end of our weekend. >> we need it. >> we do need it for sure. thanks so much. thanks for watching kpix5 news. the news continues all day good morning to you, and welcome to "cbs this morning." it is monday, april 19, 2021. it will be a big week. closing arguments are today after the death of george floyd. what should we expect from the prosecution and defense? after a week of new shootings in america, troubling new questions about thursday's mass car in indianapolis. how the accuser was able to buy two assault-style rifles after police took another gun today.

humanity just did something it's never done before, how ingenuity made the first powered flight ever on another planet. plus, we've never seen another acm award show like this. we will show you the highlights from the night a passion of country music was on full display. >> it was such a great show. but first here's today's "eye opener." it's your world in 90 seconds. with frustration against excessive police force spilling into the streets, cities across the country prepare for the end of the chauvin trial. >> i see everybody getting ready because everybody knows we cannot take for granted what this verdict will be. six people were killed in less than 24 hours after separate mass shootings in wisconsin and texas. >> what is happening in this country with gun violence is an embarrassment. dr. anthony fauci said he expects the johnson & johnson

lift to be end. >> i doubt they will just cancel it. prince philip was laid to rest. and peloton is challenging a warning its treadmill poses a serious risk to children. all of that and -- >> nasa making history to test out a power-controlled flight on another planet for the first time. >> and all that matters. ♪ >> . this is a cbs news special report. i'm gayle king with anthony mason ands murder trial. the fired minneapolis police officer is charged with second and third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter in the death of george floyd. it happened last memorial day.

>> the key evidence in the prosecution's case is video showing chauvin's knee on floyd's neck for more than nine minutes. chauvin's lawyer claims floyd's drug use and heart disease were what caused his death. the jury will be sequestered as it deliberates. as for how long that might last, judge peter cahill told jurors last week to, quote, plan for long and hope for short. >> we can tell you tensions are high in minneapolis and in many other cities all around the country. police departments have been bracing for possible protests once a verdict is announced. before we can get to a verdict, we have to get through today. and the expectation is that we'll have a closing argument from the prosecution. >> they always go first. >> the defense will respond and the prosecution will have one more chance for a short response after that. we've got jamie yuccas for us.

she's outside the heavily fortified courthouse in minneapolis. what can we expect in today's proceedings? >> reporter: good morning to all of you. i can tell you there is a lot of tension and anxiety going into today. we are in downtown minneapolis and there are national guard troops throughout the city on many different corners. today what you can expect in these closing arguments is for, as you said, the prosecution to go first. steve schleicher will be up for them first and eric nelson for the defense will go. an hour, hour and a half for each side. and then the rebuttal by jerry blackwell. he did the opening statement for the prosecution here in the derek chauvin case. and the interesting part is they're going to have to really solidify their arguments. you had 38 witnesses on the prosecution side. you had seven witnesses on the defense side. the arguments very clear on both sides. the prosecution going to lay out and say beyond a reasonable doubt that derek chauvin's knee

was a contributing factor to george floyd's death. that's all they have to prove. they don't have to say his knee specifically was the reason george floyd died but it was a contributing factor. so, you're going to hear probably in the closing argument a lot about dr. martin tobin, their medical expert who said if derek chauvin's knee hadn't been on his neck, george floyd would still be alive. you will likely hear the prosecution lay out how there were so many police officers, specifically from the minneapolis police department who laid out and testified and said that this was not something that they are trained for. they don't normally put a knee on someone's neck to restrain them. you'll hear a lot about that. on the defense side you'll hear likely about that prior arrest where we could see george floyd interacting with police, that his blood pressure went really high during that arrest and he had been on drugs much like the day he passed away. they're going to really hone in and say it was his underlying

health conditions and heart disease along with drug use that caused his death. and you're probably also going to hear about that carbon monoxide argument that came out with the defense's medical expert who said that ingesting carbon monoxide was also a contributing factor. that's going to be the clear arguments on both sides there. the judge, of course, did not have the closing arguments happen on friday. one of the reasons why, he told me in court when he was there last week, is because he wanted both the prosecution and defense to really condense their arguments and think about over the weekend how they could do this in a concise manner. i know the judge wants to get through instruction by early afternoon and get the jurors sequestered into their hotel so that at least some deliberation can take place today. the other interesting factor with this judge is he's really thinking about the tensions and anxiety here in the city. and he's talking a lot about how he's probably going to cut off the jury at some point. we haven't gotten a specific time. we've heard everything from 7:00 to 8:00.

i can tell you at this time of year, the sun sets at 8:00 p.m. he will not announce a verdict after sunset. we believe he will probably cut off deliberations by 7:00 p.m. each evening. and then by 8:00, once sundown happens, we won't hear about a verdict, if one is reached, until the next morning. many people asking me what my gut is telling me about how long this could take. really, i think we all have to remember that humans are the most unpredictable species. for the defense, it only takes one person, one person on that jury to hang things up. it does have to be a unanimous decision on either one or all counts or some of it. it's all, some or none. it has to be a unanimous decision by the jury. >> jamie yuccas. to reiterate, as you were looking at the charges there, for the most serious charge, second-degree murder, which carries a sentence of up to 40 years, prosecutors do not have to prove chauvin was the sole

cause of floyd's death, only that his conduct was a substantial causal factor. the judge is in the courtroom. we want to go to jeff pegues at this point? >> we see derek chauvin and his attorney. >> let's listen. >> that you follow along as i read them to you. there will be a point where i'll ask you to put the remaining instructions under your chair so you can listen to the closing arguments of counsel. members of the jury, i instruct you as follows. it is your duty to decide the questions of fact in this case. it is my duty to give you the rules of law that you must apply. in arriving at your verdict. you have now heard the evidence and soon you'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 jury room. nevertheless, you should listen carefully and taeattentively as read them to you. the title of these individual instructions are not a part of the instructions but merely places headings to assist you in findings a topic. deciding questions of fact is your exclusive responsibility. in doing so, you must consider all the evidence you have heard and seen in this trial, and you must disregard anything that you may have heard or seen elsewhere about this case. i have not, by these instructions nor by any ruling or expression during the trial, intended to indicate my opinion regarding the facts or the outcome of this case. if i have said or done anything that would seem to indicate such an opinion, you are to disregard it. you must consider these instructions as a whole and regard each instruction in light of all the others. the order in which the instructions are given is of no significance.

you're 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 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. the defendant does not have to prove his innocence. proof beyond a reasonable doubt is such proof as ordinarily prudent men and women would act upon in their most important affairs. 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. the fact is proven by direct

evidence when, for example, it is proven by witnesses who testify as to what they saw, heard or experienced. or by physical evidence of the fact itself. a fact is proven by circumstantial evidence when its existence can be reasonably inferred from other facts proven in the case. for example, if a person watches deer crossing a snow-covered field, the person has direct evidence of deer walking 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 from the tracks found in the snow. now, attorneys are officers of the court. it is their duty to make objections they think proper and to argue their client's cause. however, the arguments or other remarks of an attorney are not evidence. if the attorneys or i have made or should make any statement as to what the evidence is that 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 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. and 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 of or against the defendant. the defendant may be found guilty or not guilty of any or all of the offenses charged depending on the evidence and the weight you give it under the court's instructions. i'm about to instruct you on the law that you are to apply to the charges in the defense, but before doing so, i am going to

define a few words and phrases that appear more than once in the elements of the charges and the defense that follow. the words and phrases being defined are bold and in written copy of the instructions you will be receiving. you should use these definitions for these words and phrases in your deliberation. attempted means that the defendant did an act which was a substantial step toward and more than mere preparation for causing the result and that the defendant did that act with intent to cause that result. there are several forms of bodily harm relevant to some of the charges or the defense. bodily harm means physical pain or injury, illness or any impairment of a person's physical condition. substantial bodily harm means bodily harm that involves a temporary but substantial disfigurement, that causes a temporary but substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ, or that causes a fracture of any

bodily member. great bodily harm means bodily injury that creates a high probability of death, that causes serious permanent disfigurement or that causes a permanent or proceed fatracted impairment of organ or serious bodily harm. to cause death, causing death or caused the death means the defendant's act or acts were a substantial causal factor in causing the death of george floyd. the defendant is criminally liable for all the consequences of his actions that occur in the ordinary and natural course of events, including those consequences brought about by one or more intervening causes if such intervening causes were the natural or 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 a superseding cause caused the death. a superseding cause is a cause

that comes after the defendant's acts, alters the natural sequence of events and is the sole causal result that would not otherwise have occurred. to know, to have knowledge or knew requires only that the defendant believes that the specified facts exist. intentionally or intentional 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 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, with 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 the intent in

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

causing the death of another without intent to cause the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense is guilty of the crime of murder in the second degree. the defendant is charged with committing this crime or intentionally aiding the commission of this crime. the elements of the crime of murder in the second degree, while committing a felony are, first element, the death of george floyd must be proven. second element, the defendant caused the death of george floyd. third element, the defendant at the time of causing the death of george floyd was committing or attempting to commit the felony offense of assault in the third degree. it is not necessary for the state to prove the defendant had an intent to kill george floyd, but it must prove that the defendant committed or attempted to commit the underlying felony of assault in the third degree. there are two elements of assault in the third degree. first, defendant assaulted george floyd. assault is the intentional

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

charge unless you find the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is liable for this crime committed by another person or persons, according to the instructions below that are listed on page 8 under the heading, liability for crimes of another. the defendant is charged in count ii with murder in the third degree in connection with the death of george floyd. under minnesota law, a person causing the death of another by perpetrating an act imminently dangerous to others and defensing a depraved mind without regard for human life but without intent to cause the death of any person is guilty of murder in the third degree. the defendant is charged with committing this crime or intentionally aiding the commission of this crime. the elements of the crime of murder in the third degree are, first element, the death of george floyd must be proven. second element, the defendant caused the death of george floyd. third element, the defendant caused the death of george floyd by an intentional act that was

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

according to the instructions that are listed on page 8 under the heading, liability of crimes for another. the defendant is charged in count iii with manslaughter in the second degree in the death of george floyd. under minnesota law, whoever by culpable negligence where he creates an unreasonable risk and consciously takes the risk of causing bodily harm or death to a person is guilty of murder 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 whereby the defendant created an unreasonable risk and consciously took a chance of causing death or great bodily harm. culpable negligence is intentional conduct that the defendant may not have intended be harmful but that an ordinary

and reasonably prudent person would recognize as involve a strong probability of injury to others. third element, the defendant's act took place on or about may 25, 2020, in hennepin county. if you find that each of these elements has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is guilty of this charge. if you find that any of these elements has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is not guilty of this charge. unless you find the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is liable for this crime committed by another person or persons, according to the following instruction on liability for crimes of another. the following instructions apply to all 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 presence or actions constitute intentionally aiding only if first the defendant knew another person or persons were going to commit or 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, counselled, conspired with or otherwise procured the other person or persons to commit it, the defendant is also guilty of any other crime the other person or persons commit while trying to commit the intended crime. if that other crime was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant as a probable consequence of trying to commit the intended crime. the defendant is guilty of the crime under this theory of 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 the commission of one of the charged crimes unless that crime was 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 next cuting 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 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. the defendant is not guilty of a crime if he used force as authorized by law. to prove guilt, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's use of force was not authorized by law. you are the sole judges of whether a witness is to be believed and of the weight to be given a witness's testimony. there are no hard and fast rules to guide you in this respect. in determining believability and weight of testimony, you may take into consideration the witness's interests or lack of interest in the outcome of the case --

>> okay. we were just looking at the closing arguments. the instructions from the judge, was giving the jury the closing arguments in the derek chauvin case. everybody is frozen for some moment. the feed from minneapolis is frozen at this particular time. let's talk about what we heard so far. he was very detailed about the three difference charges the jury will consider. >> it's such an important reminder. we have one pool feed, the whole world is watching but the whole world is not deciding. the judge was reading a very layered instruction sheet to those jurors ahead, interestingly enough, not after, which -- >> usually the case, i think. >> which surprises me. should we go to rick i ckki kli in every case you have the prosecution does the closing arguments, then the defense, then the prosecution comes back with a rebuttal and then the judge gives the instructions to the jury, so that's the last

thing they've heard before they start to deliberate. can we go to rikki klieman at this particular time, eva? >> there she is. >> we have rikki. >> i know you were paying attention with both ears, too. number one, i'm curious about what you thought about him doing the instructions first. is that normally done that way? >> it has become a way to be done in more modern courtrooms. it really is important in a case like this to help the jury have an organized deliberation by knowing the law before they hear the closings, and then getting a bit of a tag on the law from the judge in the end. the other thing that this court is doing, which i think is very helpful to the jurors, in addition to these instructions, is he is providing them with written copies of the instructions. i cannot tell you how many cases i have tried where the jury would come back again and again, asking for another definition of a charge.

here they will have those charges right before them in the jury room. so, this is a modern way to handle this -- >> rikki, sorry, it looks like it's unfrozen. we're going back to the courtroom. stand by, rikki. >> during the testimony of some witnesses, the parties introduce demonstrative exhibits in the form of charts, summaries and animated videos. this information 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, other documents, testimony, and other evidence that was received during the trial. if any chart, summary or animated video is not consistent with the facts or figures shown by evidence in the case, as you find them, you should disregard the chart or summary or animated video and determine the facts from the underlying evidence. earlier during these instructions 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 have ruled on objections to certain. 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 have ordered stricken or have told you to disregard. and with that i'd ask you to put your instructions under the chair as we listen to the closing arguments of counsel. the state ready to proceed with closing? >> yes, your honor. >> mr. schleicher, you may proceed. >> thank you, your honor.

>> 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. his parents, george floyd sr. and larcenia jones floyd.

cissy, the matriarch. you met george floyd's brother, philonise and you heard all about cissy floyd. she was george floyd's mom. she was the mom of the house, she was the mom of the neighborhood. and you heard about the special bond that she and george floyd shared during his life. you heard about their relationship, how he would always take time and special attention to be with his mother, how he would still cuddle with her in the fetal position. you heard that. and from george floyd's brother, you learned all about george's childhood. and during this 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 who he cared about and who cared about him, throughout his childhood, in that house, throughout adolescence, into his adulthood. on may 25, 2020, george floyd died. face down 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 seconds. the defendant's weight on him. the lungs of 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, with 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, la lacerating his knuckles while the defendant stayed on top of him for 9 minutes, 29 seconds. so desperate to breathe, he pushed with his face, with his fa 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 superhuman strength. there was no superhuman strength

that day. there was no superhuman strength because there's no such thing as a superhuman. those exist in comic books. 38th and chicago is a very real place. not superhumans. 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, faces he could pick out, there was no one there he knew. he was surrounded by strangers. strangers, 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 in 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 to 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, but 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. the more fundamental than that and more practical at that time and 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 the 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 on 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 the defendant got up, and they lifted mr. floyd onto that gurney. 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. and 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 cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint and neck compression. what you saw the defendant and the other officers doing 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. charged with murder and he's charged with manslaughter. the defendant at the time was a police officer. it may be hard, 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 p preconceived notions behind. 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, with the bystanders, after they saw what they saw, after they saw this shocking display of abuse of police power in 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 said? 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. and there's nothing worse for good police than 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 and the motto of the department, to protect with courage, to serve with compassion. chief arredondo, the chief of police of the minneapolis police department, he 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, right? there's other kind 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 the protection of public, those 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, it'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, violated their use of force policy. he violated their de-escalation policy. he violated the duty to render emergency aid. no. you heard the trainer, lieutenant mercil, 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 in 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. and what the defendant did here was a straight-up felony assault. this was not policing. it was unnecessary. it was gratuitous, 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. why? well, this all started over a call of an alleged counterfeit $20 bill. but george floyd's life was taken for something worth far, far less, far less. you saw the photo. you saw the body language.

you can learn a lot by looking at their body language. the defendant facing down that crowd, 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. the defendant was not going to be told what to do. he was not going to let his 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 mcmillian, 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 shoe, you probably saw your reflection in those shoes, right? he dressed for court like it was the most important day of his life. interesting man. 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 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 was fake in the first place. but he is not on trial. he didn't get a trial when he was alive. he is not on trial here. defense claims that 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. 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 and there's a tap at the window. he looks to his left and this is what he sees. this is what he sees. within seconds of the approach, officer lane had tapped on the window. within seconds he pulls his gun and holds it inches from george floyd's face and starts shouting

profanities, show me your f'ing hands. show me your f'ing hands. screaming at him. this is within seconds. you can tell a lot about someone by looking at their 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 offers 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 ordered him -- they want him handcuffed. he is handcuffed. that's not resistance. that's compliance. in handcuffs, you recall the

testimony, they weren't properly double locked and so they continue to ratchet. they're not on correctly. they're on too tight. throughout -- you listen to the videos. throughout the videos 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. but it continues. they tell him to go over to the dragon wok. he goes over to the dragon wok. that's not resistance. that's compliance. they ask him to sit down. he sits down. not resistance. compliance. not trying to escape. not trying to evade arrest. not trying to assault anybody, shoot anybody, stab anybody, punch anybody, no. compliance. 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's the resistance? where's that? they take him over to the car. they take him over to 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 the squad car is not. that's what they wanted him to get into. and to george floyd, that looked -- he looked at that. 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. he just wasn't able to bring himself to do it. he wasn't able to bring himself to do it. >> please, please. it's going to go off on me, man. >> put your legs in. >> okay. okay. i'm going in. please. >> so, he's trying to work up the ability to get in the car. he's explaining himself repeatedly. and you can see this is where the defendant and officer thao start coming into the scene. and we'll look at what they saw in a minute. but they start to come to the scene. 19-year veteran of the police force, with all of the training that that involved, over 800 hours of training, 40-hour

crisis intervention training course, 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 groundbreaking. 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's fine, just wanted you to know, right? that doesn't happen. there's a whole range of humanity out there and a whole range of different issues. it could be anything. it could be a death in the family. that can cause extreme emotional

response. when officer lane approached the car, george floyd talked about losing his mother. he had lost her in 2018. those wounds still right there on those wounds still right there on the surface, the emotion, it could involve divorce, finding bad financial news. mental illness, mental health issues, like drug and alcohol abuse. all of those things can cause someone to not resist but just not be able to bring themselves to comply. at that moment, at that time. and this is nothing new. they train for it, they plan for it, they prepare for it. they have a policy on it. recognizing persons in crisis. you remember chief arradondo took the stand, he testified that they have 4,000 calls for service for persons in crisis every single year.

this is nothing new. they are there on a $20 cou counterfeiting charge. they train for this, they know about this. now george floyd certainly had his struggles. you know that, the state put into evidence that. courtney ross testified that he struggled with an opioid addiction. you knew that. and this is nothing new, the difference, though, 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 of his training and all of his experience, including that 40-hour crisis intervention course, and subsequent refresher course should have known that and recognized it. floyd was trying to get into the car, work up the courage.

he said he would count to three, but he just couldn't do it. so the defendant arrives on the scene, he surveys the scene. he saunters up to the car, and he slips on his gloves. >> please. >> you can't win. >> i'm not trying to win. i'm not trying to win. >> go get in the car. >> get in the car. >> he know it. he know it. don't do me like that, man. i'm leaving. >> i'm claustrophobic. >> i'm hearing you, you're not working with me. >> get in the car. >> put me in the front, please. please. i'm not a bad guy, man. >> get in the car. >> i'm not a bad guy.

>> you ain't going to win. >> so they don't listen. they just shove him into the car, into that tiny backseat. you saw the look on his face. you saw the look on george floyd's face when he glanced over into the car. it looked like he had seen a monster looking into that car. clearly, this trained officer should have recognized that and understood that that moment and that time, what is your goal. where did this critical thinking model go? where did that go, where you take in information, you assess the information, you 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 they generally don't put people in custody for that. so why is it necessary to shove him in the car. he made a judgment call and decided to shove him in the car. the predictable thing happened.

he just couldn't be in the back of that car, and so they pull him out. they pull him out. and watch what happens. they pull him out of the car. >> please, man. >> come on out. >> thank you. thank you. >> get on the ground. on the ground. >> 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. and what did george floyd say once they pulled him out of the car? thank you. thank you. now, a reason 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. 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. no need. 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 to the ground. didn't need to. not at all. for what? he's handcuffed. they pushed him down into what

is, as you now know from watching the evidence in this case, the prone recovery position. when he's down on the ground, he's unusuallily puliterally in recovery position on his 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's right there. so 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's a position you use to secure someone in handcuffs and when you're done with that, you immediately roll them on their side. that's the position he was in.

proning him was completely unnecessary, and this is where the excessive force begins. this is where the nine 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 wait 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's when the excessive force began. that's when the count down began. now, you need to pull back and take a look. you have learned a lot about policies and procedures and tactics. you have to pull back and say, would but for the defendant's actions pushing him down, would

george floyd have died that day? drugs, he just miraculously die of a drug overdose in that time? maybe it was the tail pipe. maybe it was his enlarged heart. maybe not. use your common sense. use your common sense. believe your eyes, what you saw you saw. now, 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's so many benefits to being a jury. you got to go to medical school, the free parking, the great lunches, fabulous pay, now you get a little bit of a free law school education, a judge gave you a preview of that, we're

going to go through that again. he's going to give you a copy of those instructions, you have them, you get to keep those, and use those during your jury deliberations. he told you that you don't have to decide these issues in any order. you can do it the way you all see fit. i'll be making some suggestions as to the order i think you should do things, like focus your deliberations and make the conversation a little easier, a little more focused. you have these 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 definitions that the kwjudge gives you, the mean what judge says they mean. and 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, proof that ordinary 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's 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 and apply those findings of facts to the law, and so proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it certainly is a high standard. it's the highest standard, 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 nonsense, and you're not required to accept nonsense. you're not required to accept the notion that after the defendant kneeling on mr. floyd for nine minutes and 29 seconds in the dangerous prone position, handcuffed, restrained, pressed down on him, that after that, as he was writhing in pain and suffering that that's not even a use of force. because it's not likely to produce pain. a witness testified to that. you're not required to believe something that just flies in the face of common sense, to believe that you would have to completely abandon all notion of common sense not likely to produce pain. you would have to accept someone who says that. you'd be better off asking the

9-year-old. you're 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 consider that it is the bystand bystander's fault for distracting the defendant. you're not required to believe this amazing coincidence that after this 9 minute and 29 second 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. and you know that, you know he had developed -- that requires a tolerance. you know what the toxicology report says in terms of the levels and you know what the testimony was about that. he didn't die of a drug overdose. that's not common sense. that's nonsense. believe your eyes, what you saw happen happened. it happened. the defendant pressed down on george floyd so his lungs did not have the room to breathe. dr. tobin told you that. dr. smock, dr. rich, the experts. the experts who testified, you can rely on them. dr. smock, dr. rich, d dr. eisenschmidt, like that commercial, 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, and they're not intended to replicate the instructions completely, but it's 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 what the law says those are, and the law breaks down these different charges into things like elements, first element, second element, third element, fourth element, and each of these it has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt by the state in order for the defendant to be guilty of those charges. 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 might have some other ideas as to what the law requires. but again, you know, just like, you know how it's lunchtime in court, and the judge tells you it's lunchtime, you know when it's time to go, the judge tells you it's time to go, same thing. you know what the charges are. you know what the elements are because the judge tells you what the elements are. so you need to follow that. okay. so talking about murder in the second-degree. first, the death of george floyd must be proved, and then it must be proved that the defendant caused the death of george floyd. and the fact that other causes may have contributed to george floyd's death does not relieve the defendant of any criminal liability. it just does not. and for murder in the second-degree that the defendant at the time of causing george floyd's death was committing or

attempting to commit assault in the third degree, 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 tho sho show that. the state did show that. and that the defendant inflicted 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, george floyd was pronounced dead at the hennepin county hospital on may

25, 2020, so that element is met. and again, you can consider these elements any way you want to consider them. my suggestion is you consider them in the order as listed here, murder 2, murder 3, manslaughter in the second degree and in order of the elements just because there's a lot here. you know, there were 38 witnesses who testified. there are a lot of exhibits that were offered, and it's 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 deliberations. 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? it means that the defendant's act or acts were a substantial,

causal factor in causing the death. he's criminally liable for all of the consequences of his actions that naturally occur. right? 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 that 9 minutes and 29 seconds of compression on 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, but the superceding cause, those are causes that come after the defendant's acts and, alters the natural sequences of events, and is the sole cause of death, and we don't have that here.

we 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 the knee went to the neck and back and the unlawful restraint, the assault started. and how long it lasted. 9 minutes and 29 seconds. that's what george floyd, that's what killed george floyd. that's why he died. believe your eyes that 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, and the experts have weighed in, and you know, dr. langenfield told you that, mr. floyd died, dr. baker ruled this a homicide and told

you the cause and manner of death, the unlawful, the restraint and subdual by law enforcement, what they did killed him. told you that dr. tobin, he told you specifically how it happened. he walked you through that the asphyxia, he told you how it happened. and the other doctors who testified, dr. smock, dr. rich, dr. eisenschmidt, they told you how it didn't happen. it wasn't a sudden cardiac event, hfs a heart attack, it wasn't a drug overdose. it wasn't any of those things. dr. tobin came back and explained it wasn't carbon monoxide. no, so you know how george floyd died. and you heard this, but specifically, you know, d 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 a brain injury, and a pea arrhythmia which caused his heart to stop. that's not a cardiac event. it's not that his heart disease, right, that didn't cause him to die. it was the low level of oxygen. it was thesphyxia that caused him to die. and we know that that happened -- we know that happened because they observed during the restraint at 20:24.21, they observed an anoxic seizure, a telltale sign of oxygen deprivation. dr. tobin told you that. even dr. fowler told you that. and after mr. floyd experienced the seizure, he passed out, after his pulse stopped, his heart stopped. that cardio pulmonary arrest, that was the result of the police subdual and the restraint

and the neck compression. we know from dr. tobin, george floyd did not die primarily from a cardiac event, as has been suggested. george floyd who was not in perfect health, sure he had narrowed artery, high blood pressure, no question about that. no question he was experiencing stress even before the officers shoved him on to the sidewalk unnecessarily, gratuitously, 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, that deprived mr. floyd of the oxygen that he needed, that humans need to live. and dr. tobin knows because he is a pulmonologist. he's a lung doctor. he's a lung doctor. he's also a respiratory physiologist. he's the only person who testified who's 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, the pulmonologist, dr. tobin. dr. fowler couldn't do it. he said he would defer to a pulmonologist. and dr. tobin who also happens to be a critical care physician, he spent years treating patients, treating patients in intensive care who are experiencing respiratory failure, and dr. tobin literally wrote the book on the subject, and 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 deprivation, was asphyxia, 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 anyway, those forces that were used in the situation, right, involved multiple factors. george floyd was handcuffed, and he was placed prone, shoved prone on the sidewalk. the knee is pushing on his neck and back downward, the pavement, the force of the pavement being unyielding, it was like he was in a vice. that is he was being, you know, squeezed in a vice. and 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 surgical 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, just being in the prone position, you heard studies from the defense saying, you know, the prone position isn't dangerous, 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. that there's a danger in the prone position and the danger is positional asphyxia, and the danger, the worst thing that can happen with positional asphyxia is death. and it wasn't just the lungs. the pressing up against the neck. remember when you touch that, it

reduced the capacity of air flow such that it was as if mr. floyd was breathing through a straw. right. the shallow breaths did not produce enough oxygen, not enough oxygen could get to the lungs, and that's what killed george floyd. and here's what didn't, right? this wasn't a sudden cardiac arrhythmia. dr. smock told you that, dr. thomas, dr. rich, dr. tobin, they agree. not a sudden cardiac arrhythmia, that's not how this looks. dr. baker, no medical evidence of a heart attack. we heard from dr. rich, dr. rich actually treats people who have heart attacks. and 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. pills in the car. in the squad car, his car, you heard questions about is he chewing gum. does he have a pill in his mouth? 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. right? let's talk about what was in his system and the toxicology report, and you heard from dr. eisenschmidt, and what he testified, george floyd's nor fentanyl, that was well below the ratio of people who die from a fentanyl overdose. it was even below the median, and george floyd's methamphetamine level, that was 94% lower than the group for driving, population for driving under the influence. and dr. rich and dr. smock, they've treated patients who are under the influence of both fentanyl and methamphetamine, and 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. and the experts all agree the video shows that george floyd

did not die the way someone who dies from a fentanyl overdose dies. his breathe, 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 experience, he stated that the fentanyl in george floyd's system did not depress his respiration. it didn't. he did not die of a drug overdose. he did not die about excited delirium. you heard about excited delirium. dr. smock who testified about excited delirium, told you, explained to you, george floyd did not exhibit any of the signs of excited delirium, one of which being super human

strength. nonsense, there's no super human strength. there's no super humans. impervious to pain. nonsense. you heard him. you saw him. he was not impervious to pain. it's nonsense. paraganglioma, suggestion that this tumor which is literally 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, after the 9 minutes and 29 seconds, a tumor that causes headaches, that killed him? no, that's just a story. and dr. rich specifically testified that he looked in george floyd's medical records and he did not find references to headaches, and you heard

about carbon monoxide. the car killed himme. well, dr. tobin came back and explained this car that had a catalytic converter, that was outside, that was a hybrid, and there's no evidence was even on, right, that that did not kill him. right. he explained carbon monoxide saturation level, i'm sorry, oxygen saturation level and bagsba based on his calculation of oxygen saturation level at 98%, at most there 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's simply wrong. you don't have to be dr. tobin to recognize this.

it's probably nice to be dr dr. tobin, but you don't have to be dr. tobin to reck thiz thogn. you could see with your own eyes, what happened. he said he couldn't breathe. the defendant was on top of him, on his back, with his neck, 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. if he would have left him on his side in the recovery position, or placed him in the side recovery position, shortly after the restraint, he wouldn't have died. their own force witness testified that putting somebody in the side recovery position is

pretty fast, pretty easy thing to do. not complicated. just rotate him, 90 degrees, quick, could have done that. relieved the pressure. could have done cpr, chest compressions. he was supposed to, had a policy, had a policy he was supposed to follow. a duty to provide medical aid. you're not just supposed to phone that in. you're actually supposed to use your training, provide the medical aid, even dr. fowler was critical, no one 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 that the defendant decided not to get up and not to let up, george floyd died.

and these actions were a substantial factor in george floyd's death. these actions, make no mistake, these were not policing. these actions were an assault. so as the judge instructed you if for second-degree murder, and it's actually very simple, if you find that the defendant committed this third-degree assault while committing the assault, he caused george floyd's death, the defendant's guilty of murder. that's the way felony murder works in minnesota. so there are two elements. that the defendant assaulted george floyd. what does that mean? assault is the intentional inflection of bodily harm upon another or the attempt to do so. intentional inflection of bodily harm, that requires proof that the defendant intentionally applied unlawful force to another person without that

person's consent. and that the act resulted in bodily harm. intentional, did it on purpose, he did the thing on purpose. bodily harm, physical pain, illness or impairment of a person's physical condition. again, to be very very clear, state does not have to prove that the defendant had an intent to kill george floyd. this was an intentional act you see before you. he did this on purpose. that's clear. he didn't trip and fall and find himself there, and this was 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. we don't have to show that the defendant intended to cause george floyd harm. we don't have to show that. you don't need to find that the defendant was trying to cause harm or had the purpose to cause harm to conclude that this was an assault. you do not. the state doesn't have to show that the defendant intended to violate the law. you don't have to show that. we don't have to show that the defendant intended to kill him. the only thing about the defendant's intent that we have to prove is that he applied force to george floyd on

purpose, that this wasn't an accident, and 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's 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. you learn this pretty early on. we learned this pretty early on. assault in the third degree requires that the defendant

inflicted substantial bodily harm on george floyd, right, 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 and the restraint and you see the absence of expression, the absence of muscle tension. he's unconscious. he's lost consciousness. that's 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, an order, the defendant caused george floyd's death. he did. the state proved that beyond a reasonable doubt. and at the time of causing the death, the defendant committed or was attempting an assault in the third degree. and that's been 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 of the death of george floyd, the substantial causal factor with the second element and 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. and again, the state is not required for this charge either to show that the defendant intended to kill george floyd, that he admitted an act that was imminently dangerous and performed without regard for human life. and 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, consciously indifferent to loss of life, that his actions could cause. the defendant's act was imminently dangerous to others, it was likely to cause death to mr. floyd and if common sense in and of itself would not suffice, 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, and again, when we talk about danger, what is the danger, what's the potential danger of positional asphyxia is death. the medical experts 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 and 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. >> he's not resisting arrest, bro. >> he's passed out. >> he's not breathing. you think that's cool, right? what's your badge number, bro. you think that's cool right now, bro. you think that's cool, though, bro. you're a bum, broment you're a bum for that. you're a bum for that. bro. you're getting mad. stopping his breathing right now. >> it was plain and apparent to everyone that was there what was happening. he's going unresponsive. he's passed out.

he's not talking. what are you doing? we know that the defendant chose not to listen to bystanders, not to these by standers, but how about to fellow officers on the scene. >> roll him on his side, he's staying put where we got him. that's what the defendant said. roll him on his side means roll to the side recovery position. he could have listened to bystanders, fellow officers, he could have listened to his own training. he knew baempetter. he just didn't do better. he knew kneeling on someone's neck, in addition to the positional asphyxia is dangerous. anyone can tell you that. a 9-year-old can tell you that, did tell you that. conscious indifference,

indifference, do you want to know what indifference is and sounds like. >> my stomach hurts. >> uh-huh. >> my neck hurts. >> uh-huh. >> everything hurts. water or something. please. please. i can't breathe, officer. >> you're talking. >> takes a heck of a lot of oxygen to -- >> 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? no one defended that decision, the failure to give cpr, not even dr. fowler. this isn't protection. this isn't courage. and it's certainly, certainly is not and was not compassion. it was the opposite of that.

so back to the instructions and 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 imminently dangerous to others. absolutely, the state proved that. did the defendant act with a mental state consisting of reckless disregard for human life, conscious indifference to the loss of life that the dangerous, the imminently dangerous act could cause, yes, he did. and you will find, based on that, that 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, and 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 nen culpable negligence, where he created an unreasonable risk and consciously took a chance of causing death or great bodily harm. and again, you 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 intended to be harmful but that an ordinary, and

reasonably prudent person would recognize as involving a strong probability of injuries to others. you could look for yourself and you can see exactly what was happeni 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. the strong probability of injury, and with the defendant, his specialized knowledge about the dangerous of positional ax fix asphyxia and the o common sense if you put your kneen o somebody's neck, there's a strong possibility of injury. great bodily injury, that produces a high probability of death. permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function or bodily impairment of an organ. the heart, the lungs, the loss of consciousness.

would an ordinary and reasonably prudent person know that this is dangerous? everybody who watched knew it was dangerous. a 9-year-old saw that it was dangerous. and 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 calling the ambulance, it means that you have to use your knowledge, your training as a first responder. you're required to perform cpr. it's a requirement, he failed to do it. he had the training, he knew how to do it.

you've seen his training records, it's exhibit 119. take a look at all of the inservices, all of the hours, right, 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 or he took an unreasonable risk and consciously took a chance of causing death or great bodily harm, you will find that element has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that 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 that murder was committed, that manslaughter was committed, you have another thing to consider, and that is was this just okay? was this fine? is this okay? because the defendant was a police officer? was this an authorized use of force? was it justified? was it justified? it was not. let's look at the instruction of the kind and degree force police officer may lawfully use in executing his duties. it's limited by what a reasonable police officer in the same situation would believe to be necessary and force beyond that is just not reasonable. you look at the facts of 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 fact as facts and circumstances to see whether these actions, the defendant's actions were objectively reasonable. was this objection naably reasonable. no, you 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 restranining george floyd n this manner, prone, handcuff, knee on the neck, knee on the back, body weight on top of him. start with the premise that that in fact was a use of force. the defense called a witness who actually testified that that was not a use of force because that

is not likely to produce pain. no, not true. likely to produce pain, actually produce pain. you know, the problem with terms like super human, super human strength, you forget, those people don't exist. humans feel pain. human beings feel pain. human beings need to breathe. 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. it's not what a reasonable victim would do. you don't look at it from a bystander's perspective. what would a reasonable bystander do.

you lodon't look at it from the defendant's perspective. you lock at it from the perspective of a reasonable officer, the evidence in this case had shown over and over that the defendant is not that officer because he did not act as a reasonable officer would. remember charles mcmillion, well, the defendant explained his actions, he explained the basis of his actions to charles mcmillion. you recall that? here's what he said. >> he's a sizable guy. >> yeah, and he didn't get in the car. >> looks like he's probably on something. >> that was his justification for using this level of force. he's a big guy, he's a sizable guy. he might be on something. we have to control him. control is the restraint. so that's the force. okay. 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's a risk. not everybody is a threat. being large, the act of being large, it's not a crime. it's not a risk. oo i'm sorry, it's not a threat. it's merely a risk. being on something, being on something, it's not a threat. it may be a risk, but it's not a threat. and force is not authorized

against someone merely because they're on something, and when questioned, their force expert witness conceded that the combination of the two, being large and being on something is not a justification for the use of force. it just isn't. that's not what they get to do. all right. so the defendant's entire basis, his explanation to charles mcmillion at the time, at the scene, right afterwards after he got up off of mr. floyd and tossed him on to the gurney and walked away like it was nothing, that was his explanation. it's not good enough. that's not procedure. it's not the use of force policy. it's not following the rules. now, we talked a lot about things that might have happened, could have happened, potentials,

hypotheticals. we talked about a lot of stuff that didn't happen. you 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 reck thognized 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. he didn't need to be put in the prone position. that's 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 would buck up against the handcuff. a pain compliance technique without the opportunity to comply is simply the infliction of pain.

not a reasonable use of force. and that's not authorized by the minneapolis police department. kneeling on top of someone on their neck and their back effectively they were using a m maximal restraint technique, the wrist hobble, remember that, thought about using it. decided not to. they didn't need to because he wasn't doing anything that would warrant it, but if you're going to revastrain someone like that completely and holding them down, the policy authorizes the use of the wrist hobble, they didn't do that. the policy about applying the wrist hobble is, again, you have to put the person immediately in the side recovery position, you know, 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. a force that carries a risk of de is deadly force. and you recall the mpd defense tactics and control guide, deadly force is just not authorized in the situation. no force, when someone is passed out, on the ground, unresponsive, no. you really can't even claim that mr. floyd was engaged in passive resistance at this point, remember charles mcmillion he kept saying get up and get if the car. get up and get in the car, and george floyd said i will. i can't. he doesn't even have the opportunity. he's saying he'll get up and get

in the car. he isn't given the opportunity to do that. that's not resistance. that's compliance, at least an attempt to comply. force must be reasonable. it reasonable at the point it starts, ends, and all points between. all officers must reassess and evaluate thesituation and take in the situation and react to it.esituation and the defendant didn't do it.ñi (# that the crowd justified defendants use of force like the blame should fall on the by-standards. they should be blamed for a man's life. there was concern and the defendant doesn't appear too concerned. it wasn't