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 get in the car. that's not resistance. that's compliance. at least an attempt to comply. force must be reasonable. it must be reasonable at the point it starts, at the point it ends and all points in between. officers are required to re-assess the situation, to take in the information and react to it. the defendant didn't do it. the defense has made the argument that the crowd justified the defendant's use of force like the blame should fall on the bystanders for displaying concern over a man's life? what? that this was a distraction, that there was some concern. the defendant doesn't appear too

concerned. it wasn't the bystanders' fault. a 19-year police veteran, a field training officer with over 800 hours of training not even distracted by the comments of a 17-year-old or being filmed by civilians, there say policy about filming. they understand that civilians can film them. they know that. it's right there. this isn't something new or earth shattering or even particularly noteworthy. sergeant steiger, you recall him from lapd, he used to patrol on skid row. he talked about people throwing rocks and bottles. they have a phone, phones, they're expressing concern. they're not doing anything. this is not justification for an assault for murder.

the defense suggested in their cross-examination that reasonable minds can disagree or that some of the witnesses don't line up exactly where the force began or what exactly should be done, but don't get caught up in that. don't miss the forest for the trees. consider the testimony as a whole. officer after officer after officer got on that stand, raised their hand and told you the chief of police, right? that this conduct, the 9:29 violates the use of force policy, violates the department's core values, it violated his duty of care. he failed to render aid. remember, the commander now inspector katie blackwell who was in charge of all training look at this and said i don't

even know what this is. i don't even know what this modification is. this isn't how they trained. these aren't the rules. lieutenant mercill and said without equivocation is not an mpd tactic. it is not. we don't train people to do this. you can present a thousand hypothetical situations. you can talk about what didn't happen all day long into next week, but when you talk about what did happen on that day, at that time that's what they said. use of force unreasonable. supervisor, sergeant pluger, the situation should have ended right after mr. floyd was on the ground. his supervisor said that. lieutenant zimmerman, the oldest serving -- or i should say the most years of service on the

minneapolis police department, longest serving. correct myself. longest-serving member of the department. he looked at this and said this was totally unnecessary. totally unnecessary a use of deadly force. not reasonable. only reasonable force is authorized. sergeant stiger, expert witness, los angeles police department. he's trained thousands of police officers. he looked at this. this is objectively unreasonable force. professor stoughton, former police officer, university of south carolina law school professor. this use of force was unreasonable, it was disproportionate and it violates national standards. the experts agree because the

force has to be reasonable when it starts. it has to be reasonable when it ends and what is happening? if you look at the bottom and george floyd is handcuffed and on the ground. what is he saying? he's saying i can't breathe 27 times within the first 4:45 of this encounter, he's saying that and the defendant continues to kneel on his back and neck. continued the dangerous restraint. george floyd says into the restraint at 8:22:24. "my stomach hurts. my neck hurts. everything hurts." was george floyd resisting when he was trying to breathe? no. the defendant acknowledged it and all he did was mock him. uh-huh. it takes a lot of oxygen to complain. that's when he said. it takes a lot of oxygen to say that.

when george floyd in his final words to the defendant, please, i can't breathe. i can't breathe. crying out for help to the man in uniform. the defendant stayed right on top of him. ignored it. continued doing what he was doing. facing the crowd, grinding his knee, twisting his hand. i think he's passing out, officer lane says. officer kueng can't find a pulse. now the greatest skeptic of this case among you, how can you justify the continued farce on this man when he has no pulse. no pulse. continued the restraint, continued grinding and twisting

and pushing him down and crushing the very life out of him. it wasn't too late. he could have rolled him over, performed cpr. no. past the point when the ambulance arrives. past the point when the emts get out of the ambulance. what's the goal? what's the plan here? what are we trying to accomplish? this was a counterfeit $20 bill allegedly. what is going on? why? why hold him that long past that point? past that line that was crossed? unreasonable force. unreasonable. not proportional. excessive. it violated policy. it violated the law. it violated everything that the minneapolis police department

stood for. it was not lawful. that phrase, awful, but lawful. a force that is not lawful. it's just all of. so the defendant is guilty of second-degree murder. he's guilty of third-degree murder. he's guilty of second-degree manslaughter. all of them. it is not justifiable. not if you apply the rules and not if you apply the standards of a sworn officer, that oath that they take. you know, at the beginning of my comments i talked about george floyd's life, how he was surrounded by people who cared about him, surrounded by

familiar faces, people he could look out to in the crowd and at his death he was surrounded by strangers. they were strangers, but you can't say they didn't care. you can't say that. these people were randomly chosen from the community. people from the community randomly chosen by fate and they were coming from different places, and they were going to different places and they had different purposes, all of them. random members of the community, all converged by fate at one single moment in time to witness something. to witness 9:29 of shocking abuse of authority, to watch a man die, and there was nothing

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

recordings so you could see this, you could see this from every single angle. they gave that to you. they were powerless to do anything but that. they gave it to you. randomly selected people from the community. you got a summons in the mail and here you are. all converged on one spot. now, our system, we have power. the power actually belongs to us, the people, and we give it to the government and trust for us to use appropriately. sometimes we take it back. sometimes when something is really important we reserve those decisions for ourselves. the state, we have power.

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

and it's exactly what you saw with your eyes. it's exactly what you knew. it's what you felt in your gut. it's what you now know in your heart. this wasn't policing. this was murder. the defendant is guilty of all three counts. all of them. and there's no excuse. thank you. >> members of the jury, we're going to take a 20-minute break and just for your information we will also take a 20-minute break after the defense argument before the state's rebuttal and the final instructions. good day. this is andrea mitchell reporting continuing with closing arguments.

after judge cahill gave jurors detailed instructions for deliberating on two counts of murder and one count of manslaughter the state laid out its closing arguments explaining why former officer chauvin to use any deadly force on george floyd. >> 9:29. 9:29. 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 9:29 as he desperately pushed with his knuckles to make space so he'd have room to breathe, the pavement lacerating -- lacerating his knuckles. so desperate to breathe, he pushed with his face, with his face to lift himself to open his chest to give his lungs room to breathe. george floyd losing strength, not super human strength. there was no super human strength that day. there was no super human strength because there's no such thing as a super human. those exist in comic books and 38th and chicago is a very real place. msnbc anchor and "today"

show co-host is in minneapolis leading our coverage the prosecution said this was not policing, this was murder. >> yeah, andrea. one of the themes that we also heard this morning here in minneapolis and we heard the same theme in the opening arguments, if you'll recall. believe your eyes. use your eyes. this position between common sense and nonsense. he spent about 1:45 methodically laying out the case against derek chauvin, reminding those jurors of what they have seen and heard over the last three weeks. i'm told that what we just heard is essentially going to be the beginning, if you will. they very much want the jury to hear from jerry blackwell last. that will be last voice you will

hear from in the rebuttal. the defense is expected to go after an hour and a half and we'll get a 20-minute break and mr. blackwell is a prominent african-american attorney described as the midwestern version of johnnie cochran. more of the more interesting things, andrea, that continues to jump out, to me, at least. the death of george floyd sparks this global movement, this racial reckoning. you did not hear or see this morning a reference to race. i'm told you won't see that this afternoon, as well when jerry blackwell does his rebuttal, but in addition, those two things that we just talked about. the 9:29, reminding jurors over and over of the sheer amount of time that officer chauvin had his knee and his full body weight on george floyd's neck. it really was, the first 45

minutes of that closing, the first 45 basically humanizing george floyd, acknowledging the addiction and talking about his past and how he wound up there that day and then in about the 45-minute mark, that's when he sort of shifted to the legal arguments and he used those slides to show precisely why the prosecution believes he should be found guilty on all three counts. i also found it very interesting, andrea, that he ended with the bystanders in showing the pictures of the bystanders who arrived outside cup foods that day, saying it was essentially fate that brought them there. also essentially saying to the jurors, these people who found themselves watching george floyd die, they felt powerless in that moment. they testified to that powerlessness. you can do something about it. that was the message that he was essentially trying to drive home with the jurors, but a minute --

excuse me, 1:45, we are told jer blackwell when he rebutts will go about 30 minutes and also again, giving the impression from the defense attorneys that they'll go about an hour and a half. >> indeed. and to your point on focusing on the bystanders, they're ordinary people is implicit in that, just like you, you in the jury. they were brought together by fate and you were brought together by a subpoena. very important point. thank you very much for your coverage there now and throughout the day. let's bring in our panel, shaq brewster and melissa murray, former federal prosecutor paul butler and former civil rights attorney and former police detective tim alexander. melissa murray, first to you, let's focus the key argument from mr. schleicher what derek chauvin was doing to george floyd on that street talking about that it was not just in the beginning, the middle or the

end is that continuously it was excessive force in his view, let's watch. >> 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 pulse that he had a pulse, the defendant continued this assault, 9:29. 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. >> melissa, that is a powerful point that he is trying to make. we'll hear it countermanded and

rebutted and that points to the visuals they present today. [ no audio ] >> melissa murray? i think we're having a mute problem, melissa -- >> sorry. can you hear me now? >> yes, i can. terrific. >> sorry about that. >> i assume you heard the steve schleicher comment that we were making. >> yes. i thought this was a very effective closing argument. the state doesn't have to prove that officer chauvin intended to kill george floyd. all they have to establish is that officer chauvin assaulted george floyd and in the course of that assault i thought it was effective that he reiterated this assault and that's to the jury instructions that the jurors had received and he walked them through it incredibly methodically laying out the case that in fact, the state had proven that it was supposed to prove that mr. chauvin was a substantial cause of mr. floyd's death and it was through that assault that

continued and he also made the point, i think, repeatedly that mr. chauvin knew better and he failed to do better and i think that will go back to the jurors into the deliberations and will be very effective. >> and one of the other moments that struck me, as well, was when mr. schleicher showed all of mr. floyd's actions that he was complying with what authorities said. >> lane orders floyd to put his hands on the steering wheel. he does. that's not resistance. that's compliance. lane orders floyd to get out of the car, he does. that's not resistance, that's compliance. you can hear the sound of the handcuffs tighter and tighter. mr. floyd is trying to explain to the police that his wrists hurt, impervious to pain, please. they ask him to sit down. he sits down. not resistance, compliance.

not trying to escape. not trying to evade arrest and not try trooiing to assault anybody, stab anybody, punch anybody, no. compliance. he gets up. they ask him to go across the street, he goes across the street. where is the resistance? >> so paul butler, and they also showed pictures which we'll get up in a moment, but that also they were trying to show that he was fearful about being in the car. that's when he was pleading, but that he complied with everything else that they said. so the defense tried to make the trial about george floyd. the prosecutors are now rehabilitating mr. floyd for the jury. they're trying to reach those jurors might think that if george floyd had just complied and if he'd just gotten into that car he would still be alive and the prosecutors would say that he was trying to comply, but george was claustrophobic

and he was traumatized by previous violent encounters that he had with police officers. i thought they used the video exceptionally effectively. we saw mr. mcmillin, the older gentleman who told mr. floyd to comply. he said "you can't win." and mr. floyd responded i'm not trying to win. at that point compliance was impossible because mr. chauvin had his knee on mr. floyd's neck. >> tim alexander, talk about this. i want to play a little bit more about this, about steve schleicher trying to make it clear to the jury that this was about derek chauvin and not about the minneapolis police department. of course, we saw everyone from the chief on down. let's watch that. >> this is not a prosecution of the police. it is a prosecution of the defendant, and there's nothing worse for good police than a bad police who doesn't follow the rules, who doesn't follow procedure, who doesn't follow

training, who ignores the policies of the department, the motto of the department to protect with courage, to serve with compassion. the defendant is on trial not for being a police officer. that's not the state versus the police. he's not on trial for who he was. he's on trial for what he did. that is what he did. that is what he did on that day. 9:29. that is what he did. >> tim, you've been a police officer, you're a prosecutor and a civil rights lawyer. you know what he's trying to say here is that this is not about convicting a police officer for being a man in a blue uniform. it's about someone who is violating the rules that police officers are supposed to observe. >> one more thing to that resume, andry a unfortunately. i was also a victim of police

brutality where i was shot at, beat up and arrested by the police. the word of the day is accountability and that's what this trial is about. holding derek chauvin accountable. there were serve law enforcement officers that testified, five, including the chief as you pointed out. and remind me, when i was starting off in my career having to tell the events that happened to me and every single time i told that story to the hiring authority and the officers and the command staff, well what happened to those guys? were they arrested? were they charged? they wanted to know just like today that law enforcement, the vast majority as i point out many, many times are good, honorable men and women. it's people like derek chauvin that have to be rooted out and in the face of fear you have to do the job. that same courage is required of the same officers when they see another fellow officer doing wrong that they must have that courage and conviction to report it and to take action to prevent it if necessary. >> let me play another clip of

this for you, tim especially given your experience. this is when steve schleicher is trying to say, why did he have to shove him into the car, and you see the exchange. you see his face. i think we've got that available and let's play that and get your reaction on the other side. >> the defendant arrives on the scene, he surveys the scene. he saunters up to the car, and he slips on his gloves. >> you can't win, bro! >> i'm not trying to win. i'm not trying to win. i'm on the ground. >> get in the car. >> he knows it. don't do me like that, man. >> if you get in this car we can talk. >> i'm claustrophobic. >> you are not working with me.

>> i'm claustrophobic. >> put me in the front, please? i'm claustrophobic. i'm not a bad guy, man! >> you won't 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 that car. it looked like he'd seen a monster. why is it necessary to shove him in the car? he just couldn't be in the back of that car and so they pull him out. >> tim alexander, what's your reaction to that sequence? >> that there is another major failure on chauvin's part. he was a senior man. he could have walked up and said okay. let me talk to you for a second. let me explain to you what we have to do, what will it take to get you in the car and alternative ways to get to the

station which i don't agree with, but instead of bringing calm and experience he brought additional chaos. he is that guy. every law enforcement officer has worked with that person, and your shoulders drop and you know he's going to take it to a new level that you don't necessarily need to go to and until you have that experience and the wherewithal to say no, officer, chauvin, stay away. i've got this. you have to deal with this situation and he failed in every possible way as a police officer. as a man, as a senior as a police officer he continued to fail derek -- sorry, george floyd and his fellow officers because he took it to that level and they went along with him. >> as you all know there is one reporter, one journalist inside the courtroom and he or she is known as the pool reporter. shaq brewster, outside, you've been reading the pool report. how are the jurors reacting so far to the prosecution closing argument?

>> well, andrea, it sounds very similar throughout the trial, they've been engaged, leaning in, taking notes. as steve schleicher is making closing arguments, at the end, that the bystanders didn't have the power to intervene, but you as members of the jury do have the power. all of the jurors had their eyes fixed on schleicher as he said they have the power. you heard schleicher of conversations they had during the jury selection process, that process that took about three weeks and we learned from those jurors as they were the ones under oath answering questions from both attorneys. many of them said that they had favorable views of blue lives matter after being asked about that. the police make them feel safe, that they're comfortable with them. you've heard him reference that. this is not a case about policing. this is not the case of minnesota versus the police.

this is, instead, the state of minnesota against derek shoafin and trying to show that this is not putting police on trial or policing on trial, instead they're about the actions of an individual officer. i'll tell you andrea, people that are activists and protesting and demonstrating, that is not how they see it. they see this as a message. this verdict could send a message of accountability that they believe the police department and policing need. so that's a discrepancy that you hear among what's happening in the courtroom which is the argument he's making and the legal argument that this is about the actions of ex-officer derek chauvin and what you hear from people and the activists who see and saw what happened to george floyd and are demonstrating and they want a conviction. they believe that this is very much about policing, andrea. >> shaq, the white house is clearly preparing, concerned about what kind of decision and what the reaction is going to be. so let's bring in jeff bennett, our white house correspondent.

jeff, what is the president preparing to say even before this case gets to the jury? >> well, andrea, an administration official tells me the white house is following the developments in this case closely, that they are preparing a statement for president biden to deliver once a verdict is rendered. our team is told that the president has been holding meetings for about the last two weeks with top relevant white house officials to game out various responses both in terms of public safety and the presidential response based on the various possible verdict outcomes and i can tell you based on my reporting that no matter the outcome, president biden is expected to emphasize the grief, the outrage that so many americans are feeling in the wake of george floyd's killing and that of other unarmed black men at the hands of police. it was just last monday where president biden in the oval office over the police killing of daunte wright who was killed by that white police officer who was said to have used a gun instead of her taser when she

was interacting with him, shot and killed him and the president said that wright's death is no justification for looting or violence, as he was calling for calm. wright family attorney benjamin crump said that it's important for all leaders, for local leaders up to the president of the united states that when they make statements like that to add to that that the police killing of unarmed black people is unacceptable and i'm told that that message was heard from this white house and that any comment from the vice president or president would include that. from the department of justice, i am told there are frequent conversations between the administration officials and the governor of minnesota and the attorney general of minnesota about making sure that the white house and local officials are prepared for protests not just in minnesota, but across the country, should they happen, andrea. >> thanks so much, jeff bennett. important update from the white house. melissa murray, the judge gave

his instructions to the jury, let me play a bit of that when he's talking about how to define bodily harm. >> there are several forms of bodily harm relevant to some of the charges for the defense. 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. to cause death, causing death or caused the death means that the defendant's act or acts were a substantial causal factor in causing the death of george floyd. 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. >> melissa murray, as a law

professor did you hear anything in the judge's charge that would lean toward the prosecution or the defense in any way? >> to be clear, andrea, both the prosecution and the defense have worked together to produce these jury instructions. the judge takes their input and revises them. i thought it was interesting that the charge was delivered in advanced of closing arguments as opposed to after the argument which is is the case. the important point is he defined for the jury what it means to be a substantial cause of death. that's incredibly important for the prosecution that has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was officer chauvin's actions that were a substantial cause of george floyd's death and it means on closing argument for the defense we will hear a lot more about the prospect of superseding causes, carbon monoxide poisoning and drug use, and all superseded what officer chauvin had done and were the substantial cause of george floyd's death. >> and in doing that, does that

make it -- it makes it important, obviously, for the defense to try it on make that case, but we know that the prosecution will then have another opportunity to rebutt the closing argument. they get the final word. >> that's true. the prosecution has a final opportunity to rebutt. again, they don't want to press this too long. they have a jury that's eager to get in and deliberate and have this be over. so they're going to be, i think, gauging what's the most effective use of that time on rebuttal and to reiterate the points they've made that they have proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt and officer chauvin is the cause of george floyd's death and his use of force is excessive under the circumstances. >> paul butler, from your extensive experience teaching law, what to expect more from the defense right now? the defense is going to come in at any moment and they will start their closing argument. i think they're -- let me interrupt myself and you because we will hear from judge cahill as he introduces the defense.

>> may it please the court, counsel, mr. chauvin, members of the jury, i want to take this opportunity first to thank each and every one of you for your service, your diligence and your attention to this matter. we all recognize the disruption that jury service places on your personal and professional lives especially in a case of this magnitude and duration. so on behalf of mr. chauvin, i want to thank each and every one of you for your attention and service to this jury. i am going to apologize if i get a little long winded because i get one bite at the apple here. the state has an opportunity to rebutt my statement after this. there's so very much we need to cover. there's so very much we need to talk about and it is all important.

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

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

and the way we lawyers sometimes illustrate what these three standards mean is through the scales of justice, right? the scales of justice equally balanced. when you apply the standard of the preponderance of the evidence it's also called the scintilla of the evidence. a single grain of sand tips the scales in the favor of one party or the other, and this burden of proof is used in many civil cases, somebody that the state wants to take away your driver's license, for an example, that is the burden of proof that the state has in that type of a case. they have to just ever so slightly convince the finder of fact that their evidence supports their action. the next standard is clear and

convincing evidence. that's pretty self-explanatory, right? it is clear evidence, and it convinces you, the finder of fact, that the action is correct. this is the standard of proof that is used if the state wants to take away your children. clear and convincing evidence. it tips the scales in favor of one party over the other. the highest standard in this country is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. proof beyond a reasonable doubt. essentially, what the state has to convince you is that the evidence in this case completely eliminates any reasonable doubt or in other words, leaving only

unreasonable doubt. capricious, fanciful. capricious means unpredictable. fanciful, space aliens flew in, inhabited the body of derek chauvin and caused this stuff. that's fanciful. beyond a reasonable doubt. it is the highest standard in the law. it doesn't mean beyond all possibility of doubt because i suppose space aliens may have been inhabiting his body, but that's obviously fanciful and capricious. so this -- these two standards, the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt work in concert with each other. you start with the proposition that mr. chauvin is innocent of

these charges. the state has to advance substantial evidence to convince you that the only doubts that are remaining are unreasonable doubts. as you analyze the evidence in this case, you may simply have to find that any defense that has been advanced is unreasonable. that's what this standard is all about. i want to take this opportunity also to talk to you about the importance of reading the entire instruction because i've seen and lawyers and i'm going to do it, too, right? we pick and choose those things that help us make our case and

that's our job as lawyers is point out words and phrases with the instructions that make the difference in the case and to take that evidence and present it to you in such a way that it supports our proposition. that's what we do. that's why you are instructed that if your memories of the evidence is different, that if your -- that the judge's law is what applies, but take the time to carefully read the entire instructions. throughout the course of this trial you've seen us do this, right? little snippets, a second here, a second there, a screen shot here, a screen shot there. you need to review the entirety

of the evidence during the course of your deliberation, as well. i can tell you that some of the videos that we've seen, they're much longer than what was presented in court. there's additional information and you're going to see some of that as we go through this case today. so take the time and conduct an honest assessment of the facts of this case. compare it to the law as the judge instructs you and the entirety of the law. that's yet instructions tell you, consider the instructions as a whole. i've told you that lawyers like to present evidence that favors them, right? but we have to be intellectually honest about the evidence. we have to present it in an honest and intellectually

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

and you just heard the state say, just like i am right here, right? so it stands for -- i can stand in front of you and argue to you we know this wasn't asphyxiation because george floyd had a 98% oxygen level. how could he have been asphyxiated at the hospital with a 98% oxygen level? but that's not intellectually honest. it doesn't stack up against the rest of the evidence because of what we know, right? we heard the testimony of seth bravinder and derek smith, the paramedics. we heard the testimony of dr. lagenfeld. they came in and they said they began resuscitative efforts and they introduced oxygen -- oxygen

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

compare the evidence against itself. test it. challenge it, compare it to the law, read their instructions in their entirety. start from the point of the presumption of innocence and see how far the state can get. i submit to you that the state has failed to meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. >> mr. chauvin has been charged as the state indicated with these three charges and the judge has instructed you. count one is second-degree murder while committing a felony. it is also called the felony murder rule in minnesota. kind of the textbook example is i run into a liquor store. i pull a gun.

i'm intending to rob a liquor store. my gun goes off. i shoot and kill the teller. i didn't intend to go in and murder that person, but the death of that teller occurred while i was committing a felony. that's the felony murder rule. . he has been charged with murder in the third degree, for performing an intentional act that was imminently dangerous. you have seen the instructions. you have heard them. and manslaughter in the second degree. again the law has all of the words it defines you need and the instructions should be considered in their entirety. whenever i meet with a client, i try to explain what the elements are. and this is the analogy that i use. i say that a criminal case is like baking chocolate chi

cookies. you have to have flour and sugar and butter and chocolate chips and whatever else goes into the cookies. if you have all of the ingredients, you can make chocolate chip cookies. if you are missing any one single ingredient, you can't make chocolate chip cookies. it's a simple analogy. the criminal law works the same way. we say, the -- the ingredients are the elements. the state has the burden of proving each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt. not just some global proposition that they have proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. they have to prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt. if you determine that they have done so, you convict. but if they are missing any one single element, any one single element, it is a not guilty verdict.

you saw the spreadsheet that the state put up. right? the elements are a little different in each of these cases. some of these elements will take less of your consideration. you will have to look at the evidence and you will have to, for example, determine is cup foods in the city of minneapolis, is minneapolis in hennepin,, minnesota. you have to do that. you have to go through the process. two of these elements are common throughout -- two of these issues are common and applied to all three counts. i want to focus my remarks today on those two issues.

the first, were mr. chauvin's actions an authorized use of force by a police officer? because in the instructions, it specifically tells you, no crime is committed if it was an authorized use of force. period. end of discussion. the second is an element that is and does appear in all three counts, that is, the cause of death. what caused mr. floyd's death? we're going to talk about that second. let's start with the concept of reasonable force. as the instructions read in their entirety, no crime is committed if a police officer's actions were justified by the police officer's use of reasonable force in the line of duty in effecting a lawful

arrest or preventing an escape from custody. the kind and degree of force a police officer may lawfully use in executing his duties is limited by what a reasonable police officer in the same situation would believe to be necessary. any use of force beyond that is not reasonable. to determine if the actions of the police 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, intention or

motivations. the defendant is not guilty of a crime if he used force as authorized by law and to prove guilt, the state must further prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's use of force was not authorized by law. if you remember from my opening statement and how i talked about reason and common sense. the reasonable police officer standard. i want to just briefly add one thing here. is the standard is not what should the officer have done in these circumstances. it's not what could the officer have done differently in these circumstances. the standard is, what were the facts that were known to this officer at the precise moment he

used force and considering all of the totality of circumstances and facts known to the officer, would a reasonable police officer -- what would a reasonable police officer have done? you have heard from numerous experts, police use of force experts, training department from the minneapolis police department. you have heard from police officers, street police officers. sergeant edwards, you have heard from these people. they have given you their opinions at various stages as to the reasonableness of the use of force. one of the things that the state -- excuse me, one of the things that all of these police officers effectively agreed to is that when you look at the question of what would a reasonable police officer do

knowing the facts of the case, there are things that a police officer is entitled to take into consideration above and beyond the facts. right? their training. the training that they receive. their experience as a police officer. the department's policies on the use of force. all of these things kind of lead into the question of most critically, what are the facts that were known to the police officer, a reasonable police officer at the precise moment the force was used? what was the knowledge? is this a high crime location? is it a low crime area? those are things -- those are facts that a police officer would know. what are the specifics of the location of arrest?

am i going into a densely populated urban environment, or i am in a secluded backyard? officer is calculating these pieces of information and assessing the risk. assessing the threats. officers are entitled to take into consideration things that you and i don't think about. their tactical advantages, disadvantages. they can take into consideration the scene security. again, focusing back into what facts were known at the precise moment force is used, you can then take into consideration this midrange level of information. a reasonable officer wants to keep his fellow officers safe.

a reasonable police officer takes into consideration the safety of civilians. a reasonable police officer takes into account the safety of the person that they are arresting. they take into account what resources do i have based upon how close am i to a hospital? what's the expected time if i call ems? a reasonable police officer at times, they have to put the person in their squad car sometimes and take them, because they are farther away. calling for help, bringing help in would take longer than it would simply to take the person directly. then you look at the direct knowledge that a reasonable police officer would have at the precise moment force was used. that includes information that they gather from dispatch, their

direct observations of the scene, the subjects and the current surroundings. they have to take into consideration whether they suspect -- the suspect was under the influence of a controlled substance. they can take into consideration -- again, this is a dynamic and ever changing -- just like life. things change. it's a dynamic situation. it's fluid. they take into account their experience with the subject at the beginning, the middle, the end. they try to -- a reasonable police officer tries to predict or is at least cognizant and concerned about future behavior based upon past behavior. the unpredictability of humans factors into the reasonable police officer's analysis, too. sometimes people take -- reasonable police officers take someone into