the san mateo bridge right now. >> that does it for us this morning. >> that's right. the "today" show is starting up next. we're leaving with you a live look over levi's stadium this morning. what a sunrise. have a fantastic day. >> announcer: this is an nbc news special report. >> good morning. we're coming on the air to bring you our special coverage of cloing arguments in the murder trial of derek chauvin. the former minneapolis police officer accused of killing george floyd.

the prosecution and defense have one last chance to make their case before jurors are sequestered for deliberation so those closing arguments are set to begin shortly. gabe gutierrez has been following the trial all along and joins us from outside the courthouse. those closing arguments set to get under way very soon. >> reporter: yeah. that's right. this is a city on edge. behind me you can see this military vehicle that has been here for weeks. now more and more national guard

troops have been seen in and around minneapolis. some 300,000 troops have been activated in this region. some sooner than expected because of the shooting nearby and just a few days ago in brooklyn center. now, all eyes are on the courthouse behind me because in just a few minutes closing arguments are set to begin. we expect the prosecution to give their closing arguments playing short video clips and ask jurors as they did during opening statements to believe their eyes. the prosecution saying that george floyd died due to the actions of derek chauvin. now, the defense is expected to come after. the defense has been arguing during this trial and calling seven witnesses to do so that george floyd died from a variety of factors, not chauvin's knee on floyd's neck but rather underlying health conditions and drug use and that the officers were distracted by bystanders at the scene. after the defense gives its closing arguments today then the prosecution is expected to give

a rebuttal and then the judge will give the jury its instructions. as you mentioned, chauvin facing three charges. it's possible that the jury could get the case within the next few hours and then jurors will be sequestered. kate? >> gabe, thank you. i know you've been reporting that this could all happen very quickly this morning or not. we just don't know. nbc news legal analyst joyce vance is a former u.s. attorney and professor at the university of alabama school of law and also an nbc news contributor. let me go to you next about the prosecution. we mentioned all the witnesses. when you look at the split, the prosecution called 38 of those witnesses and set up a pretty dramatic case. what do you think they need to do today? >> so we won't see high drama. this won't be like television closings. the prosecution needs to be good technicians of the evidence today. this is their chance to remind the jury of all of the evidence,

to encourage them to not be led astray as the defense tries to single out individual pieces of evidence and argue that one piece of evidence might be weak and to tell the jury if they look at all of the evidence as a whole from the early witnesses on the scene, the bystanders, to the medical experts, that this is a rock solid case of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and, of course, the jury will consider three charges. murder second degree, murder third degree and manslaughter in the second degree. i expect the prosecution is focusing on murder three here but police cases are tough to convict in. any conviction here will be a victory for justice. >> joyce, quickly on that for those who haven't followed this so intimately. there are three charges and the jury can find guilty on any or all of those charges or none, right? >> that's right.

it's a little bit confusing. the judge will ask the jury to consider each of the three charges separately and return a separate verdict. so they could convict, acquit or what's called hanging, be unable to reach a unanimous decision on each of those three charges. >> all right. stay with us. all right let's turn to criminal defense attorney and nbc news legal analyst who is with us. danny, the defense didn't call quite as many witnesses. what do they need to do to convince at least one juror that there's reasonable doubt? >> the defense will not call as many witnesses. there are many defense attorneys, me included, who have simply rested their case after the prosecution rests calling no witnesses or evidence at all. the reason for that is that the burden is always with the prosecution. it never changes. it stays with them throughout the case and the defendant, my client, is cloaked in the presumption of innocence. that's why you typically see a prosecution sometimes engage in

overkill but often put on as many witnesses as they can without being accumulative and the defense putting on less witnesses so they don't snatch victory from the jaws of defeat if they're ahead. the defense has to push two major themes. number one, causation. the neck compression and subdual restraint did not cause floyd's death. and central to that is going to be the testimony of dr. baker. he had good tidbits for the defense to seize upon. you move to the restraint itself. was it justify? the defense needs to push that. they need to argue it was justified and not a felony, it was not imminently dangerous because, they will argue, it was taught to police. it's something that, yes, you may have heard chauvin's say we don't like what we saw but we

called an expert that said this is something that was acceptable given the situation at that time and looking at all circumstances contextually. >> i want to bring in eugene robinson in a moment. we're waiting for this courtroom in minneapolis to begin closing arguments today in the trial of derek chauvin. as we wait, let's bring in nbc news political analyst eugene robinson. i look at an op-ed that you wrote recently. you titled it chauvin's despicable defense. you clearly -- you have a stance here and i wonder what your take is on what today could mean for the larger community. >> well, the whole world is watching this trial. the whole world is waiting for the outcome and, you know, to say something is potentially

explosive, watershed moment, those types of phrases are overused. i don't think they would be going too far in this case. the george floyd killing resounded across the country and throughout the world and was one of the -- >> i'm going to interrupt. we'relistening to the judge. >> 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'll hear the arguments of counsel. 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 copy with you when you retire to the juryroom. nevertheless, you should listen 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 just placed as headings. deciding questions of fact is your exclusive responsibility. in doing so, you must consider all the evidence you have heard and seen in this trial and you must disregard anything that you may have heard or seen elsewhere about this case. i have not by these instructions nor by any ruling or expression during the trial intended to indicate my opinion regarding the facts or outcome of this case. if i have, you are to disregard

it. you must consider these instructions as a whole and regard each instruction in light of all of the others. the order in which the instructions are given is of no significance. you are free to consider the issues in any order you wish. the defendant is presumed innocent to the charges made. this presumption remains with the defendant unless and until he has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. the defendant has -- the fact that the defendant has been brought before the court by the ordinary processes of the 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. defendant does not have to prove his innocence. proof beyond a reasonable doubt is such proof as ordinarily prudent men and women would act upon in their most important affairs. a reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense. it does not mean a 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. the law does not prefer one form of evidence over the other. a fact is proven by direct evidence when it is proven by witnesses who testify as to what they saw, heard, or experienced. or by physical evidence of the fact itself. a fact is proven by circumstantial evidence when its existence can be reasonably inferred by other facts proven in the case. for example, if a person watches a deer crossing a snow covered field, the person has direct evidence of deer walking in the field because the person sees it. if the person does not see deer but finds deer tracks in the snow, the deer tracks are circumstantial evidence that deer walked in the field because that factual conclusion can reasonably be inferred by the tracks found in the snow. attorneys are officers of the court. it is their duty to make objections they think proper and to argue their client's cause. however, the arguments or other

remarks of an attorney are not evidence. if the attorneys or i have made or should make any statement as to what the evidence is that 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 attorney's statement. the state has brought three charges or counts 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 count or counts is in favor 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 and the weight you give it under the

court's instructions. i'm about to instruct you on the law that you are to apply to the charges and the defense but before doing so, i'm going to define a few records and phrases that appear more than once in the elements of the charges and the defense that follow. the words and phrases being defined are bolded in the written copy of the instructions you'll be receiving. you should use these definitions for these words and phrases in your deliberations. attempted means that the defendant did an act which was substantial step toward and more than mere preparation for causing the result and that the defendant did that act with an intent to cause that result. there are several forms of bodily harm relating to several charges of the defense. bodily harm means physical pain or injury, illness or any impairment of a person's physical condition. substantial bodily harm means temporary but disfigment that

causes dysfunction of bodily member or organ or causes a fracture of bodily member. great bodily harm means a high probability of death that causes serious permanent disfigment or loss or impairment of any bodily organ 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 factor in causing the death of george floyd. the defendant is criminally liable for all of the consequences of his actions that occur in the ordinary and natural course of events including those consequences brought about by one or more interveing cause if they were the result of the defendant's acts. the fact that other causes contribute to the death does not relieve the defendant of

criminal liability. however, the defendant is not criminally liable if he's superseding cause caused the death. a superseing cause comes after the defendant's act, alters the sequence of events and it would not otherwise would have occurred. to know, have knowledge, or knew requires only that the defendant believes that the specified facts exist. intentionally or intentional means the defendant has the purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified or believes that the act performed if successful will cause the result. in addition, the defendant must have knowledge of those facts that are necessary to make his conduct criminal and are set forth after the word intentionally or intentional. with intent that, intent to or intended means that the defendant either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified or believes

that the act performed if successful will cause that result. it is not necessary that the defendant have this intent in advance. the necessary intent can develop during the commission of the act. police officer means an employee of a law enforcement agency who is licensed by the board of peace officers standard and training charged with prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of the general criminal laws of the state of minnesota and who has the full power of arrest. a law enforcement agency is a unit of state or local government that is authorized by law to grant full powers of arrest and to charge a person with the duties of preventing and detecting crime and enforcing the general criminal laws of the state of minnesota. the minneapolis police department is a law enforcement agency for these purposes. the definition of any word or phrase with a specific legal meaning that appears only once in the elements or defenses will

defined where it appears later in these instructions. >> 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. 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 necessarily 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 felon

of assault in the third degree. there are two elements. first, defendant assaulted george floyd. assault is intentional affliction of bodily harm upon another or attempt to inflict bodily harm upon other. it 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 substantial bodily harm as a result of the assault. fourth element, the act took place on may 25th, 2020, in

hennepin county. if you find the elements have been met, the defendant is guilty. the defendant is not guilty of this charge unless you find the state has proven that the defendant is liable for this crime committed by another person or persons according to the instructions below that are listed on page 8 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 eminently dangerous to others and without regard for human life but without intent to cause the death of another person is guilty of death in the third degree. the defendant is charged with committing this crime or aiding this crime. the elements are, first, 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 eminently dangerous to other persons and the act is highly likely to cause death. fourth element, defendant acted with a mental state consisting of reckless disregard for human life. the act may not have been specifically intended to cause death or directed at the particular person whose death occurred but must have been committed with a conscious indifference to the loss of life that the eminently dangerous act would cause. fifth element, defendant's act took place on or about may 25th, 2020, in hennepin county. if you find these elements have been proven, the defendant is guilty of this charge.

if you find any 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 listed on page 8 under the heading liabilities of crimes of another. defendant is charged in count three with manslaughter in the second degree in connection with the death of george floyd. under minnesota law whoever by negligence creating a risk and takes the chance of causing death or great bodily harm to another person causing death of another is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree. the defendant is charged with committing this crime or intentionally aiding the commission of this crime. the elements of manslaughter in the second degree are first element the death of george floyd must be proven. second element, the defendant caused the death of george floyd by culpable negligence where he creatd an unreasonable risk.

culpable negligence is intention conduct that the defendant may not have intended be harmful but that an ordinary and reasonably prudent person would recognize as involving a strong probability of injury to others. third element, the defendant's act took place on or about may 25th, 2020, in hennepin county. if you find these elements have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is guilty of this charge. if you find they cannot be proven, the defendant is not the go of this charge unless the defendant isfor this crime under liability of crimes of another. the following instructions apply to all three of the charges i've just given you. the defendant is guilty of a crime committed by another person or persons only if the defendant has played an intentional role in aiding the

commission of that crime and made no reasonable effort to prevent the crime before it was committed. intentional role includes intentionally aiding, advising, hiring, counseling, conspireing with or procuring another to commit the crime. the defendant's actions intentional aid if the defendant knew the persons were committing a crime. second, the defendant intended that his presence or actions aid the commission of that crime. if the defendant intentionally aided another person or persons in committing a crime or intentionally advised, hired, counseled, conspired with or otherwise procured other persons to commit it, the defendant is guilty of any other crime the other person or persons commit while trying to commit the intended crime if that other crime was reasonaby foreseeable to the defendant as a consequence of trying to commit the intended crime. the defendant is guilty of the

crime under this theory of intentionally aiding in the commission of a crime by another person or persons only if the other person or persons commit the crime. the defendant is not guilty for aiding, advising, hiring, counseling, conspireing or otherwise procuring commission of one charged crime unless that crime is actually 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 degree of force a police officer may lawfully use in executing his duties is limited by what a reasonable police officer in the same situation would believe to be necessary. any use of force beyond that is not reasonable. to determine if the actions of

the police officers 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. the defendant is not guilty of a crime if he used force as authorized by law. to prove guilty, 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 of the weight to be given to a witness's testimony. there are no hard and fast rules to guide you in this respect. in determining believability and weight of testimony, take into consideration the witness's interest or lack of interest in the outcome.

>> we lost our feed there from hennepin county in minneapolis. you have listened to the judge tell the jury what task is in front of them. we're awaiting closing arguments. the jury would get more instructions and then be sent off to deliberate. we're talking about the trial of derek chauvin accused of killing george floyd. let me bring in joyce vance, a former u.s. attorney. joyce, we just heard very detailed explanations of what

the three charges are against this former police officer. i wonder if we could talk about the sentencing guidelines. we had shown on screen the maximum sentencing guidelines but if the jury were to find, for example, in favor of second-degree murder, it's unlikely they would necessarily go for that maximum penalty, correct? >> sentencing is a little bit confusing. typically there are statutory maximums that are set in the statute in state law but most states in the federal system have adopted guidelines for sentences. it gives the judge a range in which he or she can sentence and it is typically as it is in this case much lower although still very substantial. one complicating factor that makes it hard to assess what the sentences here might look like is the prosecution will likely seek to enhance sentencing based on some of the factual conduct

involved in this case and it typically you would have a jury make those factual findings after they rendered a guilty verdict but it might be the case here that chauvin would waive that right to have the jury make those decisions and let the judge do it in the jury already found him guilty. lots of uncertainty here. >> all right. joyce, thank you. let's go back to the courtroom and listen in on the judge again. >> in the form of charts, summaries and animated videos. this presentation was presented to assist you as an aid in your understanding of the witness's testimony and to help explain the facts disclosed by the records, documents, testimony and other evidence received during the trial. if any chart, summary or animated video is not consistent with 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 i defined 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 i ruled on objections to certain testimony and exhibits. you must not concern yourself with the reasons for the rulings since they are controlled by rules of evidence. by admitting into evidence testimony and exhibits as to which objection was made, i did not intend to indicate the weight to be given such testimony and evidence. you are not to speculate as to possible answers to questions i did not require to be answered. you are to disregard all evidence and statements of attorneys that i've ordered stricken or 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. is the state ready to proceed with closing?

>> yes, your honor. >> you may proceed. >> may it please the court, counsel, members of the jury, his name was george perry floyd jr. and he was born on october 14, 1973, in fayetteville, north carolina, to his parents george

floyd sr. and larcenia jones floyd, the matriarch. you met george floyd's brother and you heard all about his mother. 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've heard about their relationship, how he would always take time, special attention to be with his mother, how he would still cuddle with her in the fetal position. you've heard that. and 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, people he recognized, a familiar face 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, through his adolescence into his adulthood. on may 25, 2020, george floyd died facedown on the pavement right on 38th and chicago in

minneapolis. 9 minutes and 29 seconds. 9 minutes and 29 seconds. during this time, george floyd struggled desperate to breathe, to make enough room in his chest to breathe. but the force was too much. he was trapped. he was trapped with the unyielding pavement underneath him, as unyielding as the men who held him down, pushing him, a knee to the neck, a knee to the back, twisting his fingers, holding his legs for 9 minutes and 29 second. the defendant's weight on him. the lungs in his chest unable to

expand because there wasn't enough room to breathe. george floyd tried. he pushed his bare shoulder against the pavement to lift himself to give his chest, to give his lungs enough room in his chest to breathe but the pavement tearing into his bare skin. as he desperately pushed with his knuckles to make space so he would have room to breathe. the pavement lacerating, lacerating his knuckles. defendant stayed on top of him for 9 minutes and 29 seconds. so desperate to breathe, he pushed with his face, with his face, to lift himself, to open his chest to give his lungs room to breathe. the pavement tearing into his

skin. george floyd losing strength, not super human strength. there was no super human strength that day. there was no super human strength because there's no such thing as a super human. those exist in economic books. 38th and chicago is a very real place. not super humans. 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, a human being. and 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. stringers, all of them, 9 minutes and 29 seconds he's surrounded by strangers, not a familiar face to say his final words. but he did say them to someone. he said them to someone who he did not know by name, but he knew him from the uniform he wore and the badge he wore, and he called him mr. officer. that's what he called him. mr. officer. mr. officer would help. we call the police when we need help. he pleaded with mr. officer. george floyd's 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. the defendant did not help. he stayed on top of him. continued to push him down, to grind his knees, to twist his hand, to twist his fingers into the handcuffs that bound him looking at him staring, 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. he wasn't trying to hurt anyone. he wasn't trying to do anything to anyone. facing george floyd that day, that did not require one ounce of courage and none was shown on that day. no courage was required. all that was required was a little compassion. and none was shown on that day. george floyd said i'm not trying to win. this was a call about a counterfeit $20 bill. all that was required was some compassion. humans need that. people need that. but more fundamental than that and more practical at that time in that place, what george floyd

needed was some oxygen. that's what he needed. he needed to breathe because people need that. humans need that. to breathe. and he said that and defendant heard him say that over and over. he heard him but he just didn't listen. he continued to push him down, to grind into him, to shimmy, to twist his hand for 9 minutes and 29 seconds. he begged -- george floyd begged 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, the defendant continued this assault 9 minutes and 29

seconds. when the ambulance arrived, the ambulance was here, and the defendant continued. he stayed upon top of him. he would not get up. he would not let up. he stayed on him, grinding into him, continuing to twist his fingers, to hold him down. he had no pulse. he was not breathing. he was not responsive and the defendant had to know what was right beneath him. right beneath him. you saw the video. you saw the point when the ambulance arrived and finally after a paramedic got out and the defendant still did not get up, and the paramedic tapped him and finally 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. he was completely limp. the defendant had to know that. he was there. he was on top of him. he was on top of him. on top of him. sometimes you ask for the truth. sometimes you insist on the truth. and the truth is the defendant was on top of him for 9 minutes and 29 seconds, and he had to know. he had to know. the medical examiner would find the cause of george floyd's death to be cardio pulmonary arrest complicating law

enforcement subdual restraint and neck compression. what the officers did to george floyd caused his death. the medical examiner ruled the death a homicide. death at the hands of another. what the defendant did to george floyd killed him. it was ruled a homicide. the defendant is charged with murder. he's charged with murder and he's charged with manslaughter. the defendant at the time was a police officer. it may be hard for any of you to imagine a police officer doing something like this. remember in jury selection, 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. we believe the police are going to respond to our call for help. we believe they're going to listen to us. and this is strong. this runs deep. it's difficult to set this aside. i want you to consider that even after the bystanders saw what they saw, after they saw this shocking display of abuse of police power and a man murdered in front of them, genevieve hanson, she called the police. donald williams, he saw this. you heard him. he testified. he called the police. a 9 year old.

what did she suggest? we need to call the police on the police. that's our expectation. even after seeing this, even after witnessing this, our expectation is that the police are going to help. and with reason and with good reason because policing is the most noble profession. it is. it is. and to be very clear, this case, this case is called the state of minnesota versus derek chauvin. 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. you met them. they took the stand. they testified. make no mistake, this is not a

prosecution of the police. it is a prosecution of the defendant. there's nothing worse for good police than a bad police who doesn't follow the rules, who doesn't follow procedure, who doesn't follow training, who ignores the policies of the department, the motto of the department to protect with courage, to serve with compassion. the chief of police in minneapolis police department took the stand and he testified and he told you what that badge that he wears over his heart means. it's a public service. it's a public trust. they're there to help us. it's a professional organization. there are standards. there are rules. there's a code of conduct. there's a use of force policy. there's extensive training. the police are first responders. they're who we call for help,

and they help us. they have cpr training. there's more training than simply use of force. there's more to policing than putting handcuffs on people and hauling them away to be true. there's other kinds of training. there's procedural justice. there's crisis intervention training. there's medical training. and there's defensive tactics and there's de-escalation. all of this training, hundreds, hundreds of hours of training. 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 protection of the public are the cornerstones of minneapolis police department's use of force policy. the protection of the public,

all of the public, all of the human beings that make up the public. the defendant, he didn't do that because that day his badge just wasn't in the right place. the defendant was a police officer. he was. and, again, you need to set aside the notion that it's impossible for a police officer to do something like this. the defendant is on trial not for being a police officer. that's not the state versus the police. he's not on trial for who he was. he's on trial for what he did. that is what he did. that is what he did on that day. 9 minutes and 29 seconds. that is what he did. he didn't follow training, those hundreds of hours of training that he had. he did not follow the department's use of force rules.

he did not perform cpr. he knew better. he just didn't do better. he just didn't do better. remember during opening statement, during opening statement counsel said that the defendant followed the rules and followed his training. did you hear evidence of that? did you hear evidence of that from the stand? or did you hear something quite different? the chief of police testified he violated their use of force policy. he violated their de-escalation policy. he violated the duty to render emergency aid. you heard the trainer, we don't train this. this is not who we are. no. that representation was simply wrong. that's just a story. what the defendant did was not policing. what the defendant did was an

assault. i'm going to discuss the law with you in a bit here and explain the court's already provided you some instructions on second-degree murder and you know the laws of this state if you commit a certain level of assault, a felony level assault, and a person dies as a result of your assault, you're guilty of murder. it's as simple as that. what the defendant did here was a straight up felony assault. this was not policing. it was unnecessary. it was disproportionate, and he did it on purpose. no question. 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. and it killed george floyd.

that force for 9 minutes and 29 seconds. that killed george floyd. he betrayed the badge and everything it stood for. it's not how they're trained. it's not following the rules. this is not an anti-police prosecution. it's 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 and why? well, this all started over a call of an alleged counter $20

bill. you saw the photo. you saw the body language. you can learn a lot about somebody by looking at their body language. defendant facing down that crowd. they were pointing cameras at him. recording him. telling him what to do. challenging his authority. his ego, his pride. not the kind of pride that makes you do better, be better. the kind of ego based pride that the defendant was not going to be told what to do. he was not going to let these bystanders tell him what to do. 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 had the authority. he had the power of the badge and the other officers and the bystanders were powerless.

they were powerless to do a thing. the defendant, he chose pride over policing. charles mcmillan, 61 years old, interesting man. you remember when he testified. he had the glasses. if any of you in the front row when he walked by happened to notice his shoes. if you looked at his shoes, you probably saw your reflection in those shoes. he dressed for court like it was most important day of his life. he was there. he's sort of narrating this horrific scene throughout. you hear him in the video. he called out to george floyd. he said you can't win. you can't win. and george floyd replied i'm not trying to win. i'm not trying to win. i'm scared. but the defendant, the defendant was trying to win.

he wasn't going to be told what to do. he wasn't going to take a challenge to his authority. he was trying to win. and george floyd paid for it with his life. now, also need to be clear, this is not the trial of george floyd. george floyd is not on trial here. you've heard some things about george floyd, that he struggled with drug addiction, that he was being investigated for allegedly passing a fake $20 bill, that there was never any evidence introduced that he knew it was fake in the first place, but he is not on trial. he didn't get a trial when he was alive, and he's not on trial here. the defense claims he was noncompliant.

noncompliant. well, let's revisit what happened before the 9 minutes and 29 seconds before that. it's memorial day. may 25, 2020, and george floyd is sitting in a car in the driver's seat with two friends. now, previously he had been in cup foods. he had been in the store. he was walking. he was talking. he was breathing. as alive as any person, any human in this room. back to the car. he's with his friends. there's a tap at the window. he looks to his left and is startled. 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 fing hands. show me your fing hands. screaming it. this is within seconds. you can tell a lot about someone by looking at that are body language. how does mr. floyd look in this photo? terrified. an officer on the driver's side, an officer on the passenger side, lane orders floyd to put his hands on the steering wheel. he does. that's not resistance. that's compliance. lane orders floyd to get out of the car. he does. that's not resistance. that's compliance.

they want him handcuffed. he is handcuffed. that's not resistance. that's compliance. and on handcuffs, you recall the testimony, they weren't properly double locked so they continue to ratchet. they're not on correctly. they're on too tight. you listen to the video, throughout the video you can hear the sound of those handcuffs ratcheting tighter and tighter. mr. floyd is trying to explain to the police that his wrists hurt. impervious of pain. please. his wrists hurt. no one listens to him. it continues. they tell him to go over to the dragon walk. he goes over to the dragon walk. that's not resistance. that's compliance. they ask him to sit down. he sits down. not resistant. compliant. not trying to escape, shoot

anybody, stab anybody, punch anybody, no compliance. he sits down on the ground. they ask him his name. he gives his name. he spells it. that's not resistance. that's compliance. they ask him to get up. he gets up. they ask him to go across the street. he goes across the street. where is the resistance? where is that? they take him over to the car, okay. they take him over the car. george floyd is a big guy. you can see here he's almost as big as officer lane. he's a big guy. he's a big person. the back of a squad car is not. that's what they wanted him to get into and to george floyd that looked -- he looked at that and what do you think that looked like? like a little cage.

he tried to explain himself to the officers that he had anxiety, that he had claustrophobia. he explained this over and over. they wanted him to get in the back of this little car. and, you know, he just wasn't able to bring himself to do it. he wasn't able to bring himself to do it. >> put your legs in. >> okay. okay. please. >> so he's trying to work up the ability to get in the car. he's explaining himself repeatedly. you can see this is where the defendant start coming into the scene. we'll look at what they saw in a minute. they start to come to the scene.

19-year veteran of the police force with all of the training that that involves, over 800 hours of training, 40-hour crisis intervention training course, a scenario based training where they're taught to recognize the signs of someone who is experiencing a crisis. a crisis. you know, he couldn't bring himself to get in and sometimes people can't bring themselves to get in and this is not new. this is not ground breaking. people have emotions. people have things happen to them. the police train for this. they recognize this. 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 know, right? that doesn't happen. there's a whole range of humanity out there.

we have a whole range of different issues. i mean, it could be anything. it could be a death in the family. that can cause an extreme emotional response. you'll recall when officer lane approached the car, george floyd talked about losing his mother. he lost her in 2018. those wounds still right there on the surface. emotion. it could involve a divorce. finding bad financial news. mental illness. mental health issues like drug and alcohol abuse.

this is nothing new. they are there on a $20 counterfeiting charge. they train for this. they know about this. now, george floyd certainly had his struggles. you know that. the state put in evidence of that. courtney ross testified that he struggled with opioid addiction. you knew that. this is nothing new. the difference on may 25, 2020, the officers just wouldn't listen to him. wouldn't look at the signs and recognize the signs of what they had prepared for. and a reasonable officer in 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 have recognized that.win. i'm not trying to win. i be on the ground. >> go get in the car. >> he know it. he know it. don't tell me like that, man. >> you get in the car. >> i am claustrophobic. >> work with me. >> claustrophobic, man.

>> get in the car. >> i'm not -- >> get in the car. >> i'm not a bad guy. >> you ain't gonna win. >> so they don't listen. they shove him into the car, into the tiny backseat. you saw the look on his face. you saw the look on george floyd's face when he glanced over into that car. looked like he'd 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? where did this critical thinking model go? where'd that go? where you take in information, assess the information, reassess the information, you consider what's the goal? what's the plan? you're there for a $20 counterfeiting charge,

allegedly. chief arradondo testified to that. the predictable thing happened. he didn't want to be in the back of the car, so they pull him out. they pull him out. watch what happens. they pull him out of the car. >> come on out. >> thank you. thank you. >> get on the ground. on the ground. >> ah. >> all right, folks. they get him out of the car. he is handcuffed. he is on his knees. he is not going anywhere. there are four officers there. four officers. what did george floyd say once they pulled him out of the car?

thank you. thank you. now, a reasonable officer in the defendant's position at that time should have recognized and understood he wasn't trying to escape. he wasn't trying to punch anyone, stab anyone. he wasn't trying to do that. the problem was the back of the car. just like george floyd tried to explain over and over. the problem was the back of the car. so if you can give them the benefit of the doubt, that they made a bad judgment call and shoved him in the back of the car, at least when he came out in the struggle, it was over. he was on his knees. he was saying "thank you." done. it could have been over there. but what did they do? they took him from this position, handcuffed on his knees, they pushed him down on j -- onto the ground. didn't need to.

not at all. for what? he's handcuffed. they pushed him down into what is, you now know from watching the evidence in this case, the prone recovery position, right? when he's down on the ground, he is initially pushed, he is literally in the prone recovery position, on the side. 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. he is right there. 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. it is a position you use to

secure someone in handcuffs. when you're done with that, you immediately roll them on their side. that is the position he was in. proning him was completely unnecessary. and this is where excessive force begins. this is where the 9 minutes and 29 seconds start. because they didn't just lay him prone. they did not do that. they stayed on top of him. with a knee on the neck and a knee on the back, and the defendant's weight on mr. floyd, pushing down, with officer king adding to the pressure, pushing down, holding his feet. officer lane holding his feet for 9 minutes and 29 seconds. that is when the excessive force began. that's when the countdown began. now, you need to sort of 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 defendant's actions of pushing him down, would george floyd have died that day? the drugs, he just miraculously died of a drug overdose in that time? maybe it was the tailpipe. maybe it was his enlarged heart. maybe not. use your common sense. use your common sense. believe your eyes. what you saw, you saw. i want to talk 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. you've learned -- you've gotten to go to medical school as jurors. there are benefits to be a jury. you went to medical school.

you got the free parking, great lunches, fabulous pay. now, you get on a little bit of a free law school education. the judge gave you a preview of that. we're going to go through that again. he is 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 told you that, you know, you don't have to decide these issues in any order. you can do it the way you all see fit. i will be making suggestions as to the order i think you should do things. focus your deliberations and make the conversation a little easier, a little more focused. but you have the jury instructions as your guide. i think it's important for you to follow the judge's instructions to the letter. the words and the definition that a judge gives you, they mean what the judge says they mean. know that the state is required to prove these charges beyond a reasonable doubt. proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

he read this to you. proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that ordinarily prudent men and women would act upon in their most important affairs. and a reasonable doubt is based on reason and common sense. not a fanciful or capricious doubt or beyond all possibility of doubt. so reasonable doubt, it's just as the name implies. it is a doubt that's reasonable. a doubt based on reason and common sense. you, as jurors, are not required, nor should you, leave your common sense at the courthouse steps. as jurors, you must rely on your common sense. that's why you're here. we need you to apply that standard to these facts, and to be a judge of the facts. apply those facts -- findings of facts to the law. and so proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it certainly is a high standard. it's the highest standard. it's a standard that the state has met here. and the state does not need to prove its case beyond all doubt.

it does not need to prove its case beyond what i'll call an unreasonable doubt. not required to prove beyond an unreasonable doubt. an unreasonable doubt is a doubt not based on common sense, but based on nonsense. you're not required to accept nonsense. you're not required to accept the notion that after the defendant kneeling on mr. floyd for 9 minutes and 29 seconds, in the dangerous prone position, handcuffed, restrained, pressing down on him, that after that, as he was writhing in pain and suffering, that that's not even a use of force. there's no force there because it is not likely to produce pain. the 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'd be better off asking a 9-year-old. you are not required to accept the proposition that the car did it. that the car killed george floyd. you're not required to accept that or to consider that it is the bystanders' fault for distracting the defendant. you're not required to believe this amazing coincidence, that after this 9 minute and 29 second prone restraint, that at that point in time, even though he was walking and talking, even though he was breathing, interacting with people, that he chose that moment to die of heart disease. to die of heart disease? is that common sense, or is that

nonsense? or that it was a drug overdose. you know that george floyd struggled with drug addiction and drug use. you know that. you know he had developed a -- that requires a tolerance. you know what the toxicology report says, in terms of the levels. you know what the testimony was about that. dying of a drug overdose, it's not common sense, it's nonsense. believe your eyes. what you saw happened, happened. it happened. the defendant pressed down on george floyd, so his lungs did not have the room to breathe. doctor tobin told you that. dr. smock, dr. rich, the experts. the experts who testified, you can rely on them. dr. smock, dr. rich, dr. isenschmid. they said like the commercial,

right? they know a thing or two because they've seen a thing or two. they know a thing or two. dr. tobin knows a thing or two about how this works. so looking at the charges -- and this is a little bit of a different layout than you'll see in your printed jury instructions. they're not intended to replicate the instructions completely, but it is meant to be sort of a guide for you to look at the different elements in a particular context. and so the charge of murder in the second degree, murder in the third degree, manslaughter in the second degree, the judge read you, you know, what the law says those things are. and the law breaks down these different charges into things called elements. first element, second element, third element, fourth element. each of these has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt by the state in order for the defendant to be guilty of those charges. now, those are the elements that

are required. those are the only elements that are required. you know, again, like other preconceived notions, you may have some ideas, you know, from watching tv, about other cases and shows and things, you may have some other ideas as to what the law requires. again, just like, you know how it is lunchtime in court when the judge tells you it is lunchtime? you know when it's time to go is when the judge tells you it is time to go. same thing. you know what the charges are and the elements are because the judge tells you what the elements are. you need to follow that. so talking about murder in the second degree, first, the death of george floyd must be proved. then it must be proved that the defendant caused the death of george floyd. and other causes may have contributed to george floyd's death does not relieve the defendant of any criminal

liability. it just does not. for murder in the second degree, the defendant at the time of causing george floyd's death was committing or attempting to commit assault in the third degree. that's a felony level assault under the laws of minnesota. and assault -- showed the defendant assaulted george floyd, that he intentionally applied unlawful force to mr. floyd without mr. floyd's consent, resulting in bodily harm. the state has to show that. the state did show that, the assault. and that the defendant inflicted 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, that george floyd died, that was established. that was established by the emergency room physician, dr.

langanfield. mr. floyd was pronounced dead at the hospital on may 25, 2020. that element is met. again, you can consider these elements any way you want to consider them. my suggestion is that you consider them in the order, as listed here. murder two, murder three, manslaughter in the second degree, and in order of the elements, just because there's a lot here. there were 38 witnesses who testified. there are a lot of exhibits that were offered. it is easy to talk about everything at the same time. it really is. 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 deliberation. i encourage you to do that, but you can do it any way you want. second element, that the defendant caused the death of

george floyd. causation. what does that mean? what does causation mean here? the defendant's act or acts were a special causal factor in causing the death. he is criminally liable for all of the consequences of his actions that naturally occur, including those consequences brought about by intervening causes. the fact that other causes may have contributed to george floyd's death just does not relieve the defendant of criminal liability. you have to find, as the 9 minutes and 29 seconds of compression on his knee -- with his knees 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, then the defendant wouldn't be criminally liable. the superseding cause, those are says that come after the defendant's acts.

it alters the natural sequences of events. and, and is the sole cause of death. we don't have that here. to know how george floyd died. this is the use of force. we talk about use of force, that's been defined by the different witnesses who have testified, looking at what happened from the point that he went to the neck and back, and the unlawful restraint, the assault started, and how long it lasted. 9 minutes and 29 seconds. that is what killed george floyd. that's why he died. believe your eyes. the unreasonable force, pinning him to the ground, that's what killed him. this was a homicide. you heard this from forensic pathologists, the experts. you've heard this. the experts have weighed in and,

you know, dr. langanfield told you that mr. floyd died. dr. baker ruled this a homicide, and told you the cause and manner of death. the unlawful restraint and sub dual by law enforcement. what they did killed him. told you that. dr. tobin, remember dr. tobin? he told you specifically how it happened. he walk you through that, the asphyxia, right? he told you how it happened. and the other doctors who testified, dr. smock, dr. rich, dr. isenschmid, they told you how it didn't happen. it wasn't a sudden cardiac event. it wasn't a heart attack. it wasn't a drug overdose. it wasn't any of those things, right? dr. tobin came back and explained it wasn't carbon monoxide. no, no. you know how george floyd died. you heard this.

specifically, dr. tobin provided fairly extensive detail, and was very clear that george floyd died as a result of a low level of oxygen. low level of oxygen caused the pran injury and -- brain injury, and a pea arrhythmia. his heart disease 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 that happened. we know that happened because they observed during the restraint at 20:24.21, a seizure. it is a telltale sign of oxygen depravation. dr. tobin told you that. even dr. fowler told you that. after mr. floyd experienced the seizure, he passed out. after his pulse stopped, his

heart stopped. that cardiopulmonary arrest, that was the result of the police restraint and the neck compression. we know from dr. tobin, george floyd did not die primarily from a cardiac event, as has been suggested. now, george floyd, he was not in perfect health. sure, he had narrowed arteries, high blood pressure, no question about that. no question, he was experiencing stress. even before the officer shoved him onto the sidewalk unnecessarily, disproportionately. but none of this caused george floyd's heart to fail. it did not. his heart failed because the defendant's use of force, the 9:29, okay, that deprived mr. floyd of the oxygen he needed, that humans need to live. dr. tobin knows because he is a pulmonologist. he is a lung doctor.

he is a lung doctor. he is also a respiratory physiologist. he was the only person able to calculate lung capacity, lung volume. he could do that. dr. baker couldn't do it. didn't do it. he deferred to the pulmonologist, dr. tobin. dr. fowler couldn't do it. he said he'd defer to a pulmonologist. dr. tobin, who also happens to be a critical care physician, he spent years treating patients, treating patients in intensive care who were experiencing respiratory failure. dr. tobin literally wrote the book on the subject. he was able to tell you, right, what this looks like, what he was able to observe, what he was able to observe was oxygen depravation. 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, anyone, under the forces that were used in the situation, right? it involved multiple factors. george floyd was handcuffed. he was placed prone, shoved prone on the sidewalk. the knee is pushing on his neck and back downward. the pavement, force of the pavement being unyielding, it was like he was in a vice. he was being, you know, squeezed in a vice. he calculated, right, between chauvin, the defendant, officer king, pushing down on him, approximately 90 pounds of force. and the position and the force combined such that it was if -- it was as if george floyd's left lung had been surgically

removed. that's how much of a reduction of air capacity there was here. 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 dr. tobin's calculation, had, just being in the prone position, even though you heard studies from the defense saying, you know, the prone position isn't dangerous, well, dr. tobin disagreed. he said that the lung capacity was reduced by 24% just by the prone position. 43% when you consider the additional pressure. dr. tobin's opinion corroborates the police training and what the police have known for 30 years. there is a danger to the prone position, and the danger is positional asphyxia. the danger, the worst thing that can happen, was positional

asphyxia and death. it wasn't just the lungs. the pressing up against the neck. remember, when you touch that, it reduced the capacity of air flow, such that it was as if mr. floyd was breathing through a straw. shallow breaths did not produce enough oxygen, not enough oxygen could get to the lungs. that's what killed george floyd. here's what didn't. it wasn't a sudden cardiac arrhythmia. dr. smock told you that. dr. thomas, dr. rich, dr. tobin. they agreed, not a sudden cardiac arrhythmia. that's not how this looks. dr. baker, no medical evidence of a heart attack. okay. we heard from dr. rich. dr. rich actually treats people

who have heart attacks. he found there was nothing in his review, nothing in george floyd's heart to suggest that the death originated from the heart. nothing. you know, over the course of this case, you heard a lot of things that didn't happen and hypotheticals that don't apply, right? you know why george floyd died. you know how he died. you heard a lot about drugs. you heard about his struggle with addiction. there's some things, you know, george floyd was obviously not a perfect man. who is? no one is. so you heard about drugs. you heard about drugs in the car. some pills in the car, in the squad car, in his car. you heard questions about, is he chewing gum? does he have a pill in his mouth, based on the -- none of that matters. because you know what his level,

the drug level was. you know that from the toxicology report. if drugs are found in the car, they're 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. you heard from dr. isenschmid, and what he testified was george floyd's fentanyl to norfentanyl, it was below. methamphetamine was 94% lower than the population for driving under the influence. dr. rich and dr. smock, they treated patients who are under the influence of norfentanyl and methamphetamine. they testified these drugs did not kill george floyd. they didn't.

we know that he had a tolerance because he used drugs in the past. the experts all agree the videos show that george floyd did not die the way someone who dies from a fentanyl overdose dies. his breathing, it didn't slow down. he didn't fall asleep. he didn't go into a coma. this looked nothing like a fatal fentanyl overdose. dr. tobin, the only doctor in this case who actually calculated george floyd's respiratory rate, and the best doctor to do so given his training and given his experience, he stated that the fentanyl in george floyd's system did not depress his res pir -- respiration. it didn't. he did not die of a drug overdose. that's not how he died. he didn't die of excited delirium. you heard about excited delirium, right. dr. smock, who testified about excited delirium, told you,

explained to you, he didn't -- george floyd did not exhibit the signs of excited delirium, one being superhuman strength. nonsense, there is no superhuman strength. there are no superhumans. impervious to pain. nonsense. you heard him. you saw him. he was not impervious to pain. it's nonsense. paraganglioma, called an incidental tumor, relatively rare, maybe causes headaches, that that caused his death at that particular moment in time, at that time, at that place, after the restraint, after the subdual, 9 minutes and 29 seconds, after that, the headache killed him? no. that's just a story.

dr. rich specifically testified that he looked in george floyd's medical records, and he did not find references to headaches. you heard about carbon monoxide, the car killed him. well, dr. tobin came back and explained, right, this car, which had a catalytic converter that was outside, that was a hybrid, and there's no evidence it was even on, that that did not kill him. he explained carbon monoxide saturation levels -- i'm sorry, oxygen saturation level. based on his calculation of oxygen saturation level at 98%, at most, it could have been a 2% carbon monoxide, same as anybody else. same as people walking around talking, breathing. this wasn't carbon monoxide. that's just a story, and it is

simply wrong. you don't have to be dr. tobin to recognize this. it's probably nice to be dr. tobin, but you don't have to be dr. tobin to recognize this. you can see this with your own eyes. you can see what happened, that he couldn't breathe. he said he couldn't breathe. the defendant was on top of him, on his pack, on his neck with his knees pressing down. of course, you saw how his body just sort of deflated into the ground. past the point of consciousness. there were multiple moments in time, ladies and gentlemen, multiple moments in time that things could have gone different, and george floyd would have lived. cpr. left him in the recovery position in the first place, or placed him in the side recovery position. shortly after the restraint,

wouldn't have died. their own force witness said putting someone in a side recovery position is pretty fast, pretty easy thing to do. it's not complicated. professor stoke said, rotate him 90 degrees, quick. could have done that, relieved the pressure. could have done cpr. chest compressions. supposed to. had a policy, had a policy he was supposed to follow, right? duty to provide medical aid. you're not just supposed to phone that in. you're actually supposed to use your training, provide medical aid. even dr. fowler was critical. no one is starting cpr. said that should have been done. defendant knew how to do it. he had the training. he knew better. he just didn't do better. george floyd didn't have to die that day. shouldn't have died that day. but for the fact the defendant decided not to get up and not to

let up, george floyd died. these actions were a substantial factor in george floyd's death. 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's actually very simple, if you find that the defendant committed this third degree assault, while committing assault, he caused george floyd's death, the defendant is guilty of murder. that's the way felony works in minnesota. the defendant assaulted george floyd. what does that mean? assault is the intentional infliction of bodily harm upon another or the attempt to do so.

intentional infliction of bodily harm requires proof that the defendant intentionally applied unlawful force to another person, without that person's consent. then the act resulted in bodily harm. intentionally, did it on purse. -- purpose. he did the thing on purpose. bodily harm, physical pain, illness, or impairment of a person's physical condition. so, again, to be very, very clear, the state does not 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. that's clear. he didn't, again, trip and fall and find himself there.

this is also unlawful force. officers are only authorized by law to use reasonable force, and this was not reasonable force, as i'll explain. and george floyd clearly did not consent to having the defendant's knee on top of him for 9 minutes and 29 seconds. when you hear someone gasping for breath, calling for their mother, begging you to get off, what -- how could you think anything else? that he did not consent to this. now, the state does not have to prove -- what we don't have to prove about intent, we don't have to show 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 had the purpose to cause harm to conclude this was an assault. you do not. the state doesn't have to show that 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 that -- the only thing about defendant's intent that we have to prove is that he applied force to george floyd on purpose. that this wasn't an accident. it's pretty simple. if you're doing something that hurts somebody, and you know it and you keep doing it, you're doing it on purpose. somebody is telling you they can't breathe, and you keep doing it, you're 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, right. you learn this pretty early on.

you learn this pretty early on. assault in the third degree requires that the defendant inflicted substantial bodily harm on george floyd. substantial bodily harm, meaning a temporary but substantial loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ, organs, the lungs, the heart. temporary loss of consciousness qualifies as substantial bodily harm. certainly, a permanent loss of consciousness would constitute substantial bodily harm. you look at this point in the restraint, and you see the absence of expression, the absence of muscle tension. he's unconscious. he's lost consciousness. that is substantial bodily harm. he did that. that's his knee.

so when you consider the charge of second degree murder, try to break it down into parts, find an order. the defendant caused george floyd's death. he did. the state proved that beyond a reasonable doubt. at the time of causing the death, the defendant committed or was attempting an assault in the third degree. that's been proved 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 that there's some elements in common. there's some differences.

we've already discussed the first element, the death of george floyd, the substantial causal factor with the second element, then the fifth element about the venue element, i'll call it, may 25, 2020, in hennepin county. so for third degree murder, the difference for third degree murder is that the defendant had to cause george floyd's death by committing an act that was imminently dangerous and performed without regard for human life. again, the state is not required for this charge either to show that the defendant intended to kill george floyd. he committed an act that was imminently dangerous and performed without regard for human life. it must prove -- the state must prove that the act was highly likely to cause death, that the

defendant acted with a reckless disregard for human life, that this was a -- he was consciously indifferent. consciousness indifferent to loss of life that his actions could cause. the act was eminently dangerous to others and could cause death to mr. floyd. the dangers of prone restraint, of positional asphyxia, has been known in the law enforcement community for about 30 years. this is known, if common sense wasn't enough. defendant's own use of force witness admits that. again, when we talk about danger, what is the danger, the potential danger of positional asphyxia, it's death. the medical experts, who know a few things, who know a thing or two, right? dr. tobin, dr. smock, dr. rich, they agreed, the defendant's actions created a high risk of

death. the defendant consciously disregarded the loss of life that his actions could cause and did cause. he knew the risks of positional asphyxia due to this position. everybody in law enforcement knows that. but he had other warnings, not just from his training. he had other warnings from people. >> resisting arrest right now, pro. >> don't pass out. >> that's what -- >> on the ground. >> breathing right now, bro. you think that's cool? you think that's cool though, right? what's your -- oh, man. what is your badge number, bro? you think that's cool right now, bro. >> washington street. >> you think that's cool though, bro? you're a bum, bro. you're a bum for that. you're a bum for that, bro. you getting mad. you sitting there stopping his breathing right now. this dude -- >> just -- >> -- right now, bro.

>> it was plain and apparent to everyone who was there what was happening. he's going unresponsive. he was passed out. he is not talking. what are you doing? now, we know the defendant chose not to listen to bystanders, not to these bystanders, but how about to fellow officers on the scene? >> roll him on the side? >> roll him on the side. staying put where we got him, is what the defendant said. he's staying put where we saw him. roll him on his side means roll him into the side recovery position. he could have listened to the bystanders. he could have listened to fellow officers. he could have listened to 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 and 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 and sounds like? >> listen. >> i'm claustrophobic. >> uh-huh. >> i'm -- >> uh-huh. >> ah. water or something, please, please. oh! i can't breathe, officer. >> stop talking. >> ah-ha. >> heck of a lot of -- >> ah. come on, man. >> indifference. leisurely picking rocks out of

the tire. commenting about the smell of the man's feet who you're pressing down, grinding on, 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." indifference. did the defendant ever listen? ever consider medical attention? the failure to give cpr. even dr. fowler said it. this isn't protection. this isn't courage.

it certainly was not compassion. it was the opposite of that. so back to the instructions. the elements of third degree murder. when you're deliberating, ask yourselves, did the defendant cause 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 a mental stat consisting of reckless disregard for human life. a conscious indifference to the loss of life that the eminently dangerous act could cause?

yes. the state has proved the defendant is guilty of third degree murder as charged. so back to the charges. let's talk about manslaughter in the second degree. again, you can see that there's some elements in common. the first, the third is in common with the other charges. so what's different about manslaughter in the second degree is that the defendant caused the death of george floyd 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, we do not need to prove -- the state does not need to prove that he intended to, that he intended to kill george floyd.

culpable negligence, intentional conduct that the defendant may not have even intended to be harmful, but that an ordinary and prudent, reasonably prudent person would recognize as involving a strong probability of injuries to others. you can look for yourself, and you can see exactly what was happening. the bystanders who were at the scene looked for themselves, and it was plain to them. they took video. you saw it. it was plain to you. strong probability of injury. with the defendant and his specialized knowledge about the dangers of positional asphyxia, and the common sense, that if you put your knee on somebody's neck, there is a strong probability of injury, he knew that, too. great bodily harm, bodily injury 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. the loss of consciousness. would an ordinary and reasonably prudent person know this is dangerous? everybody who watched knew it was dangerous. a 9-year-old saw that it was dangerous. the defendant knew exactly what he was doing because he was right on top. 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 duty includes not only causing the ambulance for somebody else to do it, it means you have to use your knowledge, your training as a first responder. you're required to perform cpr.

it is a requirement. he failed to do it. he had the training. he knew how to do it. you've seen his training record. it is exhibit 119. you take a look at all of the in-services, all of the hours. he knew what to do. he just didn't do it. he knew better. he didn't do better. he wouldn't even let genevieve hanson, the off-duty firefighter, do it. he wasn't going to do it himself, let somebody else do it. but he didn't. he had the knowledge. he had the tools. he just ignored it. so when you consider this charge, that the defendant caused george floyd's death by culpable negligence, where he took an unreasonable risk and consciousness took a chance of causing death or great bodily harm, you will find that element has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. he is guilty of second degree

manslaughter. guilty of all three charges. so after all of this, you have another question you have to address. after seeing all of this, finding the assault, finding the murder was committed, the manslaughter was committed, you have another thing to consider. that is, was this just okay? was this fine? is this oka because the defendant was a police officer? was this an authorized use of force? was this justified? was it justified? it was not. let's look at the instruction of the kind and degree of force the police officer may lawfully use in executing his duties. it is limited by what a reasonable police officer in the same situation would believe to

be necessary, and force beyond that is just not reasonable. if 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 objectively reasonable? no. we just saw the instruction, that the law does not provide an excuse for police abuse. it does not. let's start with the most basic of premises. that's very important. that restraining george floyd in this manner, on the ground, prone, handcuffed, knee on the neck, knee on the back, body weight on top of him, start with

the premise that that was, in fact, a use of force. the defense called a witness who actually testified that that was not a use of force because that was not likely to produce pain. no. no, not true. likely to produce pain, actually produce pain. you know, the problem with terms like "superhuman" and "superhuman strength," you forget those people don't exist. humans feel pain. human beings feel pain. humaning b beings need to breat. don't accept any notion to the contrary. you need to reject that testimony. you need to reject it. and let's discuss the standard, what would a reasonable police officer do? what would a reasonable police officer do? you don't look at this from george floyd's perspective, okay? that's not what a reasonable

victim would do. you don't look at it from the bystanders' perspective. what would a reasonable bystander do? under the law, you don't look at it from the defendant's perspective either. it is from the officer. the evidence in this case has shown over and over that the defendant is not that officer, because he did not act as a reasonable officer would. remember charles mcmillen? well, the defendant explained his actions, he explained the basis of his actions to charles mcmillen. do you recall that? here's what he said. >> yeah, get in the car. >> probably on something. >> that was his justification for using this level of force. he is a big guy. he is sizable guy. he might be on something.

we have to control him. control is the restraint, so that's the force. his two justifications were that george floyd was big and that he might be on something. well, you know the standards. you've heard the standards many times. you know the difference between a risk and a threat. officers are authorized to use force to respond to a threat. they're not authorized to use force to respond to a risk. anybody poses a potential risk. big, small, in between. everybody is a risk. not everybody is a threat. being large, the act of being large, it's not a crime. it's not a risk -- sorry, it is not a threat. it is nearly a risk. being on something, being on

something, it's not a threat. it may be a risk. it's not a threat. force is not authorized against someone nearly because they're on something. when questioned, their force expert, witness, conceded that the combination of the two, being large and being on something, is not justification for the use of force. it just isn't. that's not what they get to do. the defendant's entire basis, his explanation to charles mcmillen at the time, at the scene, right afterwards, after he got up off of floyd, tossed him away like it was nothing. the explanation is not good enough. it's not procedure. it is not the use of policy.

it is not following the rules. we talked a lot about things that might have happened, could have happened, potentials, hypotheticals. talked about a lot of stuff that didn't happen. we need to focus on what did happen. what did happen. george floyd was not a threat. he never was. he wasn't resisting. he just wasn't able to comply. they should have recognized that. they should have recognized that. they do it all the time. they had him handcuffed. they had plenty of resources. they had four officers. they had a fifth one off in the distance. he was handcuffed behind his back. he wasn't going anywhere. he wasn't doing anything. didn't need to be put in the prone position. that is a temporary position to facilitate handcuffing, but the defendant was on top of him, stayed on top of him, grinding his knees into him, pressing down on him, continuing to twist his arm, twist his wrist, so

it's buck up against the handcuff. a pain compliance technique without the opportunity to comply is the infliction of pain. not a reasonable use of force. and it's not authorized in the minneapolis police department. kneeling on top of someone, their neck and their back, effectively, it was a maximum restraint technique. remember the rip hobble? they considered using it, thought about using it, decided not to. they didn't need to. he wasn't doing anything that would warrant it. if you're going to restrain someone like that completely, holding him down, the department authorizes the rip hobble. they didn't do that. the policy about applying the rip hobble is, again, you have to put the person immediately in the side recovery position. why didn't they do that?

the conduct didn't warrant it. they knew it. they didn't want to have to get a sergeant down there to do a force review. it's memorial day. you heard that comment. they talked about that. so they just held him in this dangerous position. against policy. a reasonable officer wouldn't do that. a reasonable officer follows the rules. a reasonable officer follows the training. force that carries a risk of death is deadly force. you'll recall the tactics and force guy. deadly force is not authorized in this situation, no force when someone is passed out on the ground, unresponsive. no. you can't say mr. floyd was enjoyed in passive resistance. mcmillen said, get up and get in the car.

george floyd said, "i will. i can't." he doesn't even have the opportunity. he's saying he'll get up and get in the car. he isn't given the opportunity to do that. that's not resistance, it's compliance, at least an attempt to comply. force must be reasonable. it 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, to reevaluate the situation. to take in the information and react to it. they didn't do it. the defense said 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. what? this is a distraction that there was some concern, the defendant doesn't appear too