important, we reserve those decisions for ourselves. state, we have power. we cannot convict the defendant, the judge has power but he cannot convict to the defendant.

that power belongs to you. you have that power. and only you have the power to convict to the of these crimes. and in so doing, and in so doing declare that this use of force was unreasonable. it was excessive. it was grossly disproportionate, it is not an excuse for this shocking abuse that you saw with their own eyes. and you can believe your own eyes. this case is exactly what you thought when you saw it first. when you saw the video, it is exactly that, you can believe your eyes. it's exactly what you believed, it's exactly what you saw with your eyes, is exactly what you knew. it's what you felt in your gut,

it's what you now know in your heart. this wasn't policing, this was murder, the defendant is guilty of all three counts. all of them. and there's no excuse. thank you. >> members of the jury, we are going to take a 20 minute break and just for your information, we will also take a 20 minute break after the defense argument before the state's rebuttal and the final instructions. >> harris: we have been watching this since they gaveled in at about 10:00 a.m. on the east coast and big block of that time has been the prosecution

and he has laid out a case that might have caught some people by surprise because it really did not capitulate or even speak to some of the things that people talked about with this case. we have a very special panel here assembled for you on this day on b22 and i want to bring them all in very early and let's get into it. my cohost emily compagno is here, "new york post" columnist miranda devine, also my cohost kayleigh mcenany is here and civil rights attorney leo terrel, great to see everybody pay leo, i want to start with you and when i talk about the things that may have caught people by surprise based on what everybody has been talking about in the protest and all of this come out race has not been a focus in this case, race and racism out of focus in this closing argument, you heard words about police officers like

"noble job," the painting of derek chauvin is utterly, not the type of police officer that most of us are used to seeing, how does that play to a juror? >> leo: i will tell you, harris, i think race, first of all, should not be part of this case. what's going on outside in the court of public opinion is not what's going on inside the court of law. what's happening right now and the court of law is the evidence regarding a second-degree murder charge and a third-degree murder charge and manslaughter, those charges are color-blind. it doesn't make a difference what your race is. it could also be the prosecutor keeping that out. also it's hard to convict a police officer so i thought the prosecutor did a very good job in separating derek chauvin from police departments and from police officers because people have an inherent good feeling about police officers and i think you did a good job of

categorizing chauvin as an outsider from a police officers normally do. >> harris: kayleigh, when you look at this and i want to further what leo is talking about, and you say that this case is not minnesota versus police, this case is minnesota versus derek chauvin. that is quite a statement, you might grab people on that jury who might look up at that point and say okay, so this is not an indictment of the people they had to call when george floyd was dying, by the way, you still need the police. >> kayleigh: that is exactly right and i was one of the biggest takeaways i had was the relate brilliance and wisdom of the prosecutors to say, we are not prosecuting a profession, what we are prosecuting is a man who should be held responsible for his actions, they did a phenomenal job, i thought, particularly one thing that stuck out to me, a lot of the tragedies we see across the

country is an individual resisting arrest, they went and said look, this was not resistance, this was compliance. and they said, george floyd was asked to put his hands on the steering wheel, he did that, he was asked to get out of the car and he did that, he was asked to be put him handcuffs, he did that, he walked across the street, gave his name, he was on his knees are the handcuffs on at the time they started pushing them to the ground. this was resistance, not compliance. the thing that emanated throughout and separated from other cases are seen around the country, and not doing the broad stroke of police officers, separating him from that profession was really well-done, it's going to be very hard for the defense after what i just saw. >> harris: miranda, what struck you about the prosecution's talk in terms of lack of empathy, that sort of humanity, the things that leo terrel is describing as color-blind, the things that unite all of us in the sense of, what would it have felt like to you? if this happened to you?

that sort of argument, how did that play out? >> miranda: look, i think that was one of the most compelling arguments, the thread that ran through the prosecution's entire argument, that was the lack of compassion. you know, he kept saying that derek chauvin was right on top of george floyd as he was dying, that he had to know that he was dying and he could have at any point in that 9 minutes and 30 seconds relented and offered help to this dying man beneath him. so he did a brilliant job at as kayleigh said and that in itself is a and approach to all the activists, democrats who are pouring scorn and really trying to upend this process, this is about victims of law, it is color-blind as leo said, it is

about right and wrong, it is about whether or not the jury finds that derek chauvin is guilty of second-degree murder or manslaughter. and it's not about race, it's not about policing, it's not about historic injustice, it's about the facts before us and our system is working and you can see that from what the prosecutor, his performance which was, there's a lot on his shoulders, i think the entire reputation of our justice system is there on his shoulders and he presented himself very well. >> harris: stephen fleischer, the prosecutor emily, just to further what miranda is saying, so the very end, this wasn't policing, this was murder and there was no excuse. he wasn't trying to say that this was any part of that is miranda's pointing out, any part of what you would see police officers do.

how important is that? >> emily: extremely important. i think as we talk about the larger national conversation and here in the courtroom, there is a way to be very clear that in his words this is not an anti-police prosecution, this is a pro-police prosecution come in the words of the prosecutor, he says, exactly, he said "the defendant abandoned his training and values" and was on to say how, i thought he also did a really excellent job of pointing out both the common sense jurors would need in their deliberation as well as the reliance on expert testimony, he said to them, you are here because of your common sense, don't abandoned it, using use your eyes for this video and also here is the expert testimony you can rely on, the seven law enforcement officer experts testified that that use of force was not reasonable, proportional and if violated policy and was

not justified, he talked about causation, this is really important because a lot of the national conversation has made it and either/or analysis. what i mean by that is he pointed out that the substantial factor of the cause of death he argued with george floyd was that me on the neck and deprivation of oxygen, combined with other contributions, doesn't absolve the defendant of his criminal liability, you can find that there were other elements here that weren't superseding, it didn't happen before and didn't take take away from the fact that the use of force by then-officer derek chauvin, you can find all those things and still find them guilty but he was also really clear and what can honestly be confusing about the elements of these charges, oftentimes when you hear something, we are like okay, yeah, i got it, it seems simple but when you drill down it can be complicated and i thought he did a great job of expanding clearly the elements needed. >> harris: you know, leo, that brings me to the point, people

were kind of perched, it will go like this, prosecution, then defense and as i understand there's an option for the prosecution to come back with a rebuttal and where in all of that lie questions that could possibly come from the jury? i know right now, because it's the defense's job, looking for kinks in the argument you just heard so are there any that you see that we may see that defense come right out with in the next 10 minutes? >> emily: harris, let me tell you right now, if you are going to be a good lawyer, emily and kayleigh would know this, you've got to be able to argue both sides. as well as the prosecution, if i am the defense i am going to prosecute the prosecution, i am going to attack what the prosecution said that george floyd never resisted, i'm going to attack the fact that he said george floyd, there was no force

needed, i am going to poke holes into those arguments and what i'm going to do if i am the defense attorney, i'm going to play videotape to support my testimony or my evidence and my presentation so a jury can rely on what i'm saying as being evidence and not attorney words. that's the strategy i would use if i am on the defense, harris. >> harris: i want to lean in with you just a little bit more and we are so fortunate we have three attorneys today, miranda, you covered so many investigations, i feel like i have the fbi with me today. [laughter] so, leo, you know, as they come back income of the defense, do they come back in with video as a kind of describing it, there were some things that we really had not seen much of, when you see the bystanders off to the side and you can now hear, we've seen a little bit of that, what can the defense show us that we haven't seen much of it as part their argument?

>> emily: l, i will tell you, in my opinion what they should use is a key piece of video, the resistance of george floyd trying to get in the backseat. i mean, to not using force to get them back in the police car, that is critical and other officers besides derek chauvin used force on george floyd, they are not up for charges so my strategy is show that video and asked the jury, what are we supposed to do? that video to me is very, very important. >> harris: even though he's in handcuffs? i'm just asking because if the prosecution gets a rebuttal, kayleigh, i think they're going to bring that up, right? is huge, you're trying to get them into something where you have to get him into it but he still in handcuffs. i'm curious to know what you

think about that and the when te defense begins in about seven and a half minutes. >> kayleigh: that's a key point is that handcuffs, when they said he was not engaging in resistance but compliant, they kept nailing that point home, they got to the moment where they were going to put george floyd in the car and they said, this is the moment where he said "i don't want to get in the car" and they talked about him having claustrophobia, him being petrified of getting in the car and they play that audio where he said "please give me three seconds" and you can honestly see someone not really trying to resist there but literally in trepidation. the defense is going to focus on that moment and say it was a moment of resistance what you're exactly right, the handcuffs mean a lot when you consider the fact that after he didn't get in the car he was subdued on his knees in handcuffs and they got him on his side and they question whether they should have even put them on his side and then pushed him over and put the knee on the neck, was that necessary when he was in handcuffs? they are going to have a very hard time trying to rationalize or justify that given he was in a subdued position. >> harris: you know, miranda, and curious, 37,000 feet, where

do the other officers play in the defense of derek chauvin, what would you want to know from them? >> miranda: i think that's a really good question, i think what you are seeing at the moment, and we just got the emotion now of the prosecution and so we are all very caught about the compassion that should have been shown to george floyd as he was dying in their humanity but really, the defense is going to have to bring the police back into this, is going to have to bring back the bond between derek chauvin and all the police in america and that, the prosecution has done a really good job of severing derek chauvin from that and making him the other in the

prosecution also has preempted with the defense is going to try to do by calling it all nonsense but what the defense will do is to, make derek chauvin representative of all police who are faced with these difficult and dangerous situation with people resisting arrest and perhaps under the influence of drugs. so you will see that and i think our emotions will go from one side to the other and back and forth. >> harris: yeah. it sometimes can be one of those things, who speaks last in this instance and if the prosecution decides whether or not to redo its rebuttal and which issues it will choose, we do not know yet. what we do know is that we are awaiting the defense closing argument in the derek chauvin trial in minnesota, we are going to take a very, very quick break, come right back and we are anticipating that we'll be starting. stay close.

i had saved up some money and then found the home of my dreams. but, my home of my dreams needed some work. sofi was the first lender that even offered a personal loan, and i didn't even know that was an option. the personal loan let us renovate our single family house into a multi-unit home. ♪ and i get to live in this beautiful house, with this beautiful kitchen, and it's all thanks to sofi. ♪ at novartis, our goal is to help keep cosentyx accessible and affordable. if you're taking cosentyx and your insurance or coverage changes or you need help paying cosentyx connect is here to help. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms, if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen or if you've had a vaccine, or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. call us or visit us online. we're here for you.

♪ (ac/dc: back in black) ♪ ♪ ♪ call us or visit us online. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ back in black ♪ ♪ i hit the sack ♪ ♪ i've been too long... ♪ applebee's irresist-a-bowls are back. dig in for just $8.99. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. still lots of room. just more to view. still the big move. just more moving. still singing. just more in tune. still hard to find a spot. just easier to park. still the gangs all here. just less “are we there yet?” the chevy family of suvs. making life's journey just better. ♪♪♪

we're carvana, the company making life's journey who invented car vending machines and buying a car 100% online. now we've created a brand-new way for you to sell your car. whether it's a year old or a few years old. we wanna buy your car. so go to carvana and enter your license plate answer a few questions. and our techno wizardry calculates your car's value and gives you a real offer in seconds. when you're ready, we'll come to you, pay you on the spot and pick up your car, that's it. so ditch the old way of selling your car, and say hello to the new way at carvana.

at qvc, we're celebrating you during our friends and family event. all april long you'll find the brands you love, and love the ones you get to discover. the hosts, experts, and personalities with the stories behind the products, and special deals every day. including 40% off an ever-changing selection of products. savings end soon, only on qvc and qvc.com here's huge news for veteran homeowners. introducing refiplus from newday usa. savings end soon, with interest rates near record lows refiplus lets you refinance to save money every month. plus you could get an average of $50,000 cash. that's money for security today and money for retirement tomorrow. refiplus, it's only for veterans and it's only from newday usa.

>> harris: breaking news here on "outnumbered" as we await the defense now to step up in making his closing arguments now in the derek chauvin trial in minneapolis, minnesota. i want to go straightaway to leo terrel and by the way, a special gathering today with three attorneys, my cohost emily and kaylee machen and quote the investigator and covering journalism and that isa great panel for you before we go back to the trial, miranda delivered such a great point before we took the quick commercial break which is put your emotion aside, now we are going to hear from the defense and every thing you just heard was an argument for the prosecution and it did kind of drum up the emotions, now we are going to shift gears and when we do, leo, there is this talk that's going on outside the courtroom that you and i spoke

of earlier in how much you let that seep in. what people should be doing if they don't like what they hear today. we don't even have a verdict yet but what people should be doing in the streets after that verdict, that sort of thing, talk to me about policing in this environment, leadership in this environment. >> leo: one thing i want to say, i'm glad the judge is going to sequester the jury during deliberation but you got professional agitators outside, i don't want to mention any names, maxine waters, but the situation is going to be very, very difficult. i'm sorry, i wasn't joking. >> harris: cheated say get confrontational, those were her words. >> leo: those are confrontational words with the national guard, state police, local police are going to have their hands full. not only in minnesota but throughout this country because the elephant in the room is this, there are people who

profit from the race talk, people who are going to take advantage and exploit and i would submit to you, harris, no verdict is going to satisfy those who want to exploit and play the race card. >> harris: wow, very strongly put. kayleigh? >> kayleigh: that's exactly right and we've got to urge, and our streets. violence should never beget violence and demonization of police officers has deadly consequences, we saw that with her to go who were killed in the wake of the narrative that turned out to be false, we can't demonize an entire profession, we can go out and urge confrontation, miranda devine wrote an amazing piece on police officers, i don't want to characterize it for her but how they are good people, hardworking people and we can't just summation and characterize everyone as racist, it's just not the case, they put their lives on the line and they were shot at this weekend so we have to take the actions of one

individual from an entire profession that serves diligently every day. >> harris: as the prosecutor in this case, spoke for the better part of an hour, emily, he started with "the noble job of police officers," he said that over and over, he talked about the importance of them as kaylee machen is doing now in our society so you have that laid down by the prosecution which may have taken the specter out of the hand of the defense, if it had hoped to, well, they're going after the police, and he barely clearly said, the prosecutor, no, this case is not against the police, it is again derek chauvin. we are watching the seal to go back to this trial and listen to the defense's closing argument so we know we are moments away but emily, i want to ask you about the actual charges, and what the jury will look at now and what do you think the prosecution has proved and what you think the defense has

proved? >> emily: well, first of all, just a reminder of that because i know for viewers, the burden of proof is on the prosecution here so as we go into the defense arguments, to leo's point earlier, they are just poking holes in it, going in of holes in it that their intent will be, proved beyond a reasonable doubt standard is not reached and a reminder also for viewers as we head into the defense argument that the prosecutor laid it out for the jurors instructions, such proof that is ordinarily prudent men and women would act upon in their most important affairs, not can creation, quote real, significant doubt, that aside now, to answer your question i thought that he did an excellent job of drawing that line in the sand, he said "this is a pro-police prosecution because the defendant was an aberration and here are the charges, they argue that -- looks like we are going into the defense now. >> harris: yes, we are and i

would tell you that the seal had gone off the screen, always have a judge but his mask on, let's watch. the defense gets closing arguments. >> i want to thank each and eacd every one of you for your service, diligence and attention to this matter. we all recognize the disruption that jury service places on your personal and professional lives, especially in a case of this magnitude so on behalf of mr. chauvin i want to thank each and every one of you for your attention on service this jury. i am going to apologize if i get a little long-winded. because i get one bite at the apple here, the state has an opportunity to rebut my statement after this. there is some very much we need to cover and so very much we need to talk about and it is all important. before i begin my review of the evidence in this case, i would like to address two very crucial

points of law that were touched on by the state, the presumption of innocence and what proof beyond a reasonable doubt means. the presumption of innocence, the defendant is presumed innocent. that's the starting point, he is presumed innocent of these charges and this presumption remains with you throughout the course of the trial, the presentation of the evidence, throughout the course of your deliberations, until and unless the state has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. that the defendant does not have to prove his innocence. we talked about this in jury selection, we talked about the starting point, the defendant doesn't have to try to catch up. he starts at the presumption of innocence. proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

here is the definition that the judge just read to you. "proof beyond a reasonable doubt is such proof as ordinarily prudent men and women would act upon in their most important affairs." reasonable doubt is a doubt that is based upon reason and common sense. it does not mean a fanciful or capricious doubt, nor does it mean beyond all possibility of doubt. the law recognizes three standards of proof. the preponderance of the evidence, the first and lowest standard. clear and convincing evidence is the next standard. in the third standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. and the way as lawyers sometimes illustrate what these three standards mean is through the

scales of justice, right? the scales of justice equally balanced. when you apply the standard of the preponderance of the evidence it's also called a single grain of sand tips the scales in the favor of one party or the other. and this burden of proof is used in many civil cases, somebody, the state wants to take away your driver's license, for an example, that is the burden of proof that the state has in that type of a case, they have digested ever so slightly convinced the finder of fact that their evidence supports their action. the next standard is clear and convincing evidence. that's pretty self-explanatory, right? it is clear evidence and it

convinces you, the finder of fact, that the action is correct. this is a standard of proof that is used if the state wants to take away your children, clear and convincing evidence. it tips the scales more than once in the favor of one party over the other, the highest standard in this country is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. proof beyond a reasonable doubt. essentially with the state has to convince you is that the evidence in this case completely eliminates any reasonable doubt. or in other words, leaving only on reasonable doubt, capricious, fanciful, capricious doubt,

capricious means unpredictable, fanciful. space aliens flew in and inhabited the body of derek chauvin and caused this, that's fanciful. beyond the reasonable doubt. the highest standard of the law, they supposed space aliens may have been inhabiting his body, that's always fanciful and capricious. so this, these two standards, the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, work in concert with each other. a start with the proposition that mr. chauvin is innocent of these charges, the standard is to advance substantial evidence to convince you that the only

doubts that were remaining were unreasonable doubts. as you analyze the evidence in this case, you would simply have to find that any defense that has been advanced is unreasonable. that's what the standard is all about. i want to take this opportunity also to talk to you about the importance of reading the entire instruction. because i've seen, you know, lawyers and i'm going to do it, too, we pick and choose those things that help us make our case and help us argue our case, that's our job as lawyers. it is to point out words and phrases with the instructions that make a difference in the

case and to take that evidence and present it to you in such a way that it supports our proposition, that's what we do. that's why we are instructed, if the judge's law, take the time to carefully read the entire instructions. throughout the course of this trial was seen us do this. a second here, a second there, a screen shot here and a screen shot there, you need to review the entirety of the evidence in this case during the course of your deliberations as well and i can tell you that some of the videos that we've seen are much longer than what was presented.

there is additional information and you're going to see some of that is we go through this case today. so take the time and conduct an honest assessment of the facts of this case, compare it to the law as the judge instructs you and the entirety of the law, that's why the instructions tell you, consider the instructions as a whole. i've told you that lawyers like to present evidence that favors them. right? but we have to be intellectually honest about the evidence, we have to present it in an honest and intellectually cohesive and coherent manner. and i have two address something that i think is important. and i think it is a prime example of what i am asking you

and what is your obligation to do, to look at the evidence in light of all of the other pieces of evidence. so you heard during the testimony that one of the things that he considered is the possibility that carbon monoxide was present and could have contributed to an environment that created an oxygen deprivation, you've heard that testimony. in rebuttal to that testimony, the state brought dr. tobin back and he told you, we can completely disregard that, we know as a fact, we know conclusively that mr. floyd did not have carbon monoxide because his oxygen was saturated to 98% and you just heard the state say it just like i am right here, right? so it stands true, i could get

up in front of you and i could argue to you, we know this wasn't a speciation because george floyd had a 98% oxygen level. how could he have been asphyxiated at the hospital with a 98% oxygen level? but that's not intellectually honest. it doesn't stand up against the rest of the evidence because of what we know, right? we heard the testimony of the paramedics. we are the testimony of doctor,they came in and said thn resuscitative efforts, they introduced an oxygen supply, they are manually breathing for him, re-oxygenating his blood so when you look at that piece of

evidence, when you look at a piece of evidence like that you want to compare it against all the other evidence. because you can't come in and say, george floyd on one hand, george floyd died of asphyxiation but he has a 98% oxygen level, right? his blood is oxygenated. then it stands to reason the opposite is true as well, you can't come in and say, i can conclusively prove that mr. floyd didn't have carbon monoxide in his blood because he had this high oxygen saturation. in the test of one statement against the evidence of other people and you compare, that is what you as jurors are obligated to do and what i am asking you to do. compare the evidence against his himself, compared to the law. read the instructions in their

entirety. start from the point of the presumption of innocence, sealed by the state can get. i submit to you that the state has failed to meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. mr. chauvin has been charged as the state indicated with these three charges. and the judge has instructed you, second-degree murder while committing a felony, also called the felony murder, kind of the textbook example that i rented to a liquor store, i pulled a gun, i'm intending to rob the liquor store, my gun goes off, i shoot and kill the teller, i didn't intend to go in and part

of that person but my come of the death of that teller occurred while i was committing a felony. he's been charged with murder in the third degree for performing an intentional act that was eminently dangerous, and manslaughter in the second degree. again, the law has all the words, defines the words you need and the instruction should be considered in their entirety. whenever i meet with the client i tried to explain what the elements are and this is the analogy that i use. i say, a criminal case is like baking chocolate chip cookies, they are to have the necessary ingredients. to have flour and sugar and butter and chocolate chips. and whatever else goes into those chocolate chip cookies.

if you have all of the ingredients, you can make chocolate chip cookies way but if you are missing any one single ingredient you can't make chocolate chip cookies. it's a simple kind of analogy. but the criminal law works the same way, we say, the ingredients, the elements, the state has the burden of proving each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt. not just some global proposition that they prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, they had to prove each of these elements beyond reasonable doubt. if they are missing any one single element, any one single element, it is a not guilty verdict. and you saw the spreadsheet that the state put it up, that

elements are a little different in each of these cases. and some of these elements will take less of your consideration, you will have to look at the evidence and you will have to, for example, determine is cup foods in the state of minneapolis, is minneapolis and hennepin county, is hennepin county in the state of minnesota? 's going to take less of your consideration but you have to go through that. two of the elements that i want to focus on during the course of my discussion here today, two of these elements are common throughout, two of these issues are common and applied all three. i want to focus my remarks today on those two issues. the first, were mr. chauvin's actions and authorized use of

force by a police officer? because in the instructions it specifically tells you, no crime is committed if it was an authorized use of force. period period, end of discussion. the second is an element that is and it doesn't appear in all three counts and that is the cause of death, what caused mr. floyd's death? and we are going to talk about that in a second. so, let's start with the concept of reasonable force. as the instructions read in their entirety, 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 affecting a lawful arrest or preventing an escape from custody. the kind and degree of force a police officer may lawfully use

and executing his duties is limited by what a reasonable police officer in the same situation would believed to be necessary. any use of force beyond that is not reasonable. to determine if the actions of a 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, intentions or motivations where the defendant is not guilty of a crime if he used force as authorized by law and to prove guilt, the state

must further prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense's use of force was not authorized by law. so, you remember from my opening statements, how i talked about reason and common sense. the reasonable police officer standard. i want to just briefly add one thing here. is the standard is not what should the officer have done. it's not what could the officer have done differently in this kind of circumstance? the standard is, what were the facts that were known to this officer at the precise moment he used force and considering all of the totality, the

circumstances to the officer, what a reasonable police officer, what would a reasonable police officer have done? you have heard from numerous experts, police use of force experts, the training department for the minneapolis police department. you've heard from police officers, street police officers, sergeant edwards, right? so you've heard from these people and they have given you their opinions at various stages as to the reasonableness of the use of force. but one of the things that the state, excuse me, one of the things that all of these police officers effectively agreed to is that when you look at the question of what would a reasonable police officer do knowing the facts of the case, there are things that a police officer is entitled to take into

consideration above and beyond the facts, right? their training, the training they received, their experience as a police officer, the department's policies on the use of force. and all of these things kind of being into the question of, most critically, what are the facts that were known to the reasonable police officer at the precise moment the force was used? you can start at a very high level, right? what was the reasonable police officer's knowledge of the area, is this a high crime location, low crime area, those are things, those are facts that a police officer would know. what are the specifics of the location of arrest? and my going into a densely populated urban environment? or am i in kind of a secluded

backyard? right? the officer is calculating these pieces of information and assessing the risk. assessing the threats. officers are entitled to take into consideration things that you and i don't think about, tactical advantages, tactical disadvantages. they can take into consideration the scene security, keeping the scene secure, security of the scene, right? those are two different concepts. focusing back into what facts were known at the precise moment force was used, they can take into consideration kind of this mid-range level of information. a reasonable officer wants to keep his fellow officer safe. i reasonable police officer takes into consideration the safety of civilians.

the reasonable police officer takes into account the safety of the person they are arresting. they take into account, what resources do i have, how close and i to a hospital? what is the expected time if i call ems? because a reasonable police officer at times, they may not have put the person in their squad car at times and taken because they are farther away, calling for help, bringing help an end taking longer than it would to take a person directly. and then you look at the direct knowledge that i reasonable police officer would have at that precise moment force was used. that includes information that they gathered from dispatch, their direct observations of the scene, the subjects and the current surroundings. they have to take into

consideration whether the suspect was under the influence of a controlled substance. they can take into things change, it's a dynamic situation, it's fluid. they kate into account their experience with the subject at the beginning, the middle, the end. they try to a reasonable -- a reasonable police officer tries to predict if their cognizant or concerned about future behavior based on past behavior, but the unpredictability of human factors in two police officers. sometimes people take reasonable police officers, they take someone into custody with no problem and suddenly they become a problem. it can change in an