symptoms when a person becomes hypoxic. is that what you're asking? >> yes. >> yes. >> what are those? >> so people typically start to get a little confused. disoriented. they may have visual changes. people have described little spots of light, gray curtain coming down. so there are visual abnormalities people will describe and complain of. they often become incoherent. they have difficulty speaking. what is happening with hypoxia is your brain is getting progressively short of oxygen. and so you're getting decreased function of your brain. and some of those are going to mimic intoxication by other sources. >> did mr. floyd, based on your

review, complain of such visual changes? >> no, he complained of shortness of breath, but there was no indication that he made any statements that he was having difficulty in seeing things. >> is shortness of breath one of those things you would expect to see in hypoxia? >> yes. >> what causes that feeling of shortness of breath in a hypoxia situation? >> so, we're looking at hypoxia of the brain, which gives the person the sense that they need to breathe faster, breathe hard, they're short of breath. that could be caused by inability to get oxygen or air into the lungs. so an obstruction and/or something that interferes with the airway or affects the ability to move the lungs, so or it cancardiovascular.

and you can get shortness of breath with heart attack. you can get shortness of breath with other vascular abnormalities, so therefore, it's not a good discriminator. it doesn't help you separate out whether or not there was a respiratory problem versus a distribution problem of the oxygen. because what you're looking at is air coming into the lungs and then the heart distributes it. if you have anything which interferes with the distribution of air from outside your body to the absorption through the heart and getting to the brain, all the brain sees is i haven't got enough oxygen and you get that sense of i'm short of breath. >> and do you get that same sensation from cardiac functions? >> yes. i just mentioned that, yes. >> i'm sorry. in your review of the videos, did mr. floyd appear confused? >> he -- not to my eye.

not confused to time and place and disoriented, no. >> did you observe breathing patterns? >> yes. >> how would you estimate his breathing to what was the rate of his breathing? >> i think my estimation was very similar to previous experts about 20 to 25 breaths per minute. >> and if someone is experiencing hypoxia, how would that affect the rate of breathing? >> typically, when you're short of breath, you breathe faster and faster and faster. >> is 22 to 25 breaths per minute considered rapid breathing? >> it's faster than being at rest. and typically, i think at rest we would be breathing at less than 20. but it's certainly not a rapid respiratory rate, no. >> how about certain types of

phobias? >> yes. so, you know, if you have a phobia and you are pushed into a situation where you have to face the phobia, it's very stressful, and it will fire up your fight or flight type situation. >> and how would that affect the respiratory rate? >> well, the moment you go into fight or flight, your adrenaline is surging. you're likely to start, some people have to ventilate. there's lots of variables there. >> again, in terms of that respiration rate, you would expect it to increase well beyond the normal rate? >> yes, i would not expect it to slow down. >> okay. in terms of the placement of the knee and the neck, could you determine based on your review whether it appeared his airway was obstructed? >> yes, the placement of the

knee is towards the back and the back right side of his -- of mr. floyd's neck. and the airway is around the front. it is nowhere close to his airway. >> we were talking about having an open airway. how does that affect your ability to speak? >> the ability to speak or make any other sound, groaning, and mr. floyd did groan, so any of the sounds that mr. floyd is making requires you to be able to take air in over the vocal chords and out over the vocal chords. and so therefore, you cannot make sound unless you're, a, moving air, and your mouth is open and people can hear to some extent. i can hum with my mouth closed but it's low, so the bottom line is moving air in and out is and speaking and making noise is very good evidence that the

airway was not closed. >> now, in terms of, again, prior testimony, did you review or watch the testimony of dr. tobin? >> i did not watch all of dr. tobin's testimony, no. >> did you hear him discussing the hypopharynx? >> i did. >> and hypopharynx compression. >> yes. >> have you seen anything in the forensic medical literature that a compression of the hypopharynx can cause asphyxia? >> i have not. >> when you heard his testimony, what steps and efforts did you take to consider that? >> started to do a survey of the available medical literature to insure that i hadn't missed something. and i could not find -- >> objection, your honor.

side bar. >> overruled. continue. >> i could not find anything in the forensic literature talking about pressure applied to the neck causing a hypopharynx. >> objection, your honor. >> overruled. >> and then i went to the standard medical literature, and there are entities which cause impairment to the hypopharynx, but they're usually -- well, they all were focused on foreign bodies being inhaled, such as hotdogs or some other object. and then also tumors in the area potentially blocking off that structure, so nothing that really matched the testimony of dr. tobin, as i understand it. >> in terms of hypoxia, moving back to that hypoxia, is hypoxia the signs of hypoxia, is that a

progressive or a fast process? >> typically, it can be both, but you have to recognize that there is oxygen in your blood that is there. and it takes a while to use up that particular oxygen. so in most circumstances, the onset of hypoxia is gradual. if i restrict somebody's breathing, and slow it down by some means or stop it by some means, there is still oxygen dissolved in their blood. you can hold your breath for 30 seconds with comfort. at 45 seconds, you're probably getting a little uncomfortable and you want to breathe. that's your innate reflex trying to override your voluntary suppression of your breathing. but you could probably go out to a minute before you start feeling woozy and/or

uncomfortable and disoriented and -- so that is the -- that's the heart continuing to distribute what you've got in your -- so we see hypoxia occurring gradually in most circumstances overtime. it's not something which is an on/off switch. >> and as far as those symptoms that you see or would expect to see in a hypoxic situation, do they gradually progress like that as well? >> typically, yes. >> did you notice hypoxic changes in this particular case? >> no. mr. floyd was coherent and understandable until shortly before there was a sudden cessation of his movement. >> so if mr. floyd in this case was progressively suffering from

hypoxia, what would you have expected to observe? >> i would expect him to become disoriented, confused, incoherent. i would expect some of those symptoms to be particularly somewhat apparent. >> and you would have -- would your review, in your review of the videos, would you have expected to see a progression in that hypoxia? >> objection, your honor. asks and answered. >> understood. how about asphyxia due to position or compression? let's talk about that. what cause -- what does that affect? >> so there are certain positions a person can get into

which impairs your breathing. >> and does that -- what does that lead to? >> it leads to difficulty in moving your diaphragm and your chest. and impairing your ability to reoxygenate your blood. >> can that lead to hypoxia? >> yes. >> which bodily organ would you expect to see affected first? >> the brain. >> and all of those effects on speech and orientation and things progressing? >> correct. >> you describe what you saw as a sudden change. what does that mean to your analysis? >> so mr. floyd goes from making clear statements, some words i heard were please and i'm short of breath, please. and then there's a period of about 45 seconds of silence.

but he's still moving. and seems to be active. and then there's a sudden relaxation. and so he goes from pretty much fully functioning and coherent to unconscious very rapidly. >> so in this particular case, how does his 90% blockage of the right coronary artery come into play? >> so what you're looking at there is a sudden decompensation, which is much more consistent with a sudden cardiac event. what happens there is the moment the heart stops pumping sufficient blood, there is no circulation of blood. there is no circulation of the blood that still has some oxygen in it. and the brain will function for

about 15 seconds, 10 to 15 seconds with full consciousness. after that, the person loses consciousness. but it's not instantly, people don't suddenly stop breathing when they go unconscious. they will continue to breathe for a period of time, which can be as long as a minute or two. until the respiratory center in your brain shuts down. and at that stage, the person stops breathing. >> so in this case, can you just kind of describe the layers of factors that lead you to your conclusion that this was a sudden cardiac event? >> yes. so we have a heart that's vulnerable because it's too big. it demands lots of oxygen, it has very narrow vessels. there are certain drugs that are present in his system that make

it put at risk of an arrythmia, the methamphetamine. there's another drug, fentanyl, which slows down breathing. we have the carbon monoxide, which has a potential to rob some of that additional oxygen carrying capacity. and then we have vaso contradiction. so there are multiple entities all acting together and adding to each other and taking away from a different part of the ability to get oxygen into his heart. and so at some point, the heart exhausted its reserves of metabolic supply and went into an arrythmia and then stopped pumping blood, effectively.

>> just a couple more topics to just cover with you, doctor. you did review the -- well, in any death investigation, do you review the role that controlled substances play in death? >> yes. >> did you do that on a regular basis? >> it's a very important part of a forensic investigation. and most medical examiners will try to get close to 100% toxicology analysis on their cases, if suitable specimens are available. >> now, in terms of the toxicology in this case, how would you characterize the role of fentanyl from the standpoint of forensic pathology, not toxicology, forensic pathology. >> fentanyl is a powerful narcotic. it's about 80 times more powerful than morphine.

and the side effects of fentanyl are slowing down the respiration. so that impairs your ability to breathe as fast as you normally would. >> does that result in increased or excuse me, decreased oxygen saturation? >> it would result in decreased air exchange, which would mean decreasing the oxygen in the blood stream, but also not fully getting rid of the carbon dioxide, the byproducts of our normal metabolism, so slowly increasing carbon dioxide in his blood stream. >> now, again, within the context of forensic pathology, why does the presence of norfentanyl mean to you? >> norfentanyl is a byproduct of fentanyl. it's a metabolic byproduct. and so in mr. floyd's liver, as the fentanyl passed through the liver, it was broken down into

norfentanyl, which is the metabolic byproduct. it's the beginning to destroy and metabolize the fentanyl and remove it from the body system. >> now, i'm going to, for the court, i have -- there are three slides contained within your powerpoint presentation. i have independently marked them as exhibits 1059, 1060, and 1061. i would like to show them to the witness. can you see that, doctor? >> yes. >> would you agree that this appears to be a screenshot taken from a body worn camera of officer lane at 20:09:44? >> correct. >> looking at the second one, would you agree that this, again, appears to be a body worn camera image taken at 20:09:45? >> yes. >> and finally, a third image at

20:09:48. >> yes. >> all right. i would offer 2059, 2060, and 2061. >> no objection. >> permission to publish 1059. so in this image, doctor, it's kind of hard to see, what in your review, did you determine whether there was the possibility that controlled substances were ingested at the time of approach by officers king and lane? >> yes. >> and what do you see in this image, 1059, that is consistent with that? >> in the back corner of mr. floyd's mouth, you can see what appears to be a white

object. >> are you talking -- this object right there? >> just slightly higher up, yes. >> why don't you do it? >> sorry, i can't with the dot, but that's what i'm referring to. just underneath the dot. >> now, in the next image, 1060, what appears to be happening? >> in this particular image, it appears that mr. floyd is looking away from -- excuse

me -- from officer lane. >> and looking at the timestamps, that's approximately one second later? >> yes. >> and in the third image, does he appear to be looking at officer lane again? >> yes. >> do you see that same object in his mouth? >> i can, yes. >> you can. and so what does this lead you to conclude or what -- strike that. oops. in terms of the later analysis, you understand there was some evidence collected from the back seat of squad 320. >> that is my understanding, yes. >> and do you know what that substance was?

>> there was some material there that had saliva and dna on it that matched mr. floyd, and those i believe those objects had fentanyl and methamphetamine, if my memory serves me correctly. >> is that what you conclude your analysis on in terms of the injection of controlled substances as far as the timing in this case? before they were approached, as well as during, in the back seat of the squad car? >> yes. >> now, how does the depression of respiratory rate, we may have covered this, i apologize, how does the depression of the respiratory system affect the heart specifically? >> if the respiratory rate is decreased, the amount of oxygen that is getting into the blood stream through the lungs is decreased. if i breathe slowly, i'm not

able to get as much oxygen into my lungs as if i'm breathing very rapidly. so anything which slows down respiration is going to affect the ability to oxygenate your blood. >> and will that also work in concert with the coronary artery issues? >> it makes it worse. again, anything which lowers his oxygen saturation in the blood will act to restrict oxygen supply to his heart muscles plus the blockage. >> how about, you also understand that methamphetamine was found in the toxicology? >> yes. >> and how would you look at the role of methamphetamines from the perspective of a forensic pathologist? >> so, methamphetamine has three major factors. it can cause arrythmias.

it causes vaso contradiction, and it causes the heart to beat faster. those are its three major physiological or pharma collagical activities. that would include a individual in mr. floyd's condition, his heart disease, and put him at risk. >> in terms of, again, the toxicology findings, in the fentanyl, there was the metabolite norfentanyl, correct? >> yes. >> what does that tell you in terms of the timing of when mr. floyd may have ingested the fentanyl? >> it tells you at least some of the fentanyl was taken at some point previous -- at some time before that allowed for enough time for the fentanyl to be absorbed and then passed through the liver and some of it to be broken down. that doesn't happen instantaneously. it can take a period of time.

>> and methamphetamine, does it have a similar metabolite? >> it has a metabolite, yes. >> what is the metabolite. >> amphetamine. >> based on your review of the toxicology in the case, was there amphetamine found? >> i did not see any amphetamine in the reports. >> what does that suggest to you as a forensic pathologist relevant to the time at which mr. floyd would have ingested the methamphetamine? >> that would be consistent with a recent injection of methamphetamine. >> and in terms of the phase of absorption or elimination, where would that place him? >> well, if there's no evidence of elimination, ie metabolism from methamphetamine to amphetamine, it's not in the elimination phase. and given that there appears to be probably in the absorbative

phase, it's consistent with the absorbative phase. >> ultimately, those pills found in the back seat of the squad car, you understand when mr. floyd was in the squad car, he was handcuffed? >> objection, leading. rephrase. >> sustained. >> what information did you have about mr. floyd's ability to ingest those controlled substances while he was in the squad car? >> he had his hands cuffed behind his back from the videos. and those were placed outside when he was taken out of his own vehicle. i did not see any time when those were removed until such time as resuscitation was begun. the entire time he had his hands cuffed behind his back. and therefore, i cannot think of a plausible way that an individual would be able to get materials into their mouth while restrained in such a format. >> now, the last topic i would

like to discuss with you is the paraganglioma. did i say that right? >> that is close. >> all right. can you just describe what that is? >> paraganglioma, so this is a tumor that was found at the time of autopsy down in mr. floyd's lower abdominal area. and these are tumors. and they typically are of two types. one which is -- has parasympathetic or is similar to the parasympathetic part of your nervous system. which does not secrete any substances or certain active substances, and there are the sympathetic ones which have the ability to secrete. the parasympathetic ones tend to

be found in the head and neck area. and the sympathetic ones tend to be found in the lower abdominal area. again, this is where mr. floyd's was found. >> what's the relevance of finding the paraganglioma in this case? >> so these tumors have at least the ones in the pelvic area, if they are secreting vaso active substances, they will cause an individual potentially to be hypertensive. that's one of their baseline, if they have a low level of secretion, and the other thing that paragangliomas do is every now and then without warning they have a sudden surge in secretion, so they're cyclical. which sometimes makes it difficult to diagnose them. you have to do specific testing to diagnose them to get around the cyclical activity. >> just in conclusion, doctor,

did you form ultimately opinions as to the cause and manner of death of mr. floyd? >> yes. >> and what would those conclusions be? >> mr. floyd died of a cardiac arrythmia due to hypertensive atherosclerosis cardio vascular disease during the restraint. >> were there contributing causes? >> yes. >> what are those? >> the substances, the fentanyl and the methamphetamine. the potential of a carbon monoxide role, and the potential of the paraganglioma was adding adrenaline to this whole

mixture, making things even worse. >> how would you classify the manner of death? >> so this is one of those cases where you have so many conflicting different manners. the carbon monoxide would usually be classified as an accident. although somebody was holding him there, so some people would say you could elevate that to a homicide. you have got the drugs onboard. in most circumstances, in most jurisdictions, a drug intoxication would be considered to be an accident. he's got significant natural disease, certainly the heart,

paraganglioma, you know, you can certainly consider it as a potential exacerbating process, but i wouldn't put it at the top of the list there. so he's got a mixture of that. and then he's in a situation where he's being restrained in a very stressful situation. and that increased his fight or flight type reaction, and that during restraint would be considered a homicide. you put all of those together, it's very difficult to say which of those is the most accurate. so i would fall back to undetermined. >> now, if we could -- >> in this particular case. >> if we put your slide regarding the undetermined manner again back up. so essentially, doctor, you would agree this had lots of or

many potential contributing causes? >> correct. >> and under the definition, the names definition of an undetermined manner, how does that apply? >> so, that is what this classification under the guidelines is really one of the uses of this particular classification is when you've got so many conflicting different potential mechanisms of death that could lead to -- yeah, so therefore the manner is not clear. >> your honor, i have no further questions. >> the jury will take our lunch recess and reconvene at 1:30. counsel will remain for a short time. >> well, there's the cue. the lunch break is at hand. welcome to "meet the press" and

i'm chuck todd. we have been watching live coverage of testimony in derek chauvin's trial. we have breaking news on a nearby fatal police encounter in the past few minutes. now former police officer kim potter was arrested and the county attorney's office announced charges to charge her with second degree manslaughter in the death of daunte wright. the charge carries a maximum of ten years in prison. 20-year-old daunte wright was shot and killed in a traffic stop on sunday. officer potter and the police chief both resigned yesterday. news of the charge brought against potter comes as the defense in derek chauvin's trial continues presenting in case. jurors heard from the former medical examiner in maryland who testified drugs and a heart condition contributed to mr. floyd's death. >> how did the heart and drugs contribute to the cause of death? >> there was significant -- well, they contributed to mr. floyd having a sudden

cardiac arrest, in my opinion. that's how i would read it. >> shaquille brewster has been following the trial for us in minneapolis. i'm also joined by former prosecutor and civil rights defending david henderson, and morgan chesky is reporting for us from brooklyn center. in fact, let me start with morgan in brooklyn center before we get to what we have seen this morning in the trial. morgan, the arrest happened. give us a little detail. was this -- did officers go to potter's house and arrest her? did she turn herself in? what details do we have? >> yeah, chuck, from what we understand, we know though charges were made official around 11:00 local time here in brooklyn center. at which point a group of officers did go to potter's home and take that 26-year veteran of the department here in brooklyn center into custody. the charge, second degree manslaughter. at this point in time, we understand she's likely being processed. we do anticipate to hear more

from investigators later today from officials as well. and in addition to that, also the family of daunte wright, we know that benjamin crump, the attorney representing the family, has released a statement acknowledging that this is certainly part of the process of justice, but saying there is still much more to be done. and that includes policy changes, actual changes in how police departments operate to make sure this mistake doesn't hap again. again, just a quick, to debrief, the chief resigned yesterday. potter submitted her resignation yesterday as well. that's where things stand now. we have seen three nights of protest in front of this very station and we likely do anticipate a fourth night here following these charges being official today. chuck. >> is there some hope that the arrest could keep protests a bit smaller tonight? or do we think -- do they have -- they don't know what to

expect? >> i think they do not know what to expect until that sun gets down. that's typically when these events swell in size here. we do know that in that statement provided by benjamin crump, the attorney for the wright family, he acknowledged this step but made it clear that this was not a mistake. this was an intentional act, saying that potter was the one who pulled that trigger, fired that shot that ended up killing 20-year-old daunte wright. >> morgan chesky getting us started in brooklyn center, thank you. let's unpack the trial this morning, and shaq, let's start with the defense arguing for an acquittal verdict this morning. explain what happened there for folks who may not have noticed or watched that part of the trial. >> yeah, the start of court, you have a few different things. one was a relatively pro forma motion brought up by defense attorney eric nelson asking for essentially a judgment acquittal. saying to the judge that the

prosecution did not meet their burden of proof and asking before he presented his case to essentially have the judge essentially throw it out. that's me breaking it down very simply, but they're saying essentially, you know, it should be tossed out because the prosecution did not meet their standard. the judge denied that motion. that was expected, and it was very quickly denied. you also heard testimony from the lawyer, you heard comments and arguments from the lawyer, maurice hall. he was a passenger in george floyd's vehicle whose attorney said if he was compelled to testify, he would exercise his fifth amendment rights. his fifth amendment protections against self-incrimination. you heard the judge there agree with him on that and agree with his attorney on that, saying that there's not much he can say because it would link him to the drugs that were in the car. so the judge agreed with him on not compelling him to testify. that avoided the very awkward dance of maurice hall coming, taking the stand, and airing nelson, the defense attorney, asking several questions he simply can't answer, chuck.

>> david henderson, before i get to dr. fowler's testimony, how big of a blow is that to the defense that they don't see the spectacle of that, if you will? >> i think it's a blow to the defense, though it's appropriate. cahill made the right call. acting for directed verdicts, that's normal, no matter how ridiculous the request is, the defense is always going to ask. juries tend to get distracted, and that's typically how you win a case. otherwise, you're poised to lose. maurice hall would have been exactly that. i'm glad it got shut down, and yes, it's a blow to the defense, chuck. >> david, let's get to dr. fowler's testimony today. because there's stuff that he claims and then there's stuff he doesn't say. and it's those gaps that i wonder if it's a bit problematic for the defense. so control room, i want to play

slot 1 and then sot 3, if you will. so let's go there. and then i'll ask you on the other side. >> in my opinion, mr. floyd had a sudden cardiac arrythmia due to his atherochlorotic hypertension, you can write that down multiple ways. during his restraint and subdual by the police. and then his significant contributory conditions would be since i have already put the heart disease in part one, he would have the toxicology, the fentanyl and methamphetamine. >> a motor vehicle collision where somebody has multiple injuries and you look at them and go, okay, they have enough injury there to kill them. when you go in, you can see

evidence that they had a stroke or a heart attack. and that's what potentially caused them to lose control of their vehicle at the time they had and got all of the multiple injuries. do we put heart attack under part one or the heart attack and/or stroke type findings under significant conditions? these are just dilemmas we face as to where you put things on a death certificate. >> so david, i guess, it seems as if the defense is trying to introduce the idea that at a minimum, maybe derek chauvin contributed to his death but it was not the primary cause. i guess that's the question here. do you get the jury to ask this question without the knee on the neck, does george floyd live? hard stop. and the defense then is trying to say, okay, all of these things contributed to his death.

you can't single out one. but to me, it still leaves a hole in the defense's argument. >> chuck, i agree. it leaves a huge hole, but i can't undercut the fact that if you're someone who is inclined to believe the types of arguments that the defense is making, this gives them something to hang their hat on. you have to look at it in the larger context. the jury has been waiting -- the jury will be waiting for three weeks through testimony before they get a chance to start deliberating and having conversations about this evidence. and the trials come like any other conversation, you pay attention to what people say when they first get their chance to speak. when the defense first got their chance to speak, they pointed back to the fact that george floyd has been previously arrested in connection with drugs. that's how they chose to portray him to the jury. now, with this person coming in and saying in connection with other witnesses is, look, yeah, sure, derek chauvin put his knee on his neck, but that's a standard technique that police officers use, and george floyd wouldn't be dead if not for these underlying health problems

and drug use. don't agree with that, but for people who are inclined to, it's an effective move by the defense. >> all right. so you're in the role of prosecutor, you're going to be cross-examining him. what do you do, if your focus is back on, hey, look, don't lose sight of the fact, without the knee on the neck, he lives, period. >> now, the difficulty, chuck, with questioning an expert witness is, especially one like this one who has been paid, they're not going to cooperate with you on cross-examination. he's been paid that fee of $300 plus an hour to come in and say what the defense wants him to say. so one of the main things you want to do here is go towards bias. remind the jury that he's being paid. remind the jury that he didn't have any direct contact with the autopsy that was performed or any of the investigation. he literally came in after the fact, was provided materials by the defense attorney, and used those to formulate his theory

that derek chauvin should be acquitted. that's what you need to do with this witness. >> eugene robinson, you wrote your latem column, you talk about watching the prosecution lay out the case, but you're holding back the expectation that chauvin is going to get convicted. is this one of those, you have just been, you know, until you see an outcome that's different, you're always going to assume what you have seen before is going to happen? >> right. i mean, i'm not assuming one way or the other, but i thought the prosecution put on what i thought was a compelling, if not definitive, case. i'm trying to guard, number one, against my own confirmation bias, because that's the way i see what happened to george floyd. and therefore, am i giving too much credit to what the jury might be seeing?

and second, yeah. we have been here before. we have seen this movie before. we had film of the officers, you know, beating rodney king to a pulp. we had video of philando castile being shot. we had -- you know, we have been here before. and we have seen police officers acquitted. so a bit of self-protection, it's risky to put too much hope into this process. that said, i, too, do look forward to the cross-examination because, again, i'm not an attorney, but i thought there were plenty of -- first, the prosecution put on witness after witness to prebut what they anticipated the testimony, the

defense testimony by dr. fowler would be. and second, you know, i don't know the jury well enough or hear about this, but i wonder if at one point the defense lawyer didn't open the door to defense questioning about the doctor's previous career and the fact that he is a defendant, according to our newspaper, top of our web page right now, he is the defendant in a federal lawsuit over a similar incident in which, as maryland medical examiner, he gave a ruling of accident when the victim was being restrained by police. it's an eerily similar case. i didn't think they could get that in. i wonder if there was a point at which they didn't in fact open the door to that, but we'll see. >> well, eugene, we have an expert with us. david henderson, answer eugene's question before i go to break. did it open the door, and if you

were in the prosecution's shoes, would you bring up this case in cross-examination? >> first, chuck, i agree with the thoughts that eugene just expressed. i would love to see this come into evidence. i don't think they have opened the door sufficiently for kalil to allow it. cahill has been extremely cautious in rulings so far. nothing strikes the fear of god into a trial judge like the possibility of being reversed. he's already been reversed once. i think he's going to be cautious enough to not allow that in. the fact you have been sued isn't evidence of anything without some form of finding. i don't think we have enough to get there. >> as we learned in law school, you learn in law school, anybody can file a suit. anybody can get sued. the question is whether it's a legitimate lawsuit over time. shaquille brewster, as always, thank you for your hard work on the ground there, david henderson and eugene robinson,

appreciate your perspective. >> we'll be right back as an emergency cdc meeting is hanning at this moment on the safety of the johnson & johnson vaccine. we'll be right back. wealth is breaking ground on your biggest project yet. worth is giving the people who build it a solid foundation. wealth is shutting down the office for mike's retirement party. worth is giving the employee who spent half his life with you, the party of a lifetime. wealth is watching your business grow. worth is watching your employees grow with it. principal. for all it's worth. ♪ freshness and softness you never forget, with downy. new projects means new project managers. you need to hire.

i need indeed. indeed you do. the moment you sponsor a job on indeed you get a short list of quality candidates from our resume database. claim your seventy five dollar credit, when you post your first job at indeed.com/home. we started with computers. we didn't stop at computers. we didn't stop at storage or cloud. we kept going. working with our customers to enable the kind of technology that can guide an astronaut back to safety. and help make a hospital come to you, instead of you going to it.

so when it comes to your business, you know we'll stop at nothing. want to save hundreds on your wireless bill? with xfinity mobile, you can. so when it comes to your business, how about saving hundreds on the new samsung galaxy s21 ultra 5g? you can do that too. all on the most reliable network? sure thing! and with fast, nationwide 5g included - at no extra cost? we've got you covered. so join the carrier rated #1 in customer satisfaction...

...and learn how much you can save at xfinitymobile.com/mysavings. welcome back. let's turn to one of the other big pieces of breaking news today. right now, a cdc advisory committee is holding an emergency meeting about the johnson & johnson vaccine. and its possible links to rare and severe cases of blood clot that have been discovered in at least six wim in this country, one of whom died. we'll keep a close eye on the meeting and bring you news as it happened. obviously, this has had some impact on vaccinations. joining me now is my colleague, heidi przybyla, who is at a clinic who was relying on johnson & johnson's vaccine. we also have dr. vin gupta with us, a pandemic consultant and msnbc medical contributor.

heidi, first of all, sounds like you're in the rain. my apologies, wish that wasn't the case, but what have you been hearing and have they shifted to all things moderna and pfizer? >> really was an epic scramble here yesterday, chuck. they were able to replace all of those johnson & johnson is willing to play in reaching these underserved communities. it has taken some coaxing to get them out to take this vaccine, and they really did prefer the one and done approach, not having to repeatedly come into buildings, show documentation. and now she told me in an interview earlier that the challenge may also be once johnson & johnson does come back on line, addressing the issues about skepticism and hesitancy. take a look at what she told me. >> it's probably going to take

our leaders like congresswoman wexton and others to say jurks -- just get it, get it, get it. it's just convincing you need to be safe. >> reporter: so johnson & johnson did account for a small portion of vaccines overall in virginia, nationwide about 40%. that number was ticking up to about 17% last week. they wanted to get it up to between 20% and 25%, all of that speaking to this broad issue that this is a targeted vaccine to reach individuals in rural communities, homeless individuals as well as immigrants and front line workers, chuck, so many of these communities are really hoping that it does come back on line and not to long from now. >> ironically, when people were told, this was the number one

preference because this was a one and done shot. heidi reporting for us in manassas. heidi, thank you. let's bring in dr. gupta. look, it feels like how do you put the toothpaste back in the tube here if there is a new confidence that, look, there's going to be very rare instances, perhaps, of this, but the good far outweighs the bad. it feels like this is a much harder thing to communicate in this day and age of how information travels. i'm curious your thoughts. >> chuck, good afternoon. this is where i think we have to compartmentalize and say that this vaccine, since we're learning as we're going on all things covid, therapeutics and vaccines, that this vaccine is overwhelmingly safe for everybody, but for maybe -- we divert women particularly, say,

of women less than 40 with this particular side effect that happens in that specific demographic, we divert them to other alternatives since we have several alternatives both here and globally. it's going to be tough to do that, chuck, because of the points you raise, because we still need astrazeneca and johnson & johnson to play important roles both stateside but across the world. we need to vaccinate the world. these vaccines need to be perceived as safe, but we may need to compartmentalize people's thinking about who should get them while minimizing any exception of being at risk. >> why do you think the moderna and pfizer vaccine using the mrna technology is not having a blood clot side effect the way these two vaccines that are made the more traditional way? it certainly leads a layperson to say, oh, that's between injecting the virus in you and not injecting the actual virus.

is that what we're looking at here? >> the fact that this has happened with both astrazeneca and johnson & johnson, there is some speculation, i don't want to get too far ahead of myself here, but are potentially antibodies being introduced to a part of the genetic material in the astrazeneca and johnson & johnson vaccines that can actually latch onto and recognize platelets. there are cells in our bodies that can actually help our blood clot. that's what's happening with this specific type of vaccine platform causing this really rare phenomenon of blood clotting, low platelets, especially the blood clot in the brain. that's what we think might be happening here if this is proving to be the actual link here. let me remind all your viewers here, chuck, in the nu, they made a very clear decision, that women under 30 would be directed to other options. that might be on the docket here

and we might see separate guidance here which would be a good thing because it might bring peace of mind in the weeks ahead that it is indeed safe as we're learning more. >> moderna seems to be on the road to full approval instead of the emergency use. what is the significance between those fda characterizations? >> well, emergency use is something that can only be done in a national emergency versus full approval. one clear consequence here, for those organizations out there that might be considering mandating a vaccine, you cannot do that, chuck, under a regime where a vaccine has emergency use authorization. you can only do it if there is full approval. that has significant cost complications. there is a healthy debate about where should we be mandating this vaccine, where should we not be mandating this vaccine? that's a key policy indication. if i can quickly say for our

viewers here, because we're losing a thousand people a day still to this virus, you can learn more about monoclonal severity, they think you can divert it early in the virus if you meet criteria. >> a very important update. and on that front that's why we have you on, dr. gupta, to also give us advice on how to deal with these things. as always, i appreciate your expertise. this does it for our shortened hour. we'll resume after the lunch break with the derek chauvin trial. katy tur is going to make sure you get to hear president biden's remarks on the

afghanistan issue. all of that after this. issue all of that after this o the moo. it doesn't ring the bell on wall street. or disrupt the status quo. t-mobile for business uses unconventional thinking to help you realize new possibilities. like our new work from anywhere solutions, so your teams can collaborate almost anywhere. plus customer experience that finds solutions in the moment. ...and first-class benefits, like 5g with every plan. network, support and value without any tradeoffs. that's t-mobile for business. did you know you can go to libertymutual.com to customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need? really? i didn't-- aah! ok. i'm on vibrate. aaah! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

we started with computers. we didn't stop at computers. we didn't stop at storage or cloud. we kept going. working with our customers to enable the kind of technology that can guide an astronaut back to safety. and help make a hospital come to you, instead of you going to it. so when it comes to your business, you know we'll stop at nothing.

i'm not sure if there's anything i can say so when it comes to your business, to my family members to convince them to take the covid-19 vaccine. i'm not even sure if i'm convinced. hi darius, i think that people respond more to what we do than what we say. so after looking at all the data and the science about these vaccines, i got the vaccine. and i made sure my mom and dad got the vaccine. because these vaccines are safe. ♪ ♪

good afternoon. i'm katy tur. we are awaiting president biden to address the nation at any moment on his decision to end america's longest war, bringing home u.s. forces from afghanistan by september 11 of this year, the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attack. we will have that for you live. and breaking right now, the former police officer who shot and killed 20-year-old daunte wright has been arrested, taken to jail and will be charged with second-degree manslaughter. police say kim potter grabbed her gun instead of her taser during that traffic stop in brooklyn center, minnesota. word of the charges come after another night of unrest in brooklyn center, and wright's family demanding justice. more on all of that in just a moment. and nearby minneapolis, derek chauvin's defense is continuing its case today. retired medical examiner dr.