closing out this case. >> thank you both so much. i appreciate your time. we have more coverage starting right now as we wait for the jury to come back in the room in 15 minutes with my colleague jeff bennett picking it up right here on msnbc. good thursday morning to you. i'm jeff bennett if for my friend craig melvin. we have have been watching what could be the final day of testimony in the murder trial of derek chauvin. this may be the most momentous day in this high profile trial. right now, a 15-minute break. there have been three substantial headlines. first and foremost, derek chauvin will not testify in his own defense. before the jury entered the courtroom, he announced he is invoking his fifth amendment right. second, the defense is resting its case. third, judge cahill limited the

testimony of the prosecution's rebuttal witnesses, dr. martin tobin. the judge went as far as to threat and a mistrial if they discuss topics not approved. we have chuck rosenberg, a former u.s. attorney and senior fbi official and eddie glaud, both msnbc contributors. chuck, we will start with you. we know derek chauvin has decided to invoke his fifth amendment privilege. he will not testify. here is part of how that transpired this morning. we will talk about it on the other side. >> is this your decision not to testify? >> it is, your honor. >> all right. do you have any questions about your right to remain silent or to testify on your own behalf? >> not at this time i don't. >> did anyone promise anything or threatened you to keep you from testified? >> no promises or threats, your honor.

>> do you feel your decision not to testify is a voluntary one on your behalf? >> yes, it is. >> what do you make of the choice? clearly, he doesn't want to open himself up to the prosecution. the jury undoubtedly wants what he left his knee on mr. floyd's knee. >> the jury does want to hear from him. former officer chauvin has a right not to testify. what you saw there -- you played an important clip -- was the judge making a record for appeal to demonstrate to the appellate court in minnesota, should the prosecution prevail and if chauvin takes an appeal, that his decision not to testify was his own, that it was voluntary, that it was knowing and that it was not because of any threats to him or promises to him. really important decision.

really difficult decision. as you point out, jeff, he would be subject to a withering cross-examination. that said, it's the single most difficult decision that a defense attorney and in this case his client has to make. i'm sure there's a part of chauvin that wants to get on the stand and explain what he did. i'm sure there's a part of chauvin that fears cross-examination that would come from a state prosecution team that has proved very, very good at cross-examinations. we see the judge making the record. we see former officer chauvin knowingly and voluntarily waiving his right to testify in his own defense. >> i want to go shaquille brewster outside the courthouse in minnesota. he has been watching every second of the testimony with us. shaq, we also this morning hear a detailed argument about some test results related to carbon monoxide. walk us through what just happened and what the judge decided. >> reporter: this was something

that we heard yesterday from dr. fowler. it was introduced by dr. fowler, who speculated that one of the reasons why george floyd died was potential carbon monoxide poisoning. saying, as he was being pinned down next to the police vehicle, that some of the exhaust there could have gotten into his bloodstream. one thing you heard dr. fowler say is that while he didn't know if the car was on -- that came up during the cross-examination -- he did say that the levels of carbon mon monoxide could be tested. he was doing what he is supposed to as a defense witness. he was introduced doubt into what the jurors have seen based on the testimony from those expert witnesses that the prosecution laid out over the past two weeks. the prosecution today came into court and said that they got a call from the chief medical

examiner here in hennepin county. there were blood samples that could answer the question. there's details and scientific terms i'm trying to avoid. essentially saying that in the -- in blood samples, there's something that would have shown how much carbon monoxide was in george floyd's blood. the judge said that would be considered new evidence. this was not presented before, despite a subpoena from the state to the medical examiner's office. that would prejudice what dr. fowler said. he threatened a mistrial. he said if we hear from dr. tobin and if he mentions this pre-existing -- or any of the pre-existing information that was not originally submitted as part of the evidence record, that would be improper. the bottom line, the judge is saying that dr. ttobin can come and testify. he can rebut some of the points

made by dr. fowler yesterday. he cannot mention or go near any of that new evidence that the state just discovered last night, essentially because that could prejudice the defense and really throw this trial into essential chaos. >> the argument from the defense was that the state had plenty of time to come up with this evidence previously. we have gabe gutierrez outside the courthouse in minneapolis. gabe, when this trial comes back into session, what do we expect to see? >> reporter: jeff, as shaq was mentioning, dr. martin ttobin will be a crucial way to wrap up testimony. you remember a few days ago, last week, he was brought on as a witness. as perhaps one of the prosecution's most credible witnesses. that's why they are choosing him to act as their rebuttal witness. as shaq mentioned, he will only be able to talk about environmental factors. eric nelson, the defense

attorney for derek chauvin, also brought up that he shouldn't be allowed to talk about an enlarged heart because he is a pulmonologist. the judge said he has expertise as a cardio pulmonologist. he can test around that. this guy wrote the book on breathing. the prosecution was very -- thought his testimony went extremely well when they brought him along the first time. it is surprising. we were expecting another expert of some sort, perhaps a medical expert from the defense this morning. now the defense -- with the defense resting, the prosecution coming back with dr. tobin. it will be interesting to see how long his testimony lasts. then also, the judge has indicated that tomorrow potentially could be a day off for the jury. he doesn't want closing arguments until monday. this is extremely significant as you have been reporting.

the last day potentially of testimony in what has been a remarkable trial. it will be building to a climax with closing arguments monday and then this critical testimony potentially from dr. tobin. >> yeah. chuck and eddie, as we come back to you, we have the sound of judge cahill making his decision about whether or not this theory about whether mr. floyd could have succumbed to carbon monoxide poisoning. >> it prejudices the defense, even if not due to bad faith. it's not going to be allowed. dr. tobin will not be allowed to testify as to the lab results. if there's anything he wishes to add about carbon monoxide as far as environmental -- but if he hints there are test results the jury has not heard about, it's a mistrial. pure and simple.

>> what do you make of the judge's decision? >> i think he has it exactly right. let me explain why. if the state had a notice and the judge said they did about -- regarding the ability to test the blood for oxygen saturation and carbon monoxide levels, and they didn't do it and they didn't get that evidence when they were presenting evidence in the jury, they can't do it now. they can't say, by the way, we just found out that we had this stuff all along and we wish we had used it but we didn't, but we would like to do it now. the judge said, no way. that's unfair to the defendant. that would not be something that you can do at this point. perhaps you could have done it earlier. probably would have allowed it. by implication, i probably would have allowed it in your case in chief. but to tell me on the morning of the last day of evidence in this

trial that there's new stuff you want to put in, i'm not going to permit that. you heard the judge say, if you recall dr. tobin and he goes near the fact that these test results exist, i'm going to declare a mistrial. that's a big word. when prosecutors hear mistrial, they know they don't want to get anywhere close to that line. they don't want to see it. i imagine tobin will be told by prosecutor blackwell during the break now not to go anywhere near the fact that those test results exist. >> the defense sought to blame mr. floyd's death on everything except derek chauvin's knee pressing against his neck for more than nine minutes. they are blaming drugs, an oversized heart, potentially vehicle exhaust. what do you make of the arguments? how do you think the jury, based on what we know of the makeup, will respond to them?

>> i mean, the defense has to do its job. in some ways, it appeals to a host of stereotypes and assumptions, arguments that i'm familiar with that you are familiar with, even chuck is familiar with about black victims. we are in some ways the reasons for our death at the hands of police. i think the objective here is to at least get one juror -- that's all he has do is convince one juror. to have one juror doubt the prosecution's case. we have a hung jury. that's important. then, of course, there's the other side -- another aspect of the argument being made here. if they could get a manslaughter charge. creating reasonable doubt with one juror but getting them to think, maybe this is just manslaughter, which seems to me doesn't rise to the level of the nature of the crime that i witnessed myself. i think the defense is trying to do its job. it's appealing to noxious views. we will see whether it's successful or not.

>> i want to get back to gabe gutierrez in minneapolis. gabe, as i understand it, you have new reporting about how george floyd's family was responding to the developments in the courtroom this morning. bring us up to speed. >> reporter: that's right, jeff. within the past few seconds we got one of the pool reports, two or three reporters in the courtroom at any one time when we get these notes. since there's no jury in the room, obviously no reaction about that. but there were two members that were in the courtroom, one for the chauvin supporters and one for supporting the floyd family. we understand arthur reed, george floyd's cousin, offered reaction to chauvin not testifying. he said that he felt the prosecution, quote, would have chopped him down second by second. he also said that we didn't think they were going to put him on at all. he says, we're ready to get this over with and make sure he gets the justice we deserve. we think the state has put on an

excellent case. that's the immediate reaction from a member of george floyd's family feeling that they did not expect derek chauvin to testify. they say because they thought the prosecution would have, quote, chopped him up second by second. certainly, jeff, getting reaction about this decision not to testify. this was something that many legal experts expected that he would not testify. it was always hanging over this case. now we are starting to hear the initial reaction from the family of george floyd. jeff? >> gabe, thanks for that. eddie, setting aside the legal dynamic, what does it mean for the country that we won't hear from derek chauvin's own mouth his defense of himself? >> i mean, look, i don't many of us expected him to testify. i think there is this sense in which the defense has in some ways tried to defend chauvin in

such a way to create just some semblance of doubt. the primary burden rests with the prosecution here. i think in terms of the broader question that you are asking, jeff, there has been this sense of a clash of cultural moments here. as we see chauvin on trial, we also hear the standard stereotypes, the standard defenses, the arguments that black folk are the reason why they are dead. these are happening even as chauvin is on trial, daunte wright is dead. where are we as a culture, moments of elements of the past, elements of what may be possible, elements of the ugliness, elements of justice, all of this is at once -- it's like a succotash. there's no surprise here. there's only this kind of deep skepticism, a tightening of the gut. what will this jury decide? where will we land? that question is still being

asked. >> chuck, some of the more explosive moments of the trial have come from the prosecution cross-examining the defense witnesses. yesterday, dr. david fowler, he conceded that george floyd should have received immediate medical care once he went into cardiac arrest. overall, what do you make of the prosecution's performance since the defense took over? >> i think they have done an extraordinarily able, competent, thoughtful job from the very beginning, jeff. they were lin i the way they described the case to the jury in their opening statement. in the way they presented witnesses to the jury during their case in chief. that's what prosecutors do. we're not that good looking. we're not that flashy. we're not all that smart. i embody all of that. right? but we are linear. i think we are logical. that's what i'm seeing from the prosecutors in this case. by the way, the fact that they go first and last is an advantage to the prosecution. why do they get that advantage?

because they have, as eddie said, the absolute obligation to carry the burden of proof and to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury. they go first in opening. they go first in closing. they get to do a rebuttal argument in closing. they are putting on a rebuttal case when we resume course a little bit later this morning. they get the last word. they have done an excellent job. i like everything i have seen them do. whether they prevail, that's not up to us. that's up to 12 men and women in the jury box. the case has gone in as well as i could imagine for the state. >> eddie, i want to return to a point you were making about the wave of stories about black folks being killed, attacked and targeted. there was the shooting in

brooklyn center, the army officer in virginia, now another interest incident in south carolina. the man, who was african-american, said he lived in the neighborhood and he was just walking by. this is case after case after case. how should people channel their sorrow, their rage in a way that is beneficial and edifying? >> i wish i could answer that question. yesterday after i saw the video of the staff sergeant accosting that young man, i was rageful. i was trembling. i didn't know what to do. in some ways i was thinking about the image of daunte wright and thinking about my son.

i was imagining what i would do if someone had approached me in that way, what i would do if that was my son. i wasn't answering the question in a loving way. i think part of the challenge we have to do here -- we face is that we have to try to imagine how do we advocate for ourselves in this moment of crisis? there's something about this moment of transition we're in where those who are clinging to an old world are giving voice to the panic at the root as the demographic shifts are making themselves known, as the changing in the form of policing is making itself known, as the neighborhoods are changing. folk are trying to assert their rights. we have to assert our right to be, to exist with dignity and standing. how we do that may vary. i don't have an answer directly for you, jeff. i know we have to defend ourselves in this moment. >> absolutely. eddie and chuck, my deepest

thanks to the both of you for your insights this morning. we will have more coverage coming up. we will bring you back to the courtroom. we expect the defense to rest its case at any moment. stay with us. our cards right, and you could be in for a tasty discount. [ clicks pen] let's roll. hey, check it out. one time i tripped on the sidewalk over here. [ heavy-metal music playing ] -[ snoring ] -and a high of 89 degrees. [ electronic music playing ] ooh! ooh! who just gives away wood? the snapshot app from progressive rewards you for driving safe and driving less. there's an app? -[ chuckles ] beth. -save money with progressive. [ tires screech ] well, that came out of nowhere.

we look up to our heroes. the defense has rested its case. we will take you back to the courtroom as the trial resumes. >> in just one moment, your honor. >> not a problem.

>> in walks dr. tobin into the courtroom. chuck, if you are still with us, as we await this trial to resume in ernest, what are prosecutors generally thinking as they wrap up their case and do this final redirect? >> well, one person is doing the redirect. the rest -- there's a significant prosecution team is thinking about next steps. jury instruction, closing argument. they are doing different parts of what the prosecution has to do to finish. >> good morning, dr. tobin. >> mr. blackwell. >> thank you for rejoining us. a few follow-up questions to ask you in rebuttal. first, just so you are reintroduced to the jury, you are a pulmonologist? >> correct. lung specialist. >> critical care physician? >> yeah. intensive care doctor. >> and you studied the

physiology of breathing for 46 years? >> correct. >> i want to first ask you about the issue of mr. floyd's potential exposure to carbon monoxide. >> yes. >> were you able to hear testimony regarding this yesterday? >> yes, i was. >> were you able to see this particular slide in the -- the highlighted area? >> correct. i saw that. >> would you tell us right off the bat, do you agree with that proposition that's highlighted there? >> no, i would not. >> would you tell us what that is? >> it's when the carbon monoxide combines with the protein in the

blood that's called the hemoglobin. it's the combination. >> why is it important? >> it's important because when the carbon monoxide binds, it displaces the oxygen off the hemoglobin. you need the oxygen on the hemoglobin. >> do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to whether this statement that mr. floyd's could have increased by 10% to 18% is reliable? >> no, i believe it is not reliable. >> would you tell the ladies and gentlemen why that statement is not reliable? >> i base it on the arterial blood gas obtained when mr. floyd was in hennepin county.

>> sidebar. >> during the sidebar, let's bring in chuck and eddie. the judge said they couldn't introduce the test results as it relates to the carbon monoxide but they could talk about it. it seems like the prosecutor is going pretty close to the line there. what's your expert analysis of what just transpired? >> that's my sense of it. i think you are right. it sounded to the defense attorney like they were getting close to the thing that the judge said earlier they were not permitted to talk about. he properly objected. maybe just to clarify the judge's ruling and for the judge to remind the prosecutor of what is inbounds and what is out of

bounds for this rebuttal testimony. the judge said that if you make a mistake here, mr. prosecutor, you are running the risk of a mistrial. the prosecutor doesn't want to get anywhere close to that line that we discussed before. the prosecutor also has to make sure that even inadvertently, the witness he called for rebuttal, dr. tobin, doesn't get close to the line either. we should know in a few moments, jeff, when the judge makes a ruling or perhaps just says the prosecutor to continue, whether everything is okay. i don't think they crossed the line. i think the defense attorney thought they were getting close. >> the sidebar is ending. we will listen back in. >> i think the objection should be sustained but just rephrase the question. >> thank you, your honor. >> dr. tobin, as you prepare to tell us why these results in

your opinion are not reliable, could you please help the jury to understand something about oxygen saturation testing in the blood? >> right. if you have -- like was done in mr. floyd when he went to hennepin county, he had an arterial blood glass obtained. that's sticking a needle into the artery at the wrist. you take out the blood. on the blood gas measurements, you measure a number of different items like the pressure of carbon dioxide, the amount of acid in in the blood called the ph. you get these different measurements. you get the oxygen saturation. that is how much of the hemoglobin, the protein in the blood that carries the oxygen,

how much of that hemoglobin is saturated with oxygen. we know in mr. floyd it was 98% saturated. >> 98% saturated with oxygen? >> with oxygen when they measured it in hennepin county, 9:16, the time frame. >> does that tell us anything about what -- >> yes. i apologize. >> does that tell us anything about what the carbon monoxide content could have been at maximum? >> yes, it does. if the hemoglobin is saturated at 98%, it tells you it was 2% for everything else. the maximum amount of carbon monoxide would be 2%.

it tells you the maximum amount. that was mentioned yesterday. the maximum amount is 2%. doesn't tell you it is 2%. it could be something else. 2% is within the normal range. you and i have levels of somewhere between 0 and 3. >> in other words, as to the statement that it could have increased 10% to 18%, in your view, that's not possible? >> it's simply wrong. >> it was at most 2%? >> at most, 2%. >> normal? >> i mean, which is normal. >> new subject to discuss with you. you might recall if you were listening to the testimony, my discussing with dr. fowler the hypopharynx. >> i remember. >> you might recall i spent time

asking him about what research he had done on the potential for pressure on the back to narrow the hypopharynx. >> i recall that. >> do you recall him saying he canvassed the literature and he could not find anything? >> i'm sorry? >> do you recall him saying he had reviewed the research and he could not find anything? >> yes. i recall him saying that. >> are you able to enlighten or give information to the jury on the nature of the research on the hypopharynx and how it narrows with compression in the prone position? >> yep. the research on this, which is extensive, is really in the scientific literature, the physiological literature. that is applied over to clinical medicine. the type of studies that are done are not really done in terms of ordinary clinical research. it's much more a physiological, much more scientific of how the

body works. there's about probably at least a dozen, maybe 20 studies that show the relationship between how that if you lower the size of the lungs, you must get a decrease in the size of the hypopharynx. all of the studies show that. >> are there studies that look at whether the pressure on the neck narrows the hypopharynx? >> no. when we do research, we try and do research on studies that might be puzzling, that you would be kind of expecting a surprise. if you think about sticking your fingers into your neck, you know you are going to narrow hypopharynx. that's not research somebody wants to do. common sense you know that's going to happen. you can do it on yourself.

as soon as you put pressure here, you can immediately sense that your upper airway is narrowing. >> dr. tobin, that is all we wanted to clarify with you this morning. >> if i may have two minutes. >> sure. let's do a stretch break in place. >> the trial is taking another break. let's bring back in chuck and eddie. chuck, of all the prosecution's medical witnesses, why was dr. tobin brought in to rebut this, do you think? >> i think we saw just now, jeff, why dr. tobin is thoughtful, articulate and

extremely knowledgeable on the two things that they were permitted to rebut. the oxygen saturation level and conversely the maximum amount of carbon monoxide that could have been in the system. second, dr. tobin pointed out a mistake he believes the defense expert, dr. fowler, made with respect to certain medical literature. you bring back in rebuttal the person who can actually rebut.t witness on direct, and he was just as good in this short, clean, crisp rebuttal testimony. now he will be crossed by the defense attorney. this may very well be the last time that any attorney either does direct examination or cross-examination of any witness in this trial. dr. tobin has done, i think, in my view, extraordinarily well. very, very good witness. >> eddie, a question to you.

we talked about the fact that derek chauvin isn't going to testify on his own behalf. do you think the jury will draw a negative inference from that? will they think that perhaps he is hiding something? will they assume the worst given the fact he is not testifying? >> i suspect some may. some may not. they are following the instructions of the judge. they know that this is well within derek chauvin's right to not testify. for some, it might draw a common sense conclusion he might be hiding something. for others, particularly those who have been in some ways convinced or find the defense's arguments compelling, that they may give him the benefit of the doubt. i want to say this quickly, jeff. what dr. tobin just did, in my world, when a scholar responds to another in that way, we typically snicker.

that was a very deft response. i put my hand over my mouth and snickered a bit. >> let's go back to shaquille brewster in minneapolis. let's pick up there. break down the differences we heard in the testimony from the prosecution's medical experts versus the defense's medical experts in the trial so far. >> reporter: jeff, that's the benefit of dr. ttobin for the prosecution. they can remind the jury of their initial case, what they were initially saying, especially after we heard from dr. fowler yesterday contradicting what many of the prosecution's experts have been saying. dr. fowler said that he would have ruled george floyd's death to be undetermined. that contradicted what we heard up until that point where all of the experts agreed it was a homicide, including the medical examiner. dr. fowler said it was a sudden cardiac arrhythmia due to his heart disease, due to his heart

disease and previous health conditions that happened during his restraint. you heard the other medical experts say it was cardiopulmonary arrest that was a result of the restraint. this is helping remind the jury of what the prosecution's medical experts had to say initially. we go to what the defense witnesses on use of force said in terms of the knee on george floyd's neck or upper back was not a use of force as we heard from mr. broad two days ago. that contradicted what you heard from the police chief. we knew this was going to happen. we knew this would end up being a battle between the experts, those put on by the defense and those laid out by the prosecution in the opening weeks of the trial. having dr. tobin at the very end of this kind of reminds the jury of what the prosecution has been saying for about two weeks as they were laying out their case. i think there's value to that.

>> we will have much more coverage of the chauvin trial coming up as they take a break. judge cahill exits the courtroom. we will take you back to the courtroom when the session resumes. stay with us. you may have many reasons for waiting to go to your doctor right now. but if you're experiencing leg pain, swelling, or redness, don't wait to see your doctor. these could be symptoms of deep vein thrombosis, a blood clot which could travel to your lungs and lead to a pulmonary embolism. which could cause chest pain or discomfort, or difficulty breathing—and be deadly. your symptoms could mean something serious, so this is no time to wait. talk to a doctor right away, by phone, online, or in-person. i'm ordering some burritos! oh, nice. burritos?! get a freshly made footlong from subway® instead. with crisp veggies on freshly baked bread. just order in the app! ditch the burgers! choose better, be better.

subway®. eat fresh.

new projects means new project managers. chooyou need to hire.ter. 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.

welcome back.

the derek chauvin murder trial is in a break until 45 minutes after the hour. the defense this morning rested its case. the prosecution brought forward at least one rebuttal witness who picked apart the notion that carbon monoxide exposure may have played a role in george floyd's death. i want to bring back gabe gutierrez in minneapolis. this jury is about to transition from listening to testimony to deliberating about it. walk us through the next few days and potentially weeks. what should we expect? >> reporter: jeff, it probably will be several days before the jury starts deliberating, or at least as we understand it. the judge has said multiple times that he expects closing arguments on monday. the events of this morning seemed to have moved things along quickly. we are waiting for the defense to take their crack at dr. tobin. by all indications, the judge seemed to indicate he would prefer to give the jury time off

today into tomorrow and wait past the weekend to not have them deliberate over the weekend and then they would potentially start deliberating perhaps monday afternoon if closing arguments were in the morning. you need time to charge the jury. that's what we are expecting. something about this trial, despite all the attention, the jury has not been sequestered during this trial. there was a few days ago on monday the defense bringing forth that motion to ask them to be see sequestered because of t events in brooklyn center. the judge denied that. once the jury begins deliberations, they will be sequestered. as you know and as anybody that follows court cases knows, you can't predict how long deliberations will last. the latest we expect is that closing arguments will begin monday and the jury will begin deliberations shortly after that, jeff.

>> gabe, thanks for that. i want to go to chuck and talk about one of the big headlines from this morning that derek chauvin will not testify in his own defense. the defense rested its case. i told you noticed something interesting in what the judge asked derek chauvin about his decision not to testify. what did you notice and why is it significant in your view? >> yeah, it was very interesting to me. i probably tried, jeff, 50 cases or so in federal court, all criminal. maybe half a dozen or so, the defendant testified. all the others, overwhelming majority, they did not. when a defendant does not testify, the judge does two things. judge cahill did both of them here. first, ascertains whether or not the defendant's decision not to testify was voluntary and knowing. they are making a record on appeal. the second -- the thing i wanted to emphasize for your viewers, is that the judge then had a

conversation with mr. chauvin about whether or not chauvin wanted the judge to instruct the jury, which he will do presumably on monday, before they deliberate, that he has an absolute right not to testify. the first thing was whether or not you want to testify. the second thing was whether you want me to tell the jury that you have a right not to testify. why does that matter? that's a complicated calculus for a defendant. on one hand, by instructing the jury that a defendant does not have to testify, the judge is reminding the jury that the defendant didn't testify. of course, they shouldn't infer anything from that. that's something else the judge will tell them. don't infer anything from it. what happens, jeff, when i tell you, don't think at all about what a beautiful day it is outside. what do you start doing? you start thinking about what a beautiful day it is outside. in this case, judge cahill asked former officer chauvin, i can

either give this instruction to the jury, telling them you don't have to testify, or not. it's your call. you pick. in this case, chauvin said he wanted the jury to be instructed that he did not have to testify. it may seem like a small point. but the decision whether or not to testify and the decision whether or not to tell the jury that they can't consider the fact that you didn't testify are two sides of the same coin. it's a big deal in a trial and a difficult decision for a defendant and his counsel to make. >> do juries draw inferences from the number of witnesses that either side brings? the prosecution brought, what, almost 40 witnesses, the defense brought, perhaps less than a dozen. i don't have the exact number in front of me. we heard from the prosecution in terms of medical term. there were lung doctors, heart doctors, pathologists, all of whom said to varying degrees that were it not for derek

chauvin pinning his knee on george floyd's neck, that george floyd would be alive today. do juries take away anything from that, the sheer number and the compound impact of the testimony on one side? >> of course, the prosecution has the burden of proof. no surprise that prosecutors typically call for witnesses than the defense does in its case. i expect there will be some jury instruction on monday from judge cahill to the jury saying that the number of witnesses, exactly your question, jeff, isn't a factor. you can give whatever weight you want to the witnesses. you can give whatever weight you want to the testimony. that's up to you, ladies and gentlemen, jury. you are the trier of fact in this case. i, the judge, i'm just the -- i'm in charge of the law. you are in charge of the facts. don't give undue weight to the number of witnesses. listen to what they say. assess their credibility. determine whether or not it

makes sense. base your verdict on that but not on the cheer number. that would be unfair and improve. if it was based on the number, i would keep calling witnesses. in the end, that wouldn't do me any good. >> got it. thanks for that, chuck. while we wait for the trial to pick back up in minneapolis, in a couple of hours another minnesota cop charged in the death of an unarmed black man will be in court. former brooklyn center police officer kim potter will make her first court appearance. she's charged with second degree manslaughter in the shooting death of 20-year-old daunte wright. morgan chesky is in brooklyn center with more. potter was released from custody yesterday after posting bail. how are people there reacting to this charge against her? what do we expect from her court appearance? >> reporter: jeff, potter was released after posting the $100,000 bond after just a few hours in jail. the reaction last night was very similar to the reaction we have

seen in the past four nights since the death of daunte wright. that's a massive gathering right here out in front of the brooklyn center police station. hundreds of people packing the streets. we do know, however, that at 10:00, the curfew last night was enforced in a way we haven't seen in the past with national guard converging on the scene, clear it out with the help of state patrol as well. one notable difference from last night that we had not seen in prior nights is that there was not tear gas used. one can only attribute that to the mayor of brooklyn center coming out yesterday and saying that he did not believe it was a humane way to treat those simply trying to protest. as for potter, she does have that court appearance later today. we do know there's such high interest in it that a website has been created to where one can view the proceedings, which will be done virtually. we will hear the official charges against her. she will have a chance to acknowledge them for the first time and then we will hear that second degree manslaughter charge.

in the state of minnesota, that carries a maximum sentence up to ten years in prison. potter has not publically said anything other than that letter of resignation that she submitted the day before yesterday in which she said that she believed it was in the best interest of her community, of her police station, of her fellow officers to resign effective immediately. we do know her attorney has also been very tight lipped about the ongoing proceedings as well. at this point in time, we do know there's an active investigation ongoing by the minnesota bureau of criminal apprehension. they plan to work hand in hand going forward with the prosecutors. this is the first step going forward. all eyes are going to be on this meeting here when it takes place later this afternoon. jeff? >> morgan chesky covering the latest from brooklyn center, minnesota. i want to go back to eddie and chuck. the judge, i'm told, has not re-entered the courtroom yesterday in minneapolis.

eddie, we know there were several motions in the chauvin trial about the deadly shooting in brooklyn center, the defense wanted the judge to sequester the jury. the judge said no. they will be sequestered for closing argumented. one of the jurors happens to live in brooklyn center. this question might be unknowable. how do you think that will resonate with the jury? >> you know, i mean, look, the jury has its instructions. we have to understand them as human beings. they suddenly, because they are jurors, they don't suddenly lose their capacity to understand their surroundings, the world they inhabit. they have been charged with a particular responsibility. they must. cute that responsibility in a way that's consistent with their oaths. look, i think it's important for us to understand the world that we inhabit. the world that we currently live in is fraught with a certain kind of violence. that is going to have to impact

the very ways in which the folks who are sitting in this chauvin trial in judgment, to how they understand themselves and how they understand the burden of their responsibility in this moment. >> chuck, how do moment. >> chuck, how do prosecutors craft closing arguments. secondly, if you were trying this case, would you mention what happened in brooklyn center or ignore it? >> i would absolutely ignore it. i understand from the social context in which it happens and eddie has spoken to that so eloquently, but i don't want to bring that into my trial because i think as a prosecutor i have proved my case. i have proved the elements of the statutes with which chauvin is charged by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. what i would do is recap the testimony. i would go through what my

witnesses said, stick to the themes i had promised in opening. i always think it's powerful for a prosecutor to say, ladies and gentlemen, here is what i told you would see in this trial. in my opening statement i said x, y and zee -- z. we called all of these witnesses and proved x, y and z. we have proved this case yard. -- beyond a reasonable doubt. that, coupled with the law that the judge will instruct the jury on. it's not flamboyant or fancy, just logic. >> let's jump back into the trial. >> common technology available in hospitals for analyzing

blood, is it known as cooxymeter? >> yes. >> it terms of research, you referenced there were 12 to 20 studies that an increase in pressure on the lungs would increase the narrowing of the hypo-pharynx. is that right? >> not quite. >> the research would be in physiological journals? >> some journals would be a blend of physiology plus clinical, but it will primarily be in physiological oriented journals. >> and those would be included within the general search for medical literature? >> if you go into pub med, it

would be included, yes. >> you have not produced any of those 12 to 20 articles for the state or i to review? >> i listed several articles in might report of january 27th. there are several articles in that. i can tell you if you want them. >> specifically that stanford -- >> regarding the relationship between lung volume and hypo-pharnyx. >> i have no further questions. >> you may step down. thank you very much. >> your honor, the state of

minnesota rests. >> mr. nelson, anything further? >> no, your honor. >> members of the jury, the evidence is now complete for this case. the next state for you is to listen to closing arguments and then retire for deliberations. that will occur monday. the attorneys and i will still be working. we have a few legal matters to take care of, most importantly the law that i will give you in my instructions. that takes quite a while. we will not change our schedule. we will not close tomorrow. we will close monday. you will be sequestered at that point. we have some of your questions. one thing you need to know is how much do i plan? >> if i were you, i would plan for long and hope for short. it's up to the jury, how long you need to come to a unanimous decision on any count. because that's up to you,

whether that's an hour or week, that's within your province. that's how i would do it. we will also give you some information probably monday as you retire, as to other questions that don't require your immediate attention. we will also be giving you some hints as far as technology. we will be operating under the rules that are currently in place regarding audio and video evidence. that is specifically that you will be provided with a laptop computer that has all of the audio and video -- pretty much all of the exhibits in this case -- on the computer with a large monitor to play them. you will not have to come back into the courtroom to watch video which is the old rule and involved a lot of back and forth. we will give you the computer so you can view it as you deem appropriate as part of your

deliberations. with that i wish you a good, long weekend. we will convene at 9:00 a.m. for closing arguments and final instructions. >> so after roughly three weeks of testimony in the derek chauvin trial, the attorneys have rested. the judge was giving the jury instructions for what they can expect when they are sequestered. let's bring back eddie and chuck. that is the end of evidence. what will be the goal for each side in closing arguments? >> the first goal will be to try and craft jury instructions as favor to their side as possible. each side will propose jury instructions. some of them are not controversial at all, like the elements of the statute with which chauvin is charged. others might be more controversial. how much weight to give to

particular experts or what inferences the jury can draw. once that's decided. once those sides understand precisely how the jury will be instructed by judge cahill, they build their closing arguments around that. part of the closing argument is already in the can. it will be based on the evidence that each side used at trial. but they will also want to taylor their closing arguments to the precise instructions the judge will give the jury. judge cahill told you x. let me tell you how you should think about x. we proved x at trial through the following witnesses. while the jury has time off, the lawyers and judge do not. they have to fashion the jury instructions. >> eddie, as we expect closing

arguments monday, what are your thoughts about the last three weeks? >> this is about the death of george floyd, but it is about who we are. who do we take ourselves to be and who do we aspire to be. what we will hear in closing arguments in some significant way will bear on the question of where will we be? who are we as a nation and how will we move forward in this moment. american tragedy. >> thanks to you both. that does it for me. andrea mitchell starts after a short break. e. andrea mitchell starts after a short break. 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.

good day. this is andrea mitchell reports. the defense has rested its case in the murder trial of derek chauvin after he invoked his fifth amendment of no incrimination. after a rebuttal witness, the judge gave instructions to the jury and adjourned until monday. the judge advised the jury to have a good long weekend and they will be sequestered and advised them to pack for