and therefore, mr. chauvin should be found not guilty of all counts. thank you. >> members of the jury, there's an issue i need to discuss with lawyers so we'll send you back to your room for probably about five minutes. >> hi, everyone. i'm niccole wallace. watching along with us nbc news correspondent shaquelle brewster and claire mccaskill and eric dyson author of "long time coming" we hope to talk about that but we are in a five-minute break here and i wonder if you

could put your former prosecutor hat on and tell us where we are in this point of the closing arguments. >> watching this reminds me of what it felt to sit at the table and listen to defense lawyers make their close and you just being so anxious to stand back up and rebut and that's what the prosecutor's going to do now. the prosecutor's going to walk this jury back through the law and the evidence. i got to tell you from my perspective this defense attorney, i don't think he did his client a lot of favors. he rambled and went on and on and on and on rather than just focusing on his most powerful arguments, briefly and strongly. it is almost like he kept trying to throw stuff up against the wall to see if anything would stick and jurors sense that. he only has to get one jury to make it be a hung jury with no

result but i didn't think he was particularly effective because he just talked too long and reminded me of senators talking too long. >> michael eric tyson, everything you have written on this topic is so profound but here we find ourselves in a five-minute break and i wonder your thoughts and reactions of a desperate hail mary here from derek chauvin's defense attorney. >> it is rather doug floute-like. in the past black skepticism is justified because with trialing with manifest evidence against a particular police officer the trial has not had the desired outcome. so while we believe, hopefully,

that the very thin evidence upon which this jury must hang its verdict this favor of former officer derek chauvin will come to the right conclusion there ain't much there the reality is as senator mccaskill said only one jury needs to be convinced and the blizzard of technicality that the deaf lawyer put forth, the hardening of the arteries, an amateur, you know, cardiologist there, it only takes one to be dissuaded. i think however so far the deaf doesn't have much to work with and shown in their pal tri and really mall nourished defense for mr. chauvin. >> so he described a flurry of technicalities. the judge is listening to a debate over one such technicality. the jury is not in the room for

this. let's see if we can listen in. >> to testify but that statement is directly at odds with the evidence in the record. >> mr. nelson, any response? >> read the quote. >> mr. chauvin thought he was following his training. >> what was the context i said that in? >> well, it was in your use of force discussion and you were talking about reasonable officer following his training and you indicated that mr. chauvin thought he was following his training. >> i don't recall saying it, your honor. i mean -- >> even if you did, it was drowned out by a reasonable officer. i think it's a reasonable inference to draw from the evidence that exists. even a statement to mr.

macmillian saying he was following the training. it is reasonable to argue from the evidence. and to respond to that specific cli if i say there's no evidence would be commenting on his right to remain silent. the bind the state is always in. you can talk about requoting what the elements are on assault in the third degree. also, anything else that you think was a misstatement of law. i will read them the statements of judges and attorneys if you wish. do you want me to reread that or should i -- >> yes, your honor. >> okay. >> i don't want to force it on you but that would be my -- to remind them. >> and ask that reread the instruction on causation because i believe what mr. nelson argued is that the state is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the other issues he spoke

about had no effect, right? no causal connection and that is not the law. >> i'm not going to single out that instruction and reinstruct on that. i'm just going to read them the general one and if it differs and i'm sure he'll point that out. >> yes, sir. >> all right. bring the jury back. >> your honor, i would note that the -- principle argument in terms of contradicting the defense argument -- the state made comments about essentially the nonsense of the defense in this case. and it is improper --

>> i know what you are going to say. hold that thought. be seated. mr. blackwell? >> thank you, your honor. >> you may give the state's rebuttal. members of the jury, i will reread an instruction and that's specifically that attorneys are officers of the court and it is their duty to make objections they think proper and to argue the cause. however the arguments or other remarks of an attorney are not evidence. if the attorneys or i made or

should make any statement as to what the evidence is that differs from your recollection of the evidence you should disregard that statement and rely solely on your own memory. if an attorney's argument contains any statement of law that differs from the law i give you, disregard the attorney's statement. mr. blackwell? >> thank you, your honor. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. last lawyer i think talking to you with closings will be me and i won't be too long. i'm going to start talking to you about what i call the 46th witness. you have heard from 45 witnesses on the stand but there is a 46th witness and this witness was testifying to you before you got here to the courtroom. they testified over everybody else's testimony on the stand. only witness that will be talking to you back in deliberations and that witness, ladies and gentlemen, is common sense.

common sense. will continue talking to you all the while because while you have heard hours and hours and hours of discussions here in the closing, ultimately really isn't all that complicated. in what it is you have to decide with respect to the excessive use of the force and the issue of kauai sags. the contact it is so simple a child can understand and a child did understand it when the 9-year-old girl said get off of him. common sense. why is it necessary to continue applying deadly restraint to a man who is defenseless, who is handcuffed, who is not resisting, who is not breathing, who doesn't have a pulse, and to go on and do that before the ambulance shows and then to

continue doing it? how is that a reasonable exercise in the use of force? you can believe your eyes, ladies and gentlemen. it was what you thought it was. it was what you saw. it was homicide. now, mr. nelson spent quite a bit of time saying to you perform an honest assessment. consider it all. reasonable officer. reasonable officer is not magical words to apply to derek chauvin. reasonable is as reasonable does. and here what you saw wasn't reasonable. notice the discussion about reasonable officer mr. chauvin the narrative cut off before the point that mr. floyd was not moving, that he was not conscious, that he didn't have a pulse, and that mr. chauvin still on top of him when the emts showed up.

and then if you look at the totality of the circumstances which you heard so much about, why doesn't that tell you exactly where he was coming from? if we're talking about reasonable officer. now, you heard any number of other things that in looking at the totality of circumstances and trying to do an honest assessment you didn't get the whole story. you got bits and pieces and parts and it is either completely not true or the facts have been altered to make a point to you which makes it a story. when you reach when you deliberate is a verdict. verdict means the truth. you don't reach a story of when all is said and done but the truth. why are we telling stories when we heard evidence? you heard a number of them. i'll give you a few examples. ump just talked to about how

safe the prone position is and you have heard this in the trial. the prone position is safe. here are the canadian studies. after everything you have heard you know that not a single one of the studies examined anyone with a knee on the neck and you know about the prone studies none of them measured what was the oxygen reserve. that is, how's the oxygen actually affected by somebody in the prone position and any amount of weight on them? never measured it. that wasn't brought out told about the studies to show that the prone position is safe. you heard again about excited delirium. not a single witness gave you testimony that they felt that mr. george floyd suffered excited delirium. not one. one criteria is the person's

impervious to feel pain. they don't say my neck or knee or everything hurts. that's a fact. if that's a fact, why are we talking about? why isn't that said? then we turn to dr. baker and told that homicide is a medical term. that's not what dr. baker said? he said that homicide means killed at the hands of another. at the hands of another. is what homicide means. at the hands of another. and he was pretty clear in discussing the cause of death. he said it was cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement sub dual restraint and neck compression. and he did explain what complicating means.

he said it means in the environment of. so it reads at though it's cardiopulmonary arrest in the environment of sub dual and neck compression. what you were just told and that was attributed to dr. baker is somehow he meant that it was an unexpected result. it was an unexpected result of the law enforcement sub dual restraint and neck sub dual restraint and neck compression. dr. baker didn't talk to us about use of force by police officers. it is not what he said. it was simply words put into his mouth but you check your notes on the testimony and see that wasn't it. you've heard now for the umpteeth time in this trial, what is the evidence on autopsy

for asphyxia looking at the body tissues? you have heard from witness after witness on the stand and pulled out giant terks textbooks that the defense expert says these are reliable authorities on it. every one of them said in half or better of the cases where somebody died from insufficient oxygen you don't see any evidence in the body tissues. ladies and gentlemen, that's a fact. if this is supposed to be about performing an honest assessment looking at the totality of the evidence how is that not mentioned to you in summarizing the evidence? how's it not mentioned to you? i can't stop there because you were also told about the law that applies to this. you are told by judge cahill and no question that was accurate but then you were told by mr. nelson. no question that was not accurate.

i'll tell you what i mean. what he was talking about causation. fentanyl. heart failure. hypertension. he said that we have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that none of the other factors played a role. that's not the law. and you don't have to believe me. you can read it yourself. you will see the instructions what we need to show is that the defendant's actions were a substantial causal factor in his death. didn't have to be the only causal factor or biggest factor. just has to be one of them. and the instruction will say that the fact that other causes contribute to the death does not relieve the defendant of criminal liability. there can be other factors. dr. baker had a section, i think called other factors, and he was

clear. the other factors are not direct causes of the death, the direct cause was cardiopulmonary arrest in the environment of the police sub dual restraint and neck compression. when i got the question again all i did ask him about what he wrote on the certificate about the case. cause of death. cardiopulmonary arrest. manner of death homicide. at the hands of another. he was crystal clear on it. he did not equivocate. but what you have gotten here is a number of what i'd call stories. that once you analyze them, and you -- >> your honor? [ inaudible ] >> once you analyze them and against the facts and the

evidence that you have heard you will see what i mean. take, for example, the notion that mr. floyd dying of cardiopulmonary arrest was koins derntal. died in the same time in the same place of factors unrelatted to what derek chauvin was doing with the sub dual restraint and neck compression. that's a story. it defies common sense. i'll show you what i mean. sorry, your honor. if we just treat each day that mr. floyd lived, born october 14, 1973 just made a dot on a

package and looked at over his lifetime. you will see here over ten years, 20, 30, 40 years up to may 25th of 2020, that means that mr. floyd would have lived up to that stay 17,026 days. now only one of these dots corresponds to may 25th. all the rest of the days, all the rest of the dots represent days that mr. floyd was living. breathing. he had a being. he was living. he was breathing and had a being. with every single disorder that mr. nelson chronicled. each and every day with husband struggled with opioid addiction, high blood pressure, et cetera. every single day except the one day. may 25th, that speck of a dot and not even that whole day.

because as we know there was a ten-minute segment, 9:29, that he didn't survive. so in -- one day's time 144 of those. ten-minute seconds. and only one of them was the reason that mr. floyd failed to survive and what happened in that space, you know what happened, ladies and gentlemen. there's deadly force applied. we know it's deadly force because we heard from officer zimmerman on the stand who told us. deadly force because the force capable of killing a person which makes it deadly force. now, deadly force, ladies and gentlemen, once you see what mr. floyd was subjected to with the deadly force in the prone position, there is certain consequences or the risk that come with the prone position and the use of this kind of deadly

force and that primary risk is the it affects your breathing why you heard from witness after witness after witness. it affects your brooerting. makes it harder to breathe. you put the subject in the prone recovery position as soon as possible because you don't want to affect the breathing with low oxygen. do you have evidence of low oxygen here? there is, ladies and gentlemen, medically unassailable medically. take, for example, the fact that mr. floyd had an anoxic seizure. that is, he's already unconscious. not breathing and the body having a twitching reflex. that seizure represents low oxygen to the brain. and then that causes the seizure. he suffered from remember p. a. and talked about the

pulseless electrical activity. the common cause of p.e.a. is low oxygen. you can't fake it. there's evidence of low oxygen and would have been proceeded from the use of this very kind of deadly force. and this deadly force took place as we know within the 9:29. now, you heard the statement that the state is seeking to ignore significant medical issues. nothing could be further from the truth. what you heard from doctor after doctor, whether it is the e.r. physician, the cardiologist, dr. smock, so many of the doctors you heard that here's -- dr. baker also, but dr. thomas, here's where they all converge

is recognize first and foremost a use of force by mr. chauvin that set off a number of things medically for mr. floyd that culminated in hid his death. the heart has stopped and he's no longer breathing. dr. baker will tell you that this stress to which mr. floyd was enough in, of and by united states to explain the demise. when asked the question, what about his oxygen levels, did he have insufficient oxygen? that's not something i can calculate as a forensic pathologist said mr. baker. that's not something i can calculate as a forensic pathologist, said dr. fowler and dr. thomas said the same thing.

but they said they would refer to pulmonologist and he can tell you how much oxygen was in mr. floyd's body and he could tell you that when he is put in the prone position that his oxygen would have decreased by 24%. he can tell you when weight was put on mr. floyd's back the oxygen diminished to 43%. he can tell you that the weight on the back that the hypo fair ax would narrow and told you medically scientifically not only could mr. floyd not survive, but no human being could have survived based on the science. based on the science. now, if it's dismissed as

theoretical which is i think a word i heard and dr. fowler said he would defer and that's what dr. tobin did and so here, ladies and gentlemen, we are only required to show that mr. chauvin's conduct was a substantial cause, a substantial factor in mr. floyd's death. did he simply die automatically and exclusively from the low oxygen? ultimate it translates into not breathing and the heart stopping. did it first impact the heart and the heart stop first? ultimately they both stopped all stemming back to the sub dual restraint and neck compression from mr. chauvin. they all agree that that was the

precipitating point and then from there the stresses, the strarns on mr. floyd's body, the low oxygen culminated in his ultimate demise and his passing away. so i want to address and several other points under the heading of what i think are stories that you have heard versus i think the truths here. i think you all were asked and talked to about two sides to every story. which is one of the most dangerous things i think about the process of truth because it suggests that everything is simply reduced to a story. and if it is a story, that means there can be two multiple sides to the story and never a truth

or reality. except that what we're about here is getting to the truth. and not simply stories. now it is most certainly right, for example, for a police officer to take seriously this overarching mission of the police department embracing the sanctity of life an protection of the public as the highest values. but it is equally wrong, it is equally wrong to take this badge which is a symbol of a commitment to a higher calling to serve the people, to use this badge as a license, to abuse the public, to mistreat the public, to not follow proper procedures, to not render aid when you should. that's wrong. that is not a story.

that is simply wrong and the other two sides are the "w" and the "g" for that being wrong. now, you have heard statements to the effect of mr. chauvin be concerned about the bystanders and others. if you look at the evidence, you have to bear in mind that at all relevant times here there's five men police officers right there. and four right there on the scene. and then you got officer chan there. there's a radio to call for backup if they felt it was needed. you didn't hear evidence of a call for backup at all. now, there have concern here that mr. chauvin was concerned. and i won't say much more about

body language and discuss for yourself if this's the face of one afraid at the time because he had all of the power at this point. he had the bull lets, guns, the mace that he threatened the bystanders with, backup, did badge. and he had all of it. and what was there to be afraid here particularly at this scene? there were three high school juniors there. and a second grader who was going to the store to get candy. a high school senior taking her cousin to the store. a first responder on the scene. and there was donna williams who wanted nothing more than to try to intervene to try to save mr. floyd's life. mr. charleston miller, a 61-year-old man, that if i gave him a name i would call him the mayor of the nakd. he just likes to see what's

going on and to look out for things but simply there to try to intervene to save mr. floyd's life. so this wasn't the face of fear or worry. you saw that face that day at that time. that's what fear and worry looked like. when mr. george floyd was well aware with one wrong move of his hand, one turn in the wrong direction and it could be his last turn and be killed over the investigation of a $20 bill. that's fear. now, you were told some stories about the bystanders. and the suggestion that they were an unruly crowd. you've gotten to meet them now. you've gotten to meet two thirds of ones there at that time.

i described them earlier as a bouquet of humanity because they came at different ages, genders, races and came together focused on the one thing which was they saw that a human being that they did not know was suffering and wanted to try to intervene to stop the suffering. and in that sense, they were not only symbols of the love and care we want to encourage but they were also something more than that. they were also symbols of what it means to respect this badge because they were in a very difficult spot then. you saw them on the stand almost to the last one in tears. you felt the anguish even a year after the fact. they felt torn between their love for the sanctity of life

itself and on the other hand their respect for the authority that the badge represents. for the city. for the state. they were torn between them. the ultimate proof of this is if they did not respect this badge they could have taken the law into their own hands and had removed mr. chauvin. then we wouldn't have to have questions about reasonable to stand on a man's neck not breathing and not have these discussions at all but none of them did that. because they represent this badge even if it tore them up inside. none of them did that. they called the police on the police. they picked up the phones to memorialize what they were seeing. instead they waited for the day to come in and talk with you. not, ladies and gentlemen, to tell their story but to tell their truth about what they

experienced. they didn't deserve to be called unruly because they with respect. and you will hear time and again the crowd was getting louder, agitated and angry so we can't see somehow what it is that they're upset around. a defenseless, helpless man is losing his life one breath at a time in front of them and nothing that they can do. if you love life you get excited when you see life being taken. that's what they were excited about. and if they all just wanted a donut in watching this you might wonder what's wrong with them. that's why they were upset. you felt their pain, their sense of helplessness. what you heard about them was a story, ladies and gentlemen. the stories are just excuses

that get told. >> i'm going to object to that. >> the use of the stories. >> the fact of the matter is there's no excuse for police abuse and i'll be clear, ladies and gentlemen. i will tell you if i think there's a fact that's altered and will tell you what that is. that's what i mean when i say story but there's no excuse, ladies and gentlemen, for police abuse and you have heard any number of these. so let me walk through some of them. you've heard accounts that the traffic was distracting. to mr. chauvin. well, the fact was that you heard from the 911 dispatcher who's watching the scene. and she said that the officers remained in the same place in the same positions for so long

on top of the body of mr. floyd that she thought the camera was broken and frozen. they weren't distracted. they weren't concerned by the traffic or anything else. they had an officer there, officer thao, whose job it was to fend off distractions. you've also heard about the paramedics taking -- took too long. the paramedics took longer. should have been there within three minutes and the common sense will tell you that the mere that they took longer than mr. chauvin may have thought is not a reason to either use excessive force or to abuse or to be indifferent to the fact that someone is not breathing and doesn't have a pulse that the paramedics took too long. you heard about the

paraganglioma. that's how rare it is and insignificant it is. the hallmark of it, headaches. mr. floyd wasn't reporting headaches. if you talk about that talk about the fact that you know the hallmark is headaches and he didn't have them. if this is about getting at the truth and performing an honest assessment if that's what we're doing. the fact of the matter is, there have been six cases in reported history where somebody had a sudden death from a paraganglioma. period. carbon monoxide. now, other than mr. nelson saying that the car was turned on at the time nobody from that witness stand from the evidence

in this case said the police car was on. you did hear it was a hybrid vehicle. you know? how do we talk about carbon monoxide with no evidence that the car was on if we talk about carbon monoxide and give this an honest, reasonable assessment. more to the point, whose car was it, ladies and gentlemen. that if mr. floyd is being subdued on the ground by mr. chauvin and if he puts his face in front of a taillight of a car spewing carbon monoxide why isn't that an unreasonable use of force? what reasonable police officer would apprehend someone and put the face in the tail pipe of a car and think that's a defense?

here not particularly fair is no evidence the car was ever on and learned if he was suffering from carbon monoxide as dr. tobin told you you wouldn't be able to get a 98% oxygen saturation from the oxygen they gave him artificially. you heard about the feint anyone overdose and with this one you were just told, oh, earlier that afternoon he was asleep in the car. ladies and gentlemen, that's not the hallmark of somebody that died from an overdose. didn't just take a nap and dozed off. if you pass from an overdose you cannot be awakened. you are in a coma. if people are shaking you it is to no avail. if we are doing an honest assessment of the facts looking at the totality of the circumstances if we're going to talk about fentanyl, death by

fentanyl or an overdose why isn't that said? he does not fit the description of anyone that dies from a fentanyl overdose and even dr. fowler conceded from the stand in terms of what an overdees looks like. not somebody saying i can't breathe. my neck hurts. my back hurts. everything hurts. you know? you can't win. i'm not trying to win. that's not what happens with somebody is suffering or dieing from a fentd nil overdose. they're completely nonresponse i have and not reactive at all. methamphetamine. what meth? there was no little of it that it was below the therapeutic levels that are given. you heard that from the toxicologist, from mms, the laboratory that hennepin sends off the blood samples to to test

for tox. he told you it was a minuscule amount of method in his blood. then we heard about the pills. on cross-examination on the pills i brought out the fact that what they were saying a pill he was taken in the car is just as likely chewing gum. opened his mouth and saw it in the mouth. but here's the deal about the pill just if we are going to give this an honest assessment of the evidence. why we talking about pills not in his system? we know what's in his bloodstream already. we know he struggled with opioid addiction. why are we talking about pills not in george floyd? why? you have to decide that for yourself, ladies and gentlemen. what is the point? and you keep hearing drugs in the car, drugs in the car and the drugs were one pill.

one. one pill. it was not in george floyd. and then the suggestion that hoefs somehow taking it in handcuffs in the police car which makes no sense. there was no evidence that george floyd taken any pills in the police car at all. there was a pill found there. only. you heard references in talking about dr. tobin. and his 46 years of experience studying the way people breathe. but mr. chauvin's not a medical doctor. he doesn't have these years of experience and hours to pour over records. he didn't need it. you know who else is not a medical doctor? 9-year-old girl is not a medical doctor. didn't need to be a medical doctor to understand that when somebody's saying i can't breathe and not just saying it.

everything about them is showing that they can't breathe and when that ends they just are passed out. you don't need a phd. you don't need an md. to understand how fundamental breathing is to life and when's saying they cannot breathe and passed out and don't have a pulse even a 9-year-old little girl knows ibtd. get off of him. that's all you needed the know in that case. you just a couple more of these because i can't do them all because there's so many. this concern that george floyd would somehow come to again and say we didn't need superhuman strength except maybe we really do. we heard from three medical examiners, ladies and gentlemen. three of them. between the three of them they probably have done close to

15,000 autopsies. and not a single one of them testified about one instance ever where somebody who didn't have a pulse somehow spontaneously came back to life, broke handcuffs and rampaged the city. the facts of this case, not some other thing. mr. floyd didn't have a pulse. that didn't justify keeping the knee on his neck. because you're afraid to come to with no pulse and rampage the city. that's what you see in halloween movies, ladies and gentlemen. not in real life. not in real life. the idea that mr. floyd suffered from a sudden death which is what dr. fowler was saying, he'll say that mr. floyd had a fatal arrhythmia in the end and

ultimately everybody dies in the end of a fatal arrhythmia. the heart and lungs stops and then the last thing that happens is blip you get an arrhythmia and then that's it. is there any evidence of arrhythmia as the primary cause of death unrelated to the sub dual restraint and neck compression on the ground? zero. there was zero evidence that he had a heart attack. zero. in fact his heart was in such normal condition that dr. baker did an autopsy didn't have a need to photograph it intact. because it was so normal. dr. rich did not say anything akin to george floyd having a normal heart. that's not what he said. what he said was that he had a strong heart. he had a strong heart. and what he meant by that is that he sees patients all the

time who may be in need of transplants with serious cardiac disease and can't get a normal blood pressure and he talked to you about how george floyd having lived with this sometime explained how the body and his -- the arteries that serve the heart were able to compensate in the case of mr. floyd and such that he did not die of a fatal arrhythmia and no evidence he died from a heart abnormality. just two more of these, things i want to clarify. there was a lot of discussion during the -- about the police

conduct, the situations can change rapidly from moment to moment. on this i don't want you to lose sight of the facts here. that for the 9:29 the problem was there was nothing moving or changing. whether mr. floyd was calling out for his life, motionless with a seizure, whether he had no pulse. no moment to moment. to the extent you hear that as representative of this case, it is not representative of this case. does not meet the facts of this case at all. so the fact of the matter is, ladies and gentlemen, the use of unreasonable force, the unreasonable use of force is an

assault. here was an assault and contributed to did death of mr. floyd. now you were told with respect to the law that the state needs to show that mr. chauvin intended to act unlawfully or to break the law. look at your instructions. that's not accurate. we will and own our burden of showing that he abouted you think lawfully but not having to prove that he intended to act unlawfully. we need only to show that he intended to do what he did which was to put the knee on the neck, the back and the shoulder. wasn't an accident and that we will show and we own that burden. so there really aren't two sides to the story about whether this use of force was unreasonable. it was not authorized by the

minneapolis police department. the pressure on mr. floyd's neck did affect his ability to breathe and i know that you were told when mr. nelson was just here that this was not a choke, not a chokehold and that donna williams had suggested or so testified. if you remember that testimony she disagreed with him every time and said that was a chokehold and explains house -- how that works. so there aren't two sides to the story of the unreasonable use of force. and when mr. floyd is saying, please, please, i can't breathe 27 times in just a few times you saw it when mr. chauvin did not let up and didn't get up. even when he passed out. not breathing anymore he doesn't

let up or get up. when he knows he doesn't have a pulse he doesn't let up or get up. even when the ambulance comes, he doesn't let up or get up even then. they have to come up and tap him before he will let up and get up off the body of mr. george floyd and they tried to resuscitate him in the ambulance. and they never do. he never regains consciousness, never breathes again and heart never pumps again and mr. george floyd was deceased. so finally, ladies and gentlemen, i will sit down in a minute but i wanted to save to the end what i thought was the biggest shading of the truth or what i call story. >> object that, your honor. >> disregard the phrase shading the truth. >> here's what i thought was the

largest departure from the evidence. you were told, for example, that mr. floyd died -- that mr. floyd died because his heart was too big. you heard that testimony. you heard that testimony. and now having seen all the evidence, having heard all the evidence, you know the truth. and the truth of the matter is that the reason george floyd is dead is because mr. chauvin's heart was too small. >> if the jury could grab your instructions again and turn to page 11. members of the jury, if you have

any question about any part of the testimony or any legal question after you have retired for your deliberation, please address it to me in writing and give it to the sheriff's deputy with the juror number of your foreperson on the note. it will take some time to answer any questions because i will have to consult with the lawyers and receive their input before answering your questions. i do not say this to discourage questions but only to advise you that it will take some time to provide you with an answer. as i told you, you will take with you into the jury room, copies of the instructions that i am reading to you. the lawyers and i have determined that these instructions contain all the laws that are necessary for you to know in order to decide the case. i cannot give you a trial transcript. no such transcript exists. we count on the jury to rely on its collective memory. you have been allowed to take notes during the trial, and you may take those notes with you into the jury room. you should not consider those notes binding or conclusive,

whether they are your notes or those of another juror. the notes should be used as an aid to your memory and not as a substitute for it. it is your recollection of the evidence that should control. you should disregard anything contrary to your recollection that may appear from your own notes or those of another juror. you should not give any greater weight to a particular piece of evidence solely because it is referred to in a note taken by a juror. we all have feelings, assumptions, perceptions, fears and stereotypes about others. some biases we are aware of and others we might not be fully aware of, which is why they are called implicit or unconscious biases. no matter how unbiased we think we are, our brains are hard wired to make unconscious decisions. we look at others and filter what they say through the lens of our own personal experience and background. because we all do this, we often

see life and evaluate evidence in a way that tends to favor people who are like ourselves or who have had life experiences like our own. we could also have biases about people like ourselves. one common example is the automatic association of male with career and female with family. bias can affect our thoughts, how we remember what we see and hear, whom we believe or disbelieve, and how we make important decisions. as jurors, you are being asked to make an important decision in this case. you must, one, take the time you need to reflect carefully and thoughtfully about the evidence. two, think about why you are making the decision you are making and examine it for bias. reconsider your first impressions of the people and the evidence in this case. if the people involved in this case were from different backgrounds, for example, richer or poorer, more or less

educated, older or younger or of a different gender, gender identity, race, religion, or sexual orientation, would you still view them and the evidence the same way? three, listen to one another. you must carefully evaluate the evidence and resist and help each other resist any urge to reach a verdict influenced by bias for or against any party or witness. each of you have different backgrounds and will be viewing this case in light of your own insights, assumptions, and biases. listening to different perspectives may help you to better identify the possible effects these hidden biases may have on decision making. and four, resist jumping to conclusions based on personal likes or dislikes. generalizations, gut feelings, prejudices, sympathies, stereotypes or unconscious biases.

the law demands that you make a fair decision based solely on the evidence, your individual evaluations of that evidence, your reason and common sense, and these instructions. when you return to the jury room to discuss this case, you must select a jury member to be foreperson. that person will lead your deliberations. in order for you to return a verdict, whether guilty or not guilty, each juror must agree with that verdict. your verdict must be unanimous. you should discuss this case with one another and deliberate with a view towards reaching agreement. if you can do so without violating your individual judgment, you should decide the case for yourself but only after you have discussed the case with your fellow jurors and have carefully considered their views. you should not hesitate to re-examine your views and change your opinion if you become convinced they are erroneous. but you should not surrender your honest opinion simply because other jurors disagree or merely to reach a verdict.

a single verdict form for each count has been prepared for your use, and when you have finished your deliberations, and have reached a verdict as to a specific count, the foreperson should mark the appropriate choice of the form with an "x" and then date and sign the verdict form, filling in the foreperson's juror number on the indicated line and then signing the foreperson's name on the second line. and just so you know, the forms look like this. so there's very little to add. just an "x," your juror number of the foreperson and the foreperson's signature. the order in which the guilty and not guilty choices appear on the verdict forms is strictly alphabetical and should not in any way be considered as indicating which choice is the correct choice. when all the verdict forms are completed, the forms should be placed in the provided envelope, sealed and given to the deputy who will convey the verdicts to the court. at a time designated by the court, your verdict will be read

out loud in the courtroom in your presence. during your deliberations, you must not let bias, prejudice, passion, sympathy, or public opinion influence your decision. you must not consider any consequences or penalties that might follow from your verdict. you must not be biased in favor of or against any party or witness because of her disability, gender, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, national origin or socioeconomic status. your verdict must be based solely on the evidence presented and the law that i give you. your like or dislike of any witness, attorney, or party should not have an effect on the outcome of the case. the state of minnesota and the defendant have a right to demand, and they do demand that you will consider and weigh the evidence, apply the law, and

reach a just verdict regardless of what the consequences might be. you must be absolutely fair. remember that it is fair to find the defendant guilty if the evidence and the law require it. on the other hand, it is fair to find the defendant not guilty if you are not convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. now, members of the jury, the case is in your hands as judges of the facts. i'm certain that you realize that this case is important and serious and therefore deserves your careful consideration. deputy? do you swear that you will keep these jurors together separate from all other persons and that you will not allow anyone to communicate with them or overhear the deliberations, that you will not make any comment to them about the law or the facts in this case, and that you will not disclose to anyone except this court anything which you may learn from their

deliberations? >> i do. >> thank you. members of the jury, you're going to go with the deputy now back to your usual room. including jurors 96 and 118. you, however, will be diverted to my office. you are our alternates and will not be a part of the deliberations but i would like to talk to you a little bit, so you can go with the remainder of the jury but follow the sheriff deputy's instructions. all rise for the jury. >> be seated. we're still on the recordment. all right. a couple of things. i know the defense was in the process, i think, of making a -- expressing a concern or an

objection to counsel's argument belittling the defense? is that what i correctly -- i correctly perceived that objection? i think we dealt with it sufficiently during the objections during the rebuttal. so there will be no additional instruction in that regard. >> your honor, i do believe that it constitutes prosecutorial misconduct and is potentially basis for a grounds for a mistrial. >> that, i think, the use of the word nonsense is what you're talking about originally? >> originally, your honor, but then in rebuttal, there were repeated comments about how we were -- and implications that we were -- that we were shading was one example, that we were creating halloween stories was another example. that these were stories and that was a repeated comment, stated that we misrepresented facts and put words into dr. baker's mouth. that we made several statements that they put forth as stories

after the court instructed him to use the -- stop using the word stories, he clarified that it's just fabricated facts, and so there were multiple references to that, that we were shading the truth. and again, so, multiple objections. this is essentially governed by state vs. mcdaniel in the final argument to the jury, a prosecutor is governed by a unique set of rules, which differ significantly from those governing counsel in civil suits and even those governing defense counsel in the very same criminal trial. the special rules follow directly from the prosecutor's inherently unique role in the criminal justice system, which mandates that the prosecutor not act as a zealot, advocate for criminal punishment but as the representative of the people in an effort to seek justice. for example, that when a prosecutor argues that a defense is meritless, she cannot belittle the defense either in

the abstract or suggesting that the defense was raised because it was the only defense. there's lots of law on this, your honor. and essentially, these comments, the repeated comments constitute prosecutorial misconduct. >> i'll note for the record that i overruled the first objection when mr. blackwell used the word story and it did not seem to be belittling. however, the continued use of it, i did sustain the ultimate objection that counsel made to the use of the word "stories" and instructed the jury to disregard it. also, on shading the truth, i sustained the objection and instructed the jury to disregard it. i'm not making any findings as to whether the it was the type of prosecutorial misconduct that would result in a mistrial. i think it was adequately addressed by the court's instruction. all right. with regard to other matters we have, i think there are some bench conferences that are fairly historical that you wanted to memorialize but also a

new motion based on events this weekend. mr. nelson? >> correct, your honor. your honor, as the court is aware and as prior to coming into court this morning for closing arguments, we had an in-chambers discussion about events of this weekend, specifically referencing that a -- an elected official, united states congressperson was making what i interpreted to be and what i think are reasonably interpreted to be threats against the sanctity of the jury process, threatening and intimidating the jury, demanding that if there's not a guilty verdict, that there would be further -- further problems, your honor, and given the fact that this jury has not been sequestered, it has been my position all along that this jury should have been sequestered at the outset. the jury has not been continually -- has not been

continually told to stay away from media, only media about this case. there's a high probability that members of this jury have seen these comments, are familiar with these comments and things that have happened throughout the course of this trial. it was unfortunate that there was another situation that occurred during the course of this trial, but obviously, your honor, we also, as i mngs eed previously, too, one of the jurors does live in the city, brooklyn center, as i recall. >> although i think that is the alternate we just dismissed. >> i do not believe so. i believe -- >> i thought it was but go ahead. >> i'd have to go back and double check my notes. your honor, i just think that the sum total of this trial happening in such public context, number one. number two, while this -- all of this -- i mean, the media attention is profound. i have admittedly stayed away from 99% of it but that has required me to stay away from all media.

i mean, this case has made its -- found its way into even fictional television, your honor. there were two -- i was advised of two television shows in the course of the past few days that specifically involved references to this particular case. and the reactions of the characters in these stories to this particular case. this jury has, despite all best efforts, has been bombarded with information relevant to this case. it is impossible to stay away from it unless you literally shut off your phone or you shut off your tv, shut off your computer, and no such instructions have been given during the course of this trial. >> well, to be fair, the last few times i've advised them, i told them, don't watch the news, pure and simple. >> right, but if you can't even watch your favorite thursday night television program and it comes up, i mean, this is -- this is the problem. and why i have felt that this

jury should have been sequestered from the very beginning. >> understood. >> make that clear. and so i had moved, based on that -- this, again, for a mistrial. the idea is that it's a public trial. i think the court has accomplished that. but the media attention is so profound and is such a -- i mean, it is such a modern comparison -- i mean, it's such a modern problem to have where literally i walk from this courtroom into the courtroom where i have been permitted to stay, during the course of this trial, i've received literally thousands and thousands and thousands of emails, so much so that i don't even look at that particular email anymore. so i mean -- but my phone gives me alerts on things that just happened. you can't avoid it, and it is so pervasive that it is -- i just don't know how this jury can

really be said to be that they are free from the taint of this. and now that we have u.s. representatives threatening acts of violence in relation to this specific case, it's mind-boggling to me, judge. >> i'll give you that congresswoman waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned by what's the state's position? >> the state's position, first and foremost, and this is a concern i raised at the beginning of the proceedings. you know, well into jury selection, is that we can't allow statements like this, vague statements, to be considered a part of the record. if there's a specific statement that a specific u.s. representative made, then there needs to be some sort of formal offer of proof with the exact quotes or the exact statement or

some kind of a declaration and i'm sure mr. nelson can do that if he thinks that's something that's appropriate. i don't know that this particular representative made a specified threat of violence. i don't know what the context of the statement is. i also don't know what television shows mr. nelson is referring to in terms of any of this, and so i just don't think that we can muddy the record with vague allegations as to things that have happened without very specific evidence that's being offered before the court. as a practical matter, through the jury selection process, the court has provided instructions, has determined whether or not there are any outside influences. the law presumes that the jury follows the judge's instructions, and the court has instructed the jury, instructed the jury today, that they're not to let any outside influences or public opinions sway their deliberation. and the law presumes that they would be capable of doing that.

and so, without any sort of specific offer of proof or information in the record, without any specific evidence that this particular juror -- jury was influenced in any particular way, i believe that the defendant's motion should be denied. >> and your honor, i make it -- i make my comments, i mean, in the context of, this is all such an evolving situation. obviously, i spent my weekend preparing for closing remarks, and i certainly can supplement the record with news articles. i can supplement the record with, you know, the storylines of the particular shows that were brought to my attention, so there's -- i'm making it to note the record at this particular time and i can certainly supplement them. >> you can supplement the record with whatever media reports. i'm aware of the media reports. i'm aware that congresswoman

waters was talking specifically about this trial and about the unacceptability of anything less than a murder conviction and talk about being confrontational, but you can submit the press articles about that. this goes back to what i have been saying from the beginning. i wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function. i think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the constitution, to respect the co-equal branch of government. their failure to do so, i think, is abhorrent, but i don't think it has prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice this jury. they have been told not to watch the news. i trust they are following those instructions and that there is not, in any way, a prejudice to the defendant beyond the articles that were talking specifically about the facts of this case. a congresswoman's opinion really

doesn't matter a whole lot. anyway, so, motion for mistrial is denied. with regard to -- there was a report that counsel were made aware of a few days ago that a juror may have been talking to a major media outlet. we checked with that -- it appeared right from the beginning, it was thirdhand, hearsay, telephone game. that media outlet, in fact, took it very seriously, did a nationwide contact of all of its reporters and staff to check out any veracity and there apparently is none whatsoever. nobody from this major media outlet made any contact, and i find that credible, and so just for the record, i pass that along. now, i think we still have the memorialization, but we also have to talk about a blakely waiver. >> yes, your honor. so, couple of things. in terms of the memorialization

of the side bars and the objections, we had previously provided and we had suggested that we would -- that we provided our memorandum of the objections that the defense had made at sidebars. i am going to propose, rather than just simply reading through and taking an hour's time, that we submit those objections in writing now that -- >> right. >> -- that happened and in consultation with the state and they could include their objections that we did not include. >> it would be nice to include just a stipulated pleading that sets out what the objection was and what the court's ruling -- there's no need to repeat what the arguments were. the only thing that you need to preserve for appeal and what the objection was and what the court's ruling was so i would encourage both parties to get together and figure that out and file it reasonably quickly. i mean, doesn't have to be today, tomorrow, or even the next day.

but just to get on it while our memories are fresh. >> and there's a discrepancy between the memories, your honor, i'm expecting that we're going to be able to come up with a stipulated document, but if there's anything that needs to be set out, we can just indicate our contrary memories of that and should be pretty -- >> absolutely. i think that would be the best way to memorialize this in any case. all right. other than blakely, do we have any other issues to make a record of? >> no, your honor, i think we just need to have some administrative discussions about questions, timing. >> we can do that in a chambers discussion. all right. with regard to blakely? >> sure. i have not yet had mr. chauvin execute the written waiver. again, i do have it. we can print it and get that taken care of. but i can do an oral waiver now if the court -- >> if you would. >> so, mr. chauvin, you can take your mask off. mr. chauvin, you're aware that during the course of these proceedings, the state has followed what's called a blakely

notice or a notice to seek an aggravated sentence, correct? >> yes. >> i have explained to you the bases on which the state is seeking to have an aggravated sentence imposed on the -- in the event of a conviction on any one of the counts here, correct? >> correct. >> we've discussed those and i have specifically advised you that you have a right to have a jury decide whether or not the state has proven those grounds for an aggravated sentence aggravated sentence beyond a reasonable doubt. you have a right to have a jury decide if you violated, right? >> correct. >> and i have advised you that the state has to prove those grounds beyond a reasonable doubt? >> correct. >> and we can waive that right and allow, if you're convicted, we can waive your right to a trial and allow a judge to make those determinations. i've advised you about that? >> yes, you have. >> now, do you want a jury to

make a decision about the proof required for the aggravated factors if there's a conviction or are you willing to waive your right to a trial on those matters and allow judge cahill to make those decisions. >> i will opt to waive it and have judge cahill decide those issues. >> mr. chauvin, i'm going to address you individually because this is another one of the decisions you have to make for yourself. this is a waiver of your jury right. normally we would submit a verdict form with interrogatories and a question with yes or no options and that's what the jury would consider. in order to say yes, the jury would have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. the burden of proof does not change. it's only that i'm going to be the one who's answering those yes or no questions. it was always true that based on whatever the answers are to those, that i would be the one deciding if they constitute, legally, substantial and compelling circumstances and we would expect briefs from both

sides on that. do you understand that? >> yes, i do. >> so, basically, i will be answering those verdict form questions instead of the jury, applying the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. is that what you want to have happen? >> yes, sir. >> all right. i would ask that you follow a written blakely waiver in addition. >> we will, your honor. >> all right. >> if we -- yeah. i just have a question on the form that was provided, and we can, again, it's an administrative question. >> right. it's an administrative memorialization so i'm -- you can do that off the record. all right. counsel, i'm going to talk with the -- basically give instructions to the alternates. give me 20 minutes and then why don't you come on back, all right? otherwise, we are in recess until we hear from the jury. >> hi, everyone, i'm nicole wallace, just a few minutes after 5:00 in the east. few minutes after 4:00 in minneapolis where we're watching the end of closing arguments. the jury in the murder trial of derek chauvin now has the case.

watching along with us, nbc news correspondent shaquille brewster live in minneapolis. claire mcccaskill is still here. i'll get to maxine waters in a second. but on this rebuttal that the prosecution made to the defense's closing arguments, he really seemed to crystallize what we've all watched for the last several weeks. >> what he did was very smart, because what he went back was the evidence and how it applies the -- how the law applies to that evidence. and by doing that, they're going to have the law with them in the jury room. they will be able to look at those instructions, and the judge has told them over and over again, this written word is all the law you need to know to decide this case. and so, by referring to those, it just heightens the credibility of the prosecution,

because they can see it in writing, that's what the law is. that they didn't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his heart didn't contribute to the death or that his drug use didn't contribute to the death. that's not what the law says, and i thought he did -- that was the strongest part of the defense's argument, and i thought he obliterated it. >> professor dyson, one of the most effective sort of visuals there were the dots he put up, and every dot represented a day in george floyd's life until the last dot, which wasn't even a whole dot and his point was to show the jury that on many of those other days, he was struggling with opioid addiction. but only on the day when derek chauvin's knee was on his neck for 9 minutes and 29 seconds did he die. >> absolutely right. and i think quite compelling. you know, we've been to college. correlation is not causation. just because some stuff happened at the same time that some other

stuff happened, doesn't mean that, you know, a caused b. and i think it's pretty clear here, even though the obfuscatory tactics by the defense in trying to assert that officer chauvin's knee on the neck, the mortally depressed column of george floyd, did not lead directly to his death. and i think that that very graphic that was deployed by the prosecution argued otherwise. and you know, nicole, what occurred to me is that we have had the entire force of the state, the force of the prosecution bringing the normty of its resources to bear, all to prove what our eyes already have told us, that george floyd died as a result of the direct application of pressure from the knee of derek chauvin on to the neck of mr. floyd. and so often, justice is

obscured, is avoided, is evaded from so many african-american and latinx people in this country over these technical manipulations that at the end of the day contradict what we know are empirically verifiable facts, that what we saw is what occurred, and as a result of that, direct justice is often denied. i hope and pray that as the jury deliberates, that they would take those kinds of considerations into account. >> well, and it felt like what the prosecution was trying to come back to at the very end was the testimony, i think, it was on the first or second day, of a 9-year-old who knew that george floyd couldn't breathe because there was a knee on his neck. of course, the 9-year-old witness didn't know anybody's names and i think bringing it back to all these bystanders, it was so compelling at the very beginning. they were people who had nothing

to do with one another, off-duty emt, other people who went to the store to buy food, people who happened to be in the neighborhood. they all had the same reaction, that the police officer was the variable, that he was literally in front of their eyes killing george floyd. talk about this closing argument, both from the prosecution and the defense and then the rebuttal to the defense's closing argument, which wasn't without some fireworks before the jury and without the jury present. >> well, nicole, what we saw the prosecution lean into was the idea that there already was a jury that looked at this situation and were moved to see this as problematic. they said to this jury, remember the first jury, the 9 -year-old, the woman who was an off-duty firefighter, the teenager who was filming this horrific thing happening in front of her, knowing that there was going to need to be a record of what was happening. remember those people. the defense is saying this is a

rowdy crowd, that they were threatening, that the officer almost had to mace these people, when in fact, the prosecution is saying, these are the jury of george floyd's peers. this was a collection of people who didn't know each other who looked and said, with their common eyes, with their -- with their senses, with their emotions and said, something here is wrong. we're going to call the police on the police. i think i'm struck by the last line in the rebuttal where the prosecutor said, george floyd didn't die because his heart was too big. he died because derek chauvin's heart was too small. that is the lasting line that he wanted the jury to think about, that this was really a case about emotion and about following common sense. looking at this and saying, you don't have to get bogged down by carbon monoxide and all the other things. you could just go with what you thought was happening when you saw the video for the first time. the defense was doing what defense attorneys have to do, which is trying to really throw a lot of things up to create reasonable doubt and i wrote down so many of the things that

he said because i think it was this sort of laundry list. he said the defense -- >> me too. >> because of the drugs in his system, carbon monoxide, because he had a heart issue. it also could be that officers just make mistakes and that he was scared by the crowd. he had all of those things going on in that closing argument in the defense that was 2 hours and 40 minutes but when the prosecution came back up, they said, let's not complicate this. this is about whether or not we think this person deserved to die and whether a reasonable officer, a reasonable human being would kneel on someone's neck, especially for three more minutes after that person was no longer moving and seemingly no longer had a pulse. i think that's what this case is going to come down to and i think that's why we feel, especially as americans, i think there's this feeling of everyone being on edge, at the white house, you hear officials really talking about this, getting ready for the verdict. so many african-americans that i'm talking to, they're looking at this and saying, we know that, yes, this might be the case that seems to be in a nutshell and it's so obvious, but black people have seen so

many things in this country seem obvious and then end in a way that doesn't feel just so i think that feeling of on edge is also, i think, part of what we're going to have to wait on as we wait for this country to see what this verdict is going to be because it's going to mean so much to so many people, and no matter what the outcome is, of course, with so many people feeling like this officer should be found guilty just based off the 9 minutes and 29 seconds. >> and that became part of this final scene that we just watched. i want to get shaq brewster on that but i need to come back to you, professor dyson, on this experience that the country has had. you write about how covid has made all of this more intimate, the way he -- the way george floyd died under derek chauvin's knee, and just pick up on what yamiche is articulating about how fraught this moment is for the country. >> well, we're facing a dual pandemic. what they call in the 1990s a

sindemic, the convergence of two phenomena simultaneously. on the one hand, the global virus, revealing both preexisting conditions that are harmful and underlying conditions that suggest that there is a race quake going on and the tectonic plates of race are being shifted before our very eyes and that second pandemic, you know, if one is covid-19, the other may be, as has been said, covid-1619, what we've been wrestling with in this country since day one, the inability of america as a nation to grapple with its storied and stony past. with the inability to acknowledge in common sense terms that what we've done in the past continues to affect us in the present. and so, the knee of derek chauvin on the neck of george floyd is an unavoidable metaphor for the knee of white supremacy, social injustice, economic inequality, anti-blackness leveraging its full weight upon the necks of black people who

simply want to do the right thing. look at the surpassing dignity and the transcendent humanity of george floyd. he didn't curse them out. even when he had curse words, it was for his plight and predicament, not against them. officer, sir. he continually deferred to them in orders and magnitudes of recognition of their humanity, even as they denied him his. even as mr. chauvin, with a callous indifference, with a reckless disregard for this man's life, continued to impose upon him constraint. and so, yes, we can say in the broader sense that congresswoman maxine waters may have muddied the waters, may have spoken out of turn, and i can understand why people would think strategically, that is a problem. but imagine the accumulated indignities that black people have borne. look at the suffering that they have silently observed. look at the ways in which in other trials, they didn't say anything beforehand. they didn't speak their mind

beforehand, before the jury deliberated, waiting, hoping and praying that a good outcome would be in the offing, and yet they were unavoidable and inevitably and invariably frustrated. so, now here we are as a nation. it is our choice as to whether our hearts will be big enough, our visions will be wide enough to accommodate both the data of our despair but also to look at the horizon of our hope. and we have a choice to make, and if we make that choice, we can really, as dr. king said, ring out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope but it is up to us. it is up to this jury. it is up to us what we will do after this jury, and it's up to the nation, and i'll end by saying this. isn't it interesting that the defense lawyer basically wanted to police american society, to police american consciousness, to not have "saturday night live" weigh in. the reason we have other outlets in popular culture, in "saturday

night live," in fictional engagements, is because sometimes fiction addresses what straightforward nonfiction can't seem to grapple with. we turn to novels, which are made-up worlds of imagination, in order to grapple with the world before us. so, what american society has not been able to do, what american jurisprudential rationality hasn't given to us, what the court systems haven't given to us, maybe "saturday night live" and other fictional outlets do. e. pluribus unum, out of many, one. this is a magnificent moment of reckoning and determination and i hope we can live up to it. >> viewers, i want to bring our viewers up to speed. maxine waters made comments about derek chauvin's attorney.

she said, i hope we get a verdict that says guilty, guilty, guilty, in response to a reporter's question. she went on to say, quote, if we don't, we cannot go away. we've got to get more confrontational. speaker nancy pelosi defended maxine waters, that it's the language of the civil rights movement. the defense attorney raised it as grounds for a mistrial, and the judge said this. i wish elected officials would stay quiet. he called the comments abhorrent. the defense attorney went on as the professor suggested to talk about how much is in the news, about this moment in this country. i wonder -- none of it happened in front of the jury. but the judge did say, you can use that on appeal. what did you hear watching all that with your sort of expert ear and eye in the political world and the legal world?

>> i heard a defense lawyer who was trying, without much success, to derail this trial. as the jury was beginning their deliberations. now, will he raise these things on appeal? i'm sure he will if, in fact, derek chauvin is convicted. but the point that i think has been eloquently made is that when you have an event like this, and all the events surrounding this in a country where we have freedom of speech, people are going to talk about it, and you know, was maxine waters careful about what she said? no. she wasn't careful. but she also didn't advocate violence. there was nothing she said. confrontational is what peaceful disobedience is all about. those kids that sat at the lunch counter, they weren't hitting anyone. they didn't have an ar-15.

they weren't mowing people down with multiple magazines. they were being confrontational. and i think that's what maxine waters was referring to, and it's just the right and the media on the right that is trying to twist it into some kind of, you know, her saying, let's all get violent. she didn't say that. she said, we have to keep protesting, and we have to keep confronting injustice if, in fact, this man is not convicted. >> claire mccaskill, michael eric dyson, yamiche alcindor, thank you doesn't seem adequate to express our appreciation to all of you for watching these proceedings with us today. thank you so much. we have more guests standing by to talk to us in the next hour but i want to first turn to the person i have turned to for weeks now on end, shaq brewster. if you could speak to all of this that we've been talking to, this closing argument from the

prosecution, closing argument from the defense, the rebuttal, and then the fireworks there at the end. take your time. it's a lot. >> reporter: well, a lot that you want me to go over. let's start with the fireworks at the end and the comments from congresswoman maxine waters. you heard the frustration very clearly there in the courtroom from the judge, and i think that goes beyond just what you heard from the congresswoman, but it goes into the idea that outside factors, that this high-profile trial, outside factors have made its way into the courtroom repeatedly throughout this trial. we talked about how two of the seated jurors at one point were dismissed because of the civil settlement between the city and the -- the city of minneapolis and the family of george floyd, that record $27 million settlement. you heard the judge use that similar language, saying, i hope -- and i just wish that the politicians just stay out of this. so i think that was a little bit of -- or reflected a little bit by the judge in responding to congresswoman waters' comments. comments that he was familiar

with, that he knew of, even before the defense attorney brought that up. when you look at the entire day, i think this -- what we saw from the closing arguments, both by the prosecution and the defense, these are the arguments that they have been laying out that they have been alluding to all throughout the trial, the prosecution saying that george floyd died as a result of derek chauvin's use of force, that it was a knee on the neck and the knee on the back that led to george floyd's death, that it was bystanders who tried to intervene, that common sense would dictate you saw a man dying and that's why you had these bystanders speaking up so vocally and that derek chauvin ignored them and kept his knee on his neck. you then heard the defense come back and a word that was used, a phrase that was used more than a hundred times in those closing arguments, a reasonable police officer, trying to make the argument that derek chauvin's actions were reasonable under the law, that it was george floyd's heart condition, that it was the drugs in his system,

that was the reason why he died. that was the main cause of death, saying there were multiple factors at play and doing what his job is, which is to poke as many holes in the prosecution's case as he can, to introduce as much doubt as he can. i think this is a culmination of what you have been seeing for this entire trial. we've seen those witnesses. we heard from the witnesses. this was the final punctuation to what we know, and we know that the jury right now is deliberating. they started their deliberations about a half hour ago at this point, and we'll wait to see how long it will take for that process to go under way. nicole? >> shaq, stay with us as part of our continuing coverage. we're continuing breaking coverage of the derek chauvin murder trial. the fate of the former police officer now in the hands of the jury. joining our conversation, msnbc legal analyst paul butler, a former federal prosecutor and now a professor at georgetown law, chuck rosenberg is here, a former u.s. attorney and a

former senior fbi official and eddie glaude is back, chair of the department of african-american studies at princeton university and msnbc contributor. i want to start with you, paul butler, on this fight between the lawyers while the jury was still in the room about stories. and it has such an echo to what is rotting our politics right now, but it was a fight in a legal context about the defense, at least, interpreted it as denigrating the things they were saying in their closing arguments, basically saying, you can't call it a story. what the prosecution said so powerfully is verdict means truth and there's only one truth. there are not two sides to this case. there's one. >> that's right, nicole, so the prosecution focused on the facts and its closing statement was not flashy, but it was forceful and effective at summarizing weeks of testimony into a coherent story for the jury. and prosecutors are allowed to characterize the evidence, including in ways that the defense may not agree with.

so i think the judge made the appropriate ruling here if prosecutors or defense don't like what the other person says, they have the chance to argue that in their closing statement. >> chuck, i want to come to you on some of what happened. i think it's not hyperbole to describe it as drama here at the end, after the jury began deliberating and shaq's right, it has been a half an hour already. for some reason, that gives me a pit in my stomach, but the lawyers proceeded to debate various motions. one was the defense askeding for a mistrial because of the comments of congresswoman maxine waters. before that, they fought about this use of the word "story" and they -- the defense attorney accused the prosecutors of prosecutorial misconduct. that seems like, and again, i didn't go to law school, i just get to talk to people like you and paul butler, but that seems like quite a stretch. >> well, i completely agree with

you, nicole. i thought that was hyperbolic. this is argument, right? this is not adducing evidence into the trial. this is not opening statement. this is argument. and so, lawyers have much more leeway at this phase of the trial. now, they don't have complete leeway. they can't vouch for the evidence. they can't introduce personal opinion. but for one side to tell the jury that the other side is telling you a story, i think, is perfectly okay. the judge, by the way, i think, has done a very, very good job throughout the trial. he's been careful. he's protected the record, which is his job. he's ruled swiftly and i think correctly on objections and on motions. and so, it is the defense's job to poke holes and to try and get a mistrial if it can. if it doesn't succeed, it can raise these issues on appeal. but the judge was quite right. this is argument, and so if you recall, nicole, he reiterated to

the jury an instruction he had given earlier, that your recollection of the evidence controls. what you're hearing now is just argument. understand it in that context. it's a nice way of saying, rely, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, on what you saw, what you heard, and on your own judgment. take argument for what it is. justice argument. just argument. >> eddie, i wrote down this whole exchange about stories and one truth and i want to read it to you. the prosecutor made clear that the verdict is from the latin word. it means the truth. he went on to say there are lots of stories but only one truth. and then, for his rebuttal of that defense's, what he described as a story, he put up these dots, and every dot was a day in george floyd's life, and one dot was the day that his life ended. it wasn't a whole dot, and i spoke to professor dyson about

this too. it feels like the plainest and clearest and most simple way to illustrate this most simple truth, that george floyd died that day because -- there was only one variable that day. because derek chauvin handcuffed him, pinned him to the ground, and knelt on his neck for 9 minutes and 29 seconds. >> yes, nicole, it was a wonderful visual of the claim that was made in the earlier phase of the final statement, right? and that was, believe your eyes. believe what you saw. what you saw happened. and so, there is this moment in the defense's -- in the defense closing argument where the defense actually tried to make the claim that you shouldn't believe what you saw. right? and it was this kind of amazing kind of collision, don't believe your eyes. and for me, it became an echo of the last four years, right, of the last five years, where truth

has been under assault, where people have been telling us over and over again not to believe our eyes, not to believe what we see, not to believe what we feel, but like you, it's been 30-something minutes, almost 40 minutes, and my gut is tight. i guess this is where we're going to be as a nation until the verdict comes in. >> well, i've turned all of you for, frankly, all three of you for many, many days of mueller coverage. we've sat -- eddie, you and i have been on television together for more than a decade, and eddie, i'll start with you. how are you? what are your thoughts today? >> today was hard. you know, the constant video footage, the hearing george floyd's words. it's hard to kind of deal with the defense. i understand the legal system, and derek chauvin is -- has a right to a robust defense, and i understand what eric nelson has been charged to do, but it was hard to hear those arguments

around his drug use. it was hard to hear eric nelson say that george floyd's death was because of him. he was the natural consequence. it was his -- it was his preexisting conditions that led to his death. so i'm in a very difficult place. it has been a very difficult week, nicole. just to kind of witness over and over again, you know, death, over and over again, on loop. death and grief. it's been hard. >> paul, i had that experience on the very first day when all the bystanders were testifying. i think in some instances, to their own bystander video, which was frankly how we all first learned about this. we didn't all learn about this because the police announced, hey, look what happened yesterday. there was bystander video and then there were journalists like shaq on the ground. talk about how this closing argument tied that whole cycle

together. it's not quite a year yet, but i'm sure sort of covering all this together, it feels like many years. >> so, the defense blamed everybody but mr. chauvin for george floyd's death, including george floyd, including the car that was next to george floyd, including the emergency first responders who the defense suggested didn't act quickly enough and the defense blamed the crowd. the problem is that the jury and the world met the crowd. we met the brave teenager who made the video. we met the firefighter who begged to help. we met charles mcmillan, the older gentleman, who broke down on the stand because he could not save mr. floyd's life. and so, when eric nelson, the defense attorney, talked about

mr. chauvin threatening the crowd with mace, i don't think that helped his case. the prosecution pointed out that the crowd treated mr. floyd more responsibly than chauvin did. >> chuck rosenberg, the prosecution seemed to go out of their way to make clear that this was not a case against the police as a group or even more than one officer. simply against the conduct of derek chauvin. let me play some of that. we'll talk about it on the other side. >> it may be hard for any of you to imagine a police officer doing something like this. imagining a police officer committing a crime might be the most difficult thing you have to set aside, because that's just not the way we think of police officers. we trust the police. we trust the police to help us.

we believe the police are going to respond to our call for help. we believe they're going to listen to us. this case is called the state of minnesota versus derek chauvin. this case is not called the state of minnesota vs. the police. he betrayed the badge and everything it stood for. it's not how they're trained. it's not following the rules. this is not an anti-police prosecution. it's a pro-police prosecution. >> he made those arguments today, but he showed that part of the case so meticulously in the earliest days by, i think, the rev describes it as the crumbling of the blue wall. all the law enforcement testimony made that point for him. how heavily do you think that will weigh on the jury today, chuck? >> nicole, i thought it was a very good argument. i found myself nodding my head when i first heard it.

you know, it is completely appropriate for us here in this venue to talk about the broader implications of the chauvin trial and about police reform and about racism, institutional and otherwise. but what the prosecutor did in the case was narrow these fraught issues for the jury. he said, look, we are not considering police reform. we did not bring a case against the minneapolis police department or any police department. you are here, really to decide a much more narrow issue. did this former officer, did this defendant murder george floyd? if you look at all the evidence, you consider it fairly, if you listen to the testimony and you look at the exhibits, the answer is yes. so, you, ladies and gentlemen, don't need to do other things. there's lots of things -- and i think this was the implicit argument -- that absolutely need

to be fixed in our society and in policing and in the minneapolis police department. your point about other officers testifying, the blue wall crumbling, well, in my experience, good cops are disgusted by bad cops. they don't tolerate bad cops. they are disgusted by bad cops. but again, we narrow the issue in this case for the jury to apply the evidence adduced at trial to the elements of the crimes with which chauvin is charged and when the prosecutor did that, when he said, come with me, narrow your focus, look solely at this case for what this case is, he was doing exactly what he should be doing. >> shaq, do you have any reporting on -- i know you get those pool notes about what a jury is doing during some of these moments. what does your reporting suggest today was like in the courtroom for the jurors? >> reporter: well, based on the

reports that we saw earlier, it seemed as if the jury was as engaged as they were all throughout this trial. we saw early on that they were taking notes. sometimes -- and one pool report referenced jurors flipping back in pages at their notes and cross referencing as the prosecutor was going through and making his argument. there were other reports that as eric nelson's closing argument started to extend a little bit before that lunch break, as it crossed the two-hour point, that some of the jurors started to become antsy, that they were swiveling in the chairs a little bit, rubbing their eyes from time to time, and that's when you then saw the break from judge cahill interrupting those closing arguments. so, you know, it's always hard to read. all of the pool reporters always note the fact that all of the jurors have on the mask, so you can only really tell based on the eye and the expressions in their eyes. other note to make is that we -- for most of the trial, and that kind of changes in the final week, but for most of the trial, we didn't see any representative

in the chair that's reserved for derek chauvin. the family representative. well, much of last week, that changed. there was a representative there, and today, there was a representative there. we're not clear who the person was or how -- what the relation is to derek chauvin but there was someone there and we all also know that george floyd's brother was representing the floyd family in the courtroom today. the pool reporter at one point noted that he had his hands clasped and his head looking down at his hands as the testimony and some of that video was playing in court. so, you know, that tight courtroom that we're seeing, you know, we're reading a lot of tea leaves and you're getting some assumptions in these pool reports, but the bottom line that you see and is consistent throughout the trial is that this is a very engaged jury. they're always taking notes. every once in a while, they get a little antsy, but they're paying attention and they're taking their job seriously, at least based on the perception of their actions. >> shaq, do we know if they will be allowed to go as many hours

as they want to today and in the coming days or do they have set time limits? has the judge said, you have x amount of hours today. if you haven't reached a decision, you know, do we know what parameters have been put on how much time and when they spend it deliberating? >> reporter: we're not exactly clear on that. we know that each day we will get a notification when they start deliberating. that's what we got today. that's how i was able to tell you they started deliberating at 4:00 p.m. central time. we know we'll get a notification when they stop deliberating and we know we'll get a notification when there is a verdict. how long they go, i am not particularly sure of that, especially because this is unlike other juries in the sense that they are sequestered, so they may have more flexibility than a standard jury. nicole, if i can make one quick point that you were making in terms of the police and how the prosecution made that a central part of their closing argument,

that this is not about policing being on trial. he called it a very noble profession at one point. i will say, if you talk to protesters and demonstrators, you may hear some in the background here, this trial is very much about policing for them. they want a conviction send a message about police accountability, that it will set a limit of what can happen, what police can get away with in their mind. outside the court for people who have been advocating, people that were protesting daunte wright shooting, people in chicago still protesting the death of adam toledo, this case very much is about policing and they want policing to be in focus. use of force guidelines, they want that in focus. it is clear why the prosecution wanted to separate that, especially when we knew members of the jury say they saw police as, that they trusted police, felt safe with police, but for people watching, for people on the streets protesting since a

year ago when george floyd was killed, this is very much about policing. >> well, and it speaks, paul butler, to the two realities. it is clear there's a reality and this is what derek chauvin has a right to, a jury that is sequestered and these issues being narrowed as chuck perfectly articulated and shaq added to our understanding of that. but this happens at this moment where since derek chauvin has been on trial ten miles away, daunte wright was killed by police on the phone with his mother when he was pulled over and shot and killed. i mean, the rest of us that aren't sitting on the jury cannot separate this moment and what the country is right now and the reality that is life in america for black men. >> that's right. so the prosecution emphasized that the name of this case is

state versus chauvin. it is not state versus policing, it is not about the national equity on race. nicolle, the prosecution is making that emphasis for a strategic reason. there are jurors that support the police. we know from the questionnaire that they all had to fill out. the prosecution wants to send a message to those jurors that you can still vote to convict chauvin. that does not mean you don't support the police. the prosecutor told the jurors nothing is worse for a good could be than a bad cop. at the same time as this trial has been going on, we've seen other instances of black people people killed or beat up by police officers and of course, for the country, it is hard to keep those two things separate.

i would note that this is ultimately a case about a bad apple cop, if you believe the prosecution. some of the other issues that emerged last week were at least two african-american men were beat up or killed after traffic stops. it goes to more systemic issues in policing, things that are more about anti-black bias that's embedded in the system, that allow the police to have the power they do over people when they make traffic stops. so one case about a bad apple cop, other cases more recently make us focus more on ongoing problems of systemic discrimination in the criminal legal system. >> some incredible reporting in "new york times" over the weekend about the incidents of police violence since the derek chauvin murder trial has been ongoing. my colleague wrote a powerful

piece, simply being black in america is exhausting and i was struck by all of the powerful people who quoted it, eric holder retweeted it, it seemed to strike such a nerve. but this idea of exhaustion, of all of us, we have been on tv together covering the same story, the 13-year-old in chicago, a child, not a man, a black child shot by police, and obviously the details vary, an army medic pulled over by windsor, virginia cops and pepper sprayed as he is saying i'm scared, i'm scared. a case that brought pat robertson into the debate on police violence. what are your thoughts sort of as we get ready to cover a very specific case about a person paul describes as a bad apple with all this background music in america today. >> yeah, i mean, i think the

case bears the burden of the country right now. i understand what chuck and paul are saying. i understand as officers of the court what the prosecutors are trying to do. but this case bears the burden of our national sins and in so many ways that image of george floyd having his door open with the gun drawn on him and the prosecutor saying he didn't know he could make one move and he could lose his life. we saw that with adam toledo, listened to the officer, he may have had the gun dropped, he turned around, he is dead. see it with daunte wright. call his mother. we know it is not bad apples and good apples. we don't want to make the mistake we made four years ago separating donald trump from the republican party that nominated him. we have to understand, nicolle, it seems to me, that this is another piece of the age of

reagan collapsing, former policing that had violence at its core, former policing that let the american people be comfortable with communities being terrorized by folk who had the legal authority to use deadly force. i know it is a case, but it bears the burden of the contradictions that define the country in this moment, nicolle. >> shaq, you've been on the ground for us there since the earliest days. you've spent hours i'm sure by now of time covering minneapolis in the aftermath and bringing all the people that have gone out to the streets in the midst of a pandemic to protest and i wonder if you can just pull that thread from the earliest days to what you're seeing today. >> reporter: well, really i think when you talk about minnesota being on alert, you talk about city of minneapolis and the surrounding areas, that tension that we have, i think

this is the continuation of it. this is why there's that tension, and a group of, for example, a group you see probably walking behind me now are heading to a protest down the street. that's the sense you are getting, this is only picking up. people are only watching this incredibly more closely. the part that i keep coming back to is that this is only one trial. we still have three other officers that are involved in this situation that have a trial scheduled for august. so while this may be the start of it, and people are tense about what they can expect from this, there's a lot of other steps they'll be paying attention to as well. >> okay. shaq referenced a protest starting to grow down the street. we're going to go there. our colleague, megan fitzgerald is with the protesters outside the courthouse in minneapolis. megan? >> reporter: hey, nicolle. we're starting to see protests all throughout the area here, starting to grow.

specifically behind me, this is very interesting. this group here that's getting ready to disburse is a group calls principals for good trouble. these are principals, assistant principals from across the twin cities. they formed this group about a couple months ago over the summertime, shortly after george floyd died, and they said the reason they did this is because they feel as educators they have a role to play in educating the younger generation to try to breakdown stereotypes and biases, educate students about the history and how we potentially got to this place. at this moment they tell us they are actively teaching students about the trial and what's going on. there's concerted efforts to make sure black and brown students within their schools feel like they belong, that their lives are valued. these teachers are out here. they have been speaking to one another. they'll be joining protesters

later tonight, and again, this is quite interesting piece of speaking to protesters because this is actively what some people are doing to try to make a difference in their own community, nicolle. >> it makes me want to cry listening to megan's coverage. this has been a challenging i think kind of crisis for the country to explain to small kids. i'm sure the conversations that i have to have pale in comparison to conversations parents have to have with their black kids. >> it is amazing. i mean, people are reaching for a different way of being together. nicolle, the conversations you're having with your kid are really critical, right, because there's nothing i can tell my son. if a police officer made up his or her mind to take his life or to be threatened by him, there's nothing i can tell him that

could save him. nothing he could do that could save him. we're in a moment of transition. john dewey wrote a book in 1927 called public and its problems, talking about the eclipse of one way of life as another is imagining, trying to come into existence. we have all languages, and we are in a moment of transition. we have to figure out how to be together different. >> we're all going to do it together. you always manage to crack me open when they're screaming wrap. i could have listened to you another hour. i want to thank you all. thanks for being part of our coverage. we have continuing coverage of the jury deliberations in the chauvin trial. lucky for all of you, the beat with ari melber starts now. hi, ari. >> hi, nicolle, thank you so much. welcome to beat. i am ari