evidence from the defense. it comes as we enter day two of jury deliberations. we'll go to kenosha for the latest in just a moment. >>> also in a little more than an hour, president biden is set to leave for detroit where he's going to sell the newly-signed infrastructure bill. it's his larger agenda that's being picked apart right now on capitol hill. house democrats hoping to take action on his build back better agenda. at some point this week. get this. the bill going through a rebranding of sorts to combat a major concern. inflation. but will that be enough to get it over the finish line? another house bill that's getting a lot of attention on this wednesday morning. republican congresswoman nancy mace of south carolina wants to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level. in a few moments, i'll talk to the congresswoman about her bill and the pushback she's already starting to get from her state's own gop chair. >>> plus a pandemic progress report from the white house co-void response team. they're holding

we heard from the defense. now we've heard from the prosecution in their respective closing arguments. >> absolutely. and what we heard were some very strong arguments, as you would expect in this case from the defense and prosecution. the defense just ending there, so i'll start with them. they did something for the jury to try to get them to see that kyle rittenhouse, in their opinion, was under attack. and they said four things. hands, feet, skateboard, gun. those are things that can cause great bodily harm, the defense told the jury and the jury has to determine if that is indeed true and if kyle rittenhouse was simply defending his own life. the prosecution for their point said, look, he and many of the others that were running after kyle rittenhouse, after he shot and killed joseph rosenbaum, were doing so because they thought they were dealing with an active shooter and were trying to stop him and they have every right to do that. and so the argument is very different, of course. the prosecution trying to

the defense, this is clear, the drone video. we pointed it out in the drone video, this defendant denied it. this is an enlargement of the drone video so we can see a better picture of it. this whole canard of adding pixels and changing colors is dishonest. i believe the defense knows that. their expert used a similar software to zoom in and edit and change things because these things are reliable and they're reliable and this is what is used by a digital -- by forensic imaging, forensic scientists. it's the industry standard. so if we're going to say no technology can be brought in, no enlarged images can be brought in, that is a ridiculous standard. we've heard from two experts about how these algorithms are used and what they do. simply because this evidence may be not beneficial to the clients but show the client is lying, they're stupid to try to keep it out. i think making a dishonest argument based on a number of further scientists that have e-mailed me to discuss this issue with the apple zooming, which is similarly -- i

the defense was denied many, many opportunities to do the kinds of things that defense attorneys do all time. and this is the key point. the point that many, many of them have missed. the supreme court has said it doesn't matter whether it was intentional, deliberate, or accidental. the prosecution has an absolute obligation to turn over everything it has. it cannot have an advantage over the defense and it doesn't matter that it was shown in court. that was too late at that point. the defense couldn't do anything about it. i think this is a strong case for a mistrial. if you watch cnn, they laugh at anything that might provide the defense. they laugh at anything the judge did, because they are not reporting on this case, they are advocating for a verdict. they want a conviction and they want everybody out there to be upset if there isn't a conviction. they are the vigilantes, and they will be responsible for violence and riots if they were to be an acquittal. and the people out there listening to cnn say oh, my god, how could that have happened? they must be the judge? because they hav

that was the defense for kyle rittenhouse talking. if this is one piece of evidence they get to study more than another piece of evidence, is that fair? the judge says yes, it may be a critical piece of evidence to them. the judge said yes. but the question is, should that have parameters around it? are they going to watch it a thousand times? but it will be in the courtroom, he says that much. then the question is, who is allowed to be in the courtroom while they watch? a lot still going down in the kyle rittenhouse trial. remember, it's a murder trial. august 15th, 2020. then 17-year-old kyle rittenhouse says in self-defense he opened fire with his ar-15-style rifle, killed two people, injured another. and wisconsin does have a law that says in self-defense, if you feel there is imminent danger or threat to your life, you can use deadly force. so that is the crux of the case. since yesterday afternoon, the jury has had this case in their hands, and they've been deliberating. but now suddenly a few minutes ago, 20 minutes ago, that ca

what we heard from the defense was ugly, too. rney disparaging ahmaud arbery's presence and one saying he wanted more bubbas on the jury, no black pastors in the courtroom and compared a prayer rally in support of the victims family to a lynching. that as the committee investigating the riot at the united states capitol on january 6th issues a new round of subpoenas that to the former president's allies including roger stone and conspiracy theorists alex jones. plus, in the latest in the civil trial against the organizers of the deadly unite the right rally in charlottesville, i want to go right to the trial of three men accused of killing ahmaud arbery. cnn's martin savidge has that. >> reporter: protests outside the glen county courthouse have grown in size and volume. for the first time, armed citizens with semiautomatic weapons were seen patrolling the perimeter of the courthouse grounds while inside the attorneys began making closing arguments. travis mcmichael, his father gregory mcmichael face charges for the killing of 25-

as the global security landscape changes, the u.s. defense department must adapt to a new set of priorities and constraints. that brings us to today's event. for now, we will be with them shortly, we recently released a book titled -- the ever shrinking -- it recognizes that, despite record defense spending, the u.s. department of defense is getting less return on investments than it did in the past. the pentagon must transform processes bogged down by bureaucracy or trail behind, especially as new -- competitors translate their economic successes into military power, like china. we just saw a test of a hypersonic missile from china yesterday that surprised a lot of people in intelligence in defense community. this change is especially important as pentagon decision-makers map out the next national defense strategy and determine how to reform the department for greater affordability and performance. the u.s. seeks to maintain its competitive edge -- seizing the advantage and the national defense strategy continues to chart the way forward for

this is the most clear-cut case of self-defense i have ever seen. y who is watching knows that, this is the kind of justice and transparency that makes our country great, but lately truth has been taking a backseat to mob justice. take the prosecutor's closing argument, for example they know self-defense but they want to mail this kid to the wall. someone has to pay, an

the defense said that it would file it. the judge has not ruled on the motion for a mistrial, but legal experts have said, look, if the judge was going to declare this a mistrial, he would have done so already. he already let it go to the jury. we're now entering our second day of jury deliberations, any moment now. and jose, yesterday the jury deliberated for more than eight hours. what was interesting to me, jose, is that we did not get a question from the jury. no specific question, only a request for extra copies of the jury instruction. so that's what we will be watching for today, jose. will the jury some time this morning come back with some sort of questions as it deliberates in this trial, jose? >> gabe, thanks. paul, let's talk about that, is it unusual for the jury to be a full day in deliberations and not go back with a question, but rather ask for the instructions once again? what does that tell you, paul? >> so we know the jurors have been a whole day deliberating without reaching a verdict. that tells us somet

the defense was trying to just obstruct. prosecution just like the defense has a right to tell the jury why they should convict the three defendants. what the law says and what it means, that's what is call closing arguments for a reason. you are arguing to the jury. the jury is going to get the instructions. because when you're talking about the law, you got to be careful because the judge is going to come back and instruct the law. but they have the right to presence the evidence as see it, to take the law as they see it. the other side did it. it's common. this is nothing more to try to obstruct, take the prosecution off of her game. make the jury think maybe she's lying because she's scoring points with the jury. that's how i see it. >> sara, what do you think? >> yeah, i agree with her. often, which we don't have much to go by, we sort of grasp at every opportunity to distract and, you know, to try to throw the prosecutor off of her momentum. and i think some of this is what is going on. but with respect to the defense a

>> well, the defense laid out a good defense in the past few days. is the defendant in fear of being struck in a dangerous way? is his life at risk? but you need to look at the total circumstances in a case. we have a 17-year-old boy going to a riot, to a dangerous environment, with a rifle. how does that sit with the jury? the judge will instruct the jury to use their common sense, their everyday knowledge, to try to analyze what took place. one of the defendants, the one that was struck by him and was not killed, he said he pointed his gun at the defendant. i think this judge at the end of the case may direct the verdict on some of these charges. some of these charges are not going to go to the jury. some of them are just going to be outright lost. what happens is the prosecutor has a big balloon at the beginning of the case and the defense punches holes in that balloon as the case proceeds. unfortunately in this case, there's a political environment, there's a toxic environment in this case. some of the extreme left and some of the extreme right a

you forfeited the right to self-defense. by bringing the gun, aiming it at people, threatening their lives, the defendant provoked everything. if he does that, he has too exhaust all reasonable means to avoid a confrontation. all reasonable means. so if joseph rosenbaum is running at him, joseph rosenbaum is no threat to his life. not only is the defendant expected to run, he's expected to yell, push, shove that ragdoll around, run back for help, call 911, do all sorts of other things besides just turn and fire four shots as joseph rosenbaum falls helpless to the ground. ladies and gentlemen, there is no doubt in this case that the defendant committed these crimes. he committed a first degree reckless homicide against joseph rosenbaum, he put richie mcginnis' life in jeopardy. he intended to kill anthony huber and attempted to kill gaige grosskreutz. all of those elements are true. the question is whether or not you believe that his actions were legally justified. and i submit to you that no reasonable person would have done

rittenhouse himself took the stand in his own defense, a risky move that approved successful for the defense. in and out conversation will turn to what's going to happen next. what affect will this case have on things like vigilanteism and self-defense arguments? not to mention what happens immediately in the city of kenosha. joining me from the courthouse in kenosha, wisconsin, nbc correspondent shaquille brewster. former federal prosecutor paul butler. nbc legal analyst danny cevallos. and former assistant district attorney in milwaukee county, julius kim. shaq, what is it like in kenosha right now? >> katy, when that verdict was read we saw a large group of people on the courthouse steps. this was something highly anticipated especially as the jury got into day four of deliberations. but then someone came out of the courthouse, told the crowd the news, and you heard the divide that's reflected not just here in kenosha but all across the country. some people cheered, saying the second amendment prevailed. self-defense was a principle they were defending. and some people were upset b

seeks to maintain competitive ads in the decades to come defenses on the advantage national defense strategy continuing to release analyses to help chart the way forward for the department efforts and that is the concept of today. i'm delighted to introduce the worst speakers and moderator. our speakers happen to be part of our atlantic family. general james jones is executive chairman, founder of the jones group international known as a leading authority on energy foreign affairs and national security. under the obama administration, he served as national security advisor president overseeing national security council cybersecurity oklahoma security and foresight. he served as commander of u.s. european command and alec manor and 32nd u.s. supreme court most senior position in the court. no person ever has held all the position i just named. major general served on the council's advisory board, also chief executive officer chair of the board of the national defense industry -- industrial association. the countries largest defense association. he is a marine and defense previously named temp

your thoughts. >> the defense attorney had an interesting press conference after the case. se attorneys we have to deal with the facts of the case despite what the media may be reporting, what the streets may say or the neighbors may say, and the prosecution had a very tough case in this particular one. when a person raises a self-defense claim, the prosecution has to prove that it's not self-defense, and when rittenhouse and the video, rittenhouse testified and the video was shown t made it extremely tough on them, especially when the witness said he pointed a gun to rittenhouse, and that's when rittenhouse started reacting, it made it very very difficult. and another thing to point out that was interesting to me in reference to the defense, this was a very well funded defense. they had two mock juries. they had jury consultants. they had enough money to really work hard to build rittenhouse's case, and his defense, unlike so many other people in the united states. but it does weigh heavy for some people who think of a guy going to a protest with an ar-15, he's possibly goi

the prosecution and the defense and the room as well. it is not surprising that these jurors might have questions. these are the instructions they were given. more than 30 pages of instructions. the jurors, a couple of things that we know they asked are that they wanted to receive the video from the night in question a few more times. the judge will be allowing them to come back in the courtroom to review those clips as well as pictures. moments ago, drudge bruce schroeder explaining the process behind some of the key decisions he has made so far in the trial saying that he is not yet had time to review the motion for mistrial. it was only filed by the defense yesterday. >> i haven't even had a chance to read the motion. i just got it yesterday. it i really think that before a role on a motion, i should let the state respond. >> it was interesting when the judge took a few minutes there to talk on the criticism that he's heard about himself on this trial because he talked about how it has been on television and as it's been live unfoldin

, the defendant has committed. self-defense -- excuse me. criminal code in wisconsin provides that a person is privileged to intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what he reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his own person by the other person. however, he may intentionally use only such force as he reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. he may not intentionally use force, which is intended or likely to cause death unless he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. as applied to this case, the effect of the law of self-defense is the defendant is not guilty of any homicide offense if the defendant reasonably believed that he was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with his own person or reasonably believed the force used by him -- excuse me -- and reasonably believed the force that the force used by him was necessary to prevent imminent death or gr

for the $300 a week allowance there was a reason, the defense argued. the couple had serious debt. the defense offered contrasting scenes of the cooper marriage from another set of friends. >> people who had known the couple for years, did not jump on this bandwagon to paint this as an abusive relationship. >> remember that "i hate brad" day, the day the prosecution said the marriage hit its boiling on that very day, said laura hiller, nancy was making plans for saturday night, the day she disappeared. >> she wanted my husband and i to come over and play sequence with her and brad. >> was that a game you had played with the coopers before is this. >> nancy introduced us to that game. >> when nancy's friend jessica testified they had plans to paint her house at 8:00 saturday morning she had to be have been mistaken, said the defense, because nancy knew brad had a tennis game at 9:00 a.m. with mike hiller. >> i specifically sought out nancy to make sure it was okay with her. >> did it indicate she had any other plans? >> there was talk she was going to jog

that in the state of wisconsin which has a self-defense law. that is particularly favorable to a defendant. i think ultimately there were two key pieces of evidence in this case. one, this was a videotaped case. virtually all of the relevant conduct happened on videotape. and this was a split-second freeze-frame type of case. how close was rosenbaum to kyle rittenhouse when he fired and when you're in that close of a case it is hard to prove reasonable doubt. and when kyle rittenhouse took the stand, the prosecution did not make enough of a dent in kyle rittenhouse. they scored some points here and there but they did not fundamentally undermine his testimony and sara sidner said it perfectly, there is a back drop here, there is a political and racial back drop and we take the decisions away from a back drop and put them in a box and get a just verdict. >> do you believe the videotape was the most compelling part of this for the jurors? >> i think kyle rittenhouse's testimony was most compelling because the jury instructions were really centered

>> now it is time for the defense to put up the case. in their case in chief, i expect one of them to testify as to why they went and pursued him. when you have a self-defense case, it typically takes a defendant to testify that he or she feared for their life. they need someone to say this is what we saw, this is what we did and why we did it. i expect people from the community to come and testify that things had been stolen and they were afraid and try to put the jurors in their seats to say these people did the right thing, which of course i disagree with but that's what i believe they will do. >> there have been a number of black pastors supporting the ahmaud arbery family. it's been a big issue. the lead defense attorney made an issue of jesse jackson's presence in the courtroom. let's listen to this exchange between him and the judge in the case. >> your honor, i would submit with all respect to the reverend jesse jackson that this is no different than bringing in police officers or uniformed prison guards in a small town where a yo

does the prosecutor have it right or does the defense have it right? >> we're arguing about an old law, no longer on the books. what it gave people a right to do back 100 years ago is chase slaves and it is a disgusting old law, but basically i think the prosecutor had it right, trying to follow the judge's interpretation stated charge that the court will give. the law -- for those people that maybe don't do trials all the time, remember the jury is the decider of the facts and they apply the law that is given to them by the court. so both sides have a right to argue how their facts and the facts they think fit their case are impacted by the law. and so they're giving different versions. i'm not surprised at all that the mistrial was denied. i do think that they -- the defense is trying to make hay with it and the reason is because this final closing argument, this rebuttal argument that is really a gift to the state in this case, because you don't really think much about what was said yesterday, right, the jury is going to decide something today or get

the whole issue here is self-defense. as the prosecutors try to take that away, that's the defense saying he felt threatened, was under threat and grade the prosecutors so far with a ways to go. >> yeah, and also a key point there, not only are they arguing self-defense by provocation, right? that was a key issue in this case whether or not prosecutors would even be allowed to argue about provocation which under wisconsin essentially takes away that self-defense claim. it's kind of a tricky legal burden shift, if you will, but i really think that, you know, commentators were saying that the prosecution had an uphill battle even going into today. i think even more so now after that just complete you know what show of dissell nation of the jury instructions. it was appalling what took place in that courtroom. the judge sounded like a first year law student in a criminal exam sort of -- he had like kind of a stream of consciousness talking to the jury. i really thrill that the confusion that he sewed among jurors is really go

the defense argued he only pulled the trigger of the assault rifle in self-defense. after being attacked. here's what his lawyer said after the verdict. >> he had as much business being there as any of the demonstrators or rioters. that's all i can say. there's going to be people who will never agree with that statement. >> what happened inside that courtroom? did the jury get this right? we asked retired bay area judge. >> what's important to understand is what the law is. and how it was carried out in the courtroom. the burden was on the prosecution. and the prosecutor tried to convince the jury that kyle rittenhouse was an active shooter. and they failed to do it. because kyle rittenhouse defense was self-defense. in wisconsin, the law requires that when a self-defense claim is raised the prosecutors have to disprove self-defense. beyond a reasonable doubt. in most states it's just the opposite. if you claim self-defense the burden is on you to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was self-defense. and also what happened in this case is that there was a jury ins

the defense calling its last witness today. through what they're trying to nail home with the last folks they're calling to the stand? >> reporter: well, hallie, you know, all throughout the day we have heard from witnesses called by the defense that really helped to bolster their case here. for example, just before they broke for the lunch recess, jurors heard from drew fernandez. a man who took video that night posting it to social media and testified before the jury that rittenhouse was there to surrender aid to people. even saying he witnessed him de-escalating a situation. then the morning kicking off with dr. black. a self-defense expert. this was also a video specialist who went frame by frame of that video the jurors have been seeing the last several days now and honing in on that split-second decision of when kyle rittenhouse pulled the trigger several times. so just within the last couple minutes here we heard from the defense that they are getting closer to being done, which is why we suspect they could wrap their cas

the defendant took the stand right away in the defense there. one of the first things they did is travis mcmichael said he assumed that the man he saw on the video he saw in this surveillance video was ahmaud arbery. he assumed that arbery had committed some kind of a legal act. listen to this. >> the guy that has been breaking in, just ran down the road. something happened. i thought it was the same individual i saw on the 11th. i thought it was reasonably, okay, there's something to this. this guy may have just ran by. matt may have seen him, caught him stealing something. >> so what was the defense strategy there, and did it work? >> so the defendants have a fundamental problem in this case, which is this. why did they pursue ahmaud arbery? the prosecution theory is they saw this young black man jogging in the neighborhood and they set out to harm him. a georgia law, citizens arrest law. this is an old law from the civil war era, deeply racist roots. it was repealed earlier this year as a result of the ahmaud arbery killing. however, what i th

the prosecutors are trying to convince the jury the defense came up with the story about citizen's arrest and self-defense after they were arrested. remember, they were arrested several months after this happened. and they made these statements before that thinking, perhaps, that they were not going to be charged with a crime. so that's what the prosecution is trying to narrow in on. the inconsistenies in mcmichael's story, and again, the fact that arbery never made a threat. never had a weapon. never yelled at mcmichael. that's the basis of the case. and that's what we've been listening to hear. >> i'm going to come back to you in a moment to find out about the activity behind you, but let's dig into what happened at the courtroom. danny, i'll start with you. we both noted while we were listening to the testimony, at one point the prosecutor seemed to get the witness to admit that he was a vigilante. >> right. that was a really great technique in cross examination. it's called the table of contents. where you move to another topic and sort of announce, next i'm going to ask you about you

the offense. we are tired of playing defense. oing on the offense on this and stand by. >> i mean, what are you gonna do? some hair, too, right? bannon was released from custody pending trial. cnn's justice correspondent evan perez. here we go again. he is turning this into a circus as one would expect. he was live-streaming outside the courthouse today. he is facing up to one year in jail for each count. is this all a game to him? >> look, it's a production. as you pointed out, he showed up live-streaming from, in front of the fbi, the local fbi office where he turned himself in. and then after the hearing, where he, by the way, during the hearing he was very respectful. he had a totally different tone. he steps out and then that's what you see at the end of that hearing. but he was met by a production team that had arranged his press conference there with the microphones. so, yeah, it is a bit of a spectacle. i think you can see there he was name-checking all of his perceived enemies. the people who he believes are, obviously --

the law. mr. mcginnis does not have a self-defense status because the defendant has no right of self-defense has to any harm he caused to mr. mcginnis. that's what the instruction is telling the jury. but if he was acting lawfully in self-defense with respect to mr. rosenbaum, then it kills one of the elements. i think i'm reading that right. it gives him an absolution with respect to the element of -- what is the precise element? >> number two? >> yeah. unreasonable and substantial risk of death. it says then the jury can't find it, well, if they can't find that, they can't find one of the elements so they have to find the defendant not guilty. >> judge, do you think it's appropriate on page 9 to say the tft was acting lawfully in self-defense as it relates to joseph rosenbaum? i think that makes it clearer. >> where do you want it put in? >> where, did you say? >> yeah. >> on page 9, it would be the -- right, so there's a subheading determining whether the beliefs were reasonable. i think it's the third or fourth to the last sentence. >> okay. with respect to the -- >> joseph rosenbaum. >> with r

i don't think the defense responded to it well. but the jury charge that i have in front of me right now does. what is very clear with regard to this issue of provocation and what that means is you can't provoke an attack and if you are -- if somebody responds to it, you have an opportunity to kill them. what this jury charge says is that the defendant had to engage in unlawful conduct that was likely to provoke others to attack him and who does provoke others to attack him and on top -- which really aren't the facts of this case. the facts in this case were he was being pursued. the prosecutor wants to argue because he brought a weapon, which many people have weapons out there, and, remember, this is wisconsin, not like in new jersey or new york, where the gun laws are so strict, that that was the provocation. but then even further in the jury charge, jim, it says that even if you're the initial aggressor, you provoke the attack, somebody confronts you with deadly force, you have a right to protect yourself. i don't see -- it is go

the judge seemed to weigh in that he agreed with the defense. why hasn't he ruled on this important motion? sometimes what judges do is they hold back the ruling until they get a verdict in the case, because if there's a verdict of acquittal, then it doesn't go to an appellate court and the judge doesn't have to worry about whether he ruled correctly or not. on the other hand, if the judge ruled he had to give a miss striel, the case would be taken away from the jury, and that would be the end of it. if it was due to prosecutorial misconduct, double jeopardy would apply and the defendant could never be tried again. i think that's why the judge is holding back. he's waiting to take the verdict and then he'll rule on the motion. by the way, he could set the verdict aside if there's a conviction and he says that that misconduct was of a constitutional nature and very prejudicial. >> very interesting. let's turn now to the trial of the men who are accused of killing ahmaud arbery, paul. the defense is going to begin, we assume, to present its case an

just one day after rittenhouse took the stand in his own defense. the jury now seeing new images of the moments before rittenhouse shot and killed two protesters and wounded a third. those images from a witness for the defense. tonight, the defense now resting its case and how soon could this be in the hands of the jury? >>> tonight, the alarming news on covid. for the first time in many months, covid cases now on the rise overall in this country. 22 states seeing spikes tonight, from colorado to new mexico to michigan. what they're seeing in the icu. and where they're now seeing the number of vaccinated patients in the hospital ticking up, too. some calling for boosters for 18 and older immediately. >>> the first blizzard warnings of the season tonight. we're tracking a major system moving across the country and then into the east overnight and tomorrow. the morning commute, heavy rains, gusting winds from washington, d.c. to new york to boston. rob marciano timing this out. >>> new testimony tonight in the ahmaud arbery case. the jury now hearing f

then the defense will take their turn. keep in mind, the prosecution will have a chance to rebuttal. now, prosecutor here, linda dunkinkowski has done a wonderful job with travis mcmichael testifying on thursday. and the prosecutor, as you've been hearing this morning, as she continues to lay out the state's case was able to get him to admit that at no time was ahmaud arbery threatening the group, at no time was he seen carrying a weapon. and that seems to punch some holes in the self-defense aspect of the case. she's trying to define key issues here in georgia law. the first is citizen's arrest. the defendants will try to claim and have claimed that they were carrying out a citizen's arrest. the problem with that and what the judge is going to charge the jury with later today is saying that a citizen's arrest can only be carried out if you witness the felony taking place. if the felony is taking place in your presence. she's very clear to lay out the facts of the case do not lend themselves to that citizen's arrest. the on

so rittenhouse's response to that was the definition of self-defense. erate split second decisions made in the face of uncorrespondent wanted aggression in an attempt to save his own life. that's what happened every person who testified on both sides of the trial confirmed that. no honest person doubts it kyle rittenhouse never should have been charged in the first place. yet, he was. the reason he was is very simple from. this the beginning this case was driven by politics and ever since it's been tainted by government deception and incompetence. for example, we're just learning now relevant new evidence in the case. really? this is evidence a jury should have seen before it began deliberation obviously on the basis of all known facts. needless to say this is not how our lyle legal system is supposed to work. this is what we learned. one of the charges kyle rittenhouse faces felony count for recklessly safety of a man they never identified. video footage from the night of august 25th shows this man kicking kyle rittenhouse in the face and knocking him d

dangerous for the defense. frankly i think the jurors took their time. they went through the charges. it was a thoughtful, meaningful process. they came back with two questions for the judge. they wanted the 911 tape. on the phone with 911 when he yelled out. travis had shot mr. arbery. the second was the videotape. meaningful, deliberative process taking place for the jurors. even though some may criticize the fact that it was not as long as the rittenhouse deliberation. >> trace: looking at the crowd outside the courthouse. the same, you talk about the jurors being the building and protesters outside the building. the same thing that played out in the kyle rittenhouse trial also played out here where you had protesters every day outside the building. we saw videotape of some of these protesters actually carrying a coffin with the defendant's names on the coffin. there was chanting. there was some concerns about, intimidating the jury, intimidating the defense attorneys just like there was in the kyle rittenhou

what is the defense? we talked about that, what is the defense? self-defense. what is that?e was somehow threatening to them, three on one, two pickup trucks, two guns. mr. arbery, nothing in his pockets, not a cell phone, not a gun, not even an i.d. they want you to believe that he is the danger to them and said it in the opening statement, he was scary. so here's the thing. they're going to try to claim they were justified in their actions. because here's the thing, ladies and gentlemen, you cannot claim self-defense under certain circumstances. you can't. you don't get to say compacting self-defense and three of them and it's the law. this isn't just something made up. there's three of them in the law. if you are the initial unjustified aggressor, you don't get to claim self-defense. if you're committing a felony against somebody you don't get to claim self-defense and the third one is if you provoke somebody, so that they defense themselves against you and you go look,' tacked me first. but you really were the one who was provoking at tack on yourself. you don't get to c

however, you must consider the law of self-defense in deciding whether the defendant's conduct as to richard mcginnis was criminally reckless conduct with utter disregard for human life but he does not have a privilege of self-defense as to richard mcginnis. the law of self-defense allows a defendant to threaten or intentionally use force against another only if the defendant believed that the dash imminent with another person and he believes the amount of force he used or threatened to use was necessary to prevent or terminate the interference, and that his beliefs are reasonable. the defendant may intentionally use force which is intended to cause death or great bodily harm only if the defendant reasonably believed that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily injury to himself. the belief may be reasonable even the mistaken in determining whether there defendant's beliefs were reasonable, the stand standard is what an ordinary prudence would believe the circumstances the defendant believed were existing at the time of the alleged offense. the reasonabl

what do you make of the defense's strategy of putting rittenhouse on the stand? >> well, most defense lawyers were shocked that, um, he took the stand because lawyers are terrified to put their own clients on the stand. and um, i was very surprised at how remarkably effective he was as a witness. he put together, um, really, a very solid self-defense claim. i mean, he was -- he said people had thrown rocks at the back of his head, knocked him to the ground. that, um, he had -- that one of the individuals he fired the shots at had not only threatened to kill him but threatened to cut his heart out. um, and of course he broke into tears as he, you know, explained how the killing took place. so i think he made a very, very good witness on his own behalf. >> judge gertner, you saw how judge schroeder admonished the prosecution at times today. and i want to play one of the moments where the judge goes after the prosecution for what they are bringing up in court. let's watch this. >> i don't believe you. there better not be another incident. i will take the motion under

the defense and prosecution agreed the juror should be dismissed.that the public needs to be confident that it is a fair trial. now it leaves us with 19 in total, 11 women and now 8 men. at this point we are expecting prosecutors to continue to call witnesses. >> thank you very much. great reporting. i want to turn to the trial of three white men accused of murdering an unarmed black man shot and killed while jogging last year. martin, hello to you. the jury made up of 11 white jurors and one african-american. tell us about the racial makeup of the community and how it happened. >> many are wondering how did it happen. glen county, where the trial is taking place is majority white, but 25% african-american. there were 1,000 jury summons sent out. hundreds were interviewed and many african-americans for the possibility of serving on the jury. then we get to the selection process. the way that you select a jury is by the defense and prosecution deciding who they don't want on the jury. they do it by strikes. the judge awarded twice as many strikes to

the defense will follow that. d wisconsin and what we could see in the coming hours. >> good afternoon. those deliberations should be getting here after the closing arguments wrap up. the judge did it dismiss a charge against kyle rittenhouse as a misdemeanor against the teenager. it was for possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor. it came down to the size of the weapon that was used in the shooting here in kenosha, wisconsin. the language in wisconsin does not actually ban a 17-year-old from karen rifle with a long barrel. rittenhouse was 17 when he shot three men killing to following the unrest of the police shooting of jacob blake. prosecutors replaying those moments here in wisconsin. kyle rittenhouse cannot claim the shootings were in self-defense. >> under wisconsin law, you are not allowed to run around and point you're gonna people. this is a provocation. this is what starts the incident. the defendant rushes in and immediately points a gun. as you see, mr. rosenbaum does not take kindly to people point

the defense counsel are asking for a mistrial. ton and they're claiming their client can't get a fair trial. a picture of ahmaud arbery was displayed in court and there was an audible gasp of emotion from someone in the gallery, perhaps one of arbery's parents and the defense objected to that as well because that person was near reverend jesse jackson. we just went through a good half hour or more of arguments back and forth about whether -- whether pastors, whether -- who can be in the gallery, so on and so forth. let me give you a sense of the back and forth. here's the exchange between kevin gough and the judge about the presence of jesse jackson. >> jesse jackson, of course. >> he is your honor, i think, we all know an icon in the civil rights movement. not just a witness to it, the personification of it. and in other circumstances i think everybody would be happy to have a their picture taken and get an autograph. in the context of this trial we object to his presence in the courtroom. >> i find that objectionable from the cou

the defense did a good job. an acquittal on all counts is a good picture no matter how you paint it. >> on the charges they brought, they didn't have that -- they didn't have cha tharj that possibly -- and we won't know until we get an idea of where the juror's heads were, but you could see it in the way various people would react to this trial. what was he doing there? gosh, why was that happening at the same time this. that there was -- that -- did they miss out? should they have found another lesser charge to put in there that would have been an easier case to prove? >> you know, i'm not sure that that is the issue here. the prosecution's real problems began when one of their key witnesses, the victim who survived, took the witness stand, and he essentially on cross examination conceded self-defense. talked about the fact that there was a gun in his hand. the prosecution tried to argue their way out of that situation. but i think the die was cast in a significant way at that point. >> and danny, now obviously

the defense themselves submitted an exhibit, number 41. d where the person that put that video together indi indicates rittenhouse pointing gun and there's a question mark. this was their exhibit. there is testimony from the detective and we showed this drone video. now but then the defendant won't admit to it on the stand then all of a sudden, the defense has to fight it and talk about hocus pocus and make up little clever rhymes. the defendant could have told you the truth. but that hurts his case and that gives us provocation. now, i did, i did have on rebuttal, mr. armstrong put in two very blurry pictures. mr. binger didn't mention these because they're fifth, sixth or seventh strongest evidence that mr. rittenhouse raised his gun, but the defense is seizing on them and inaccurately said it took him 20 hours of work to do. he worked on that drone video for 20 hours. he made us multiple shorter videos of it. these images were the last part of that work. and that image does show mr. rittenhouse holding a gun. it is blurry. does it show e

did it undercut the defense? did it help the defense? the judge did he did very well and that's what we expect of the judge. whether we agree with the instructions or not, we expect a judge to be as clear as he would or we can juxtapose that to the judge in the kyle rittenhouse trial. but this judge is clear and crisp. he read those instructions. i think that was helpful for the prosecution. i think to a degree it didn't undercut the defense because he explained, he went into great detail about what a citizen's arrest is. if you listen to what he was saying, it appeared the evidence doesn't support those elements could have been met. in addition to that when he talked about false imprisonment, what was false imprisonment? ahmaud arbery really had no options. he was cornered in, again, like a rat. he couldn't go anywhere. so that notion of false imprisonment was real. >> cal perry -- >> so i think it really benefits the prosecution. >> i'm sorry. cal perry, were you asking for us to come back to you? >> yeah, i was. i appreciate it. so i

in this case you have the prosecution, the defense, the defense, the defense, and you have got the threeants in there at the same time. so, say like today, when the state would call a witness, that witness would likely be interviewed or asked questions four different times. first by the state and then by each member of that defense team. there are six attorneys for those three defendants. so when there are objections, sometimes one jumps up or two or sometimes all three attorneys jump up or sometimes one defense attorney disagree with what the objection is on the part of another defense attorney, so the judge has to say, hold on a minute, the jury is excused and they work that out. that happens multiple times a day. and it just creates this tremendous sense of frustration in the courtroom and it shows. don. >> martin savidge, appreciate the reporting. martin will be covering this to the end. >>> so, he says that he won't eat until congress passes voting rights. joe madison, there he is, he is here, not eating, and it could be a very long time until he does, sadly. we are going to talk ne

while the defense painted him as anything but. doing what he needed to do to survive. >> in this entire sequence of events, from the shooting of jacob blake on sunday, august 23rd, 2020, all the way after that, everything this community went through, the only person who shot and killed anyone was the defendant. >> reporter: after about two weeks, the prosecution and the defense of kyle rittenhouse had one last chance to leave an impression on the jury. >> you cannot claim self-defense against a danger you create. >> reporter: at one point during closing arguments, the prosecution even demonstrates a moment where they say rittenhouse pointed his weapon prior to the fateful chase that ended in the killing of joseph rosenbaum. even pointing out that, in the aftermath, people believed rittenhouse could have been an active shooter, and that the crowd had a right to defend itself that night. >> how are we supposed to know where he is going next? and i got to stop here for a moment, and highlight the hypocrisy of the defense because accor

it took the defense a little while to get going. i thought the first hour, 90 minutes or so, were really bland and hard to follow, but that's the strongest part of the defense. when they say, he only ever shot anyone who physically attacked him. now, i don't know that the jury is going to be on board with grouping gun, skateboard, hands and feet. i mean, all of those things are not created equal. so one risk is the jury may say, okay, when threat ened with a gun, skateboard, he could use lethal force. hands and feet, that was debatable. >> feels defense may have been playing to a larger audience than outside the courtroom. there listen to this one. >> this is a political case. we can take politics out of it, as in democrat and republican, but the district attorney's office is marching forward with this case because they need somebody to be responsible. >> completely, completely inappropriate to make that remark. the whole point of a jury trial, the judge instructed the jury over and over yesterday, you are to decide this case on the

the defense then calling for a mistrial. kyle rittenhouse on the stand, saying he was in kenosha that night to help protect businesses and to give medical help. though on the stand, he said he is not an emt. testifying that one of the men he shot threatened to kill him. breaking down, describing that deadly encounter, rittenhouse saying he didn't intend to kill, only to, quote, stop the threat. kyle rittenhouse's mother sobbing in her seat. the judge calling for a break. the prosecutor pressing rittenhouse, who came to kenosha and was armed with an ar-15, did he expect to be in danger by going to kenosha? at one point, the judge becoming furious at the prosecutor for something else, though, for appearing to be ready to mention something that the judge had already banned. tonight, what the judge is now saying about the defense calling for a mistrial. abc's alex perez leading us off from kenosha. >> defense will call kyle rittenhouse. >> reporter: tonight, an explosive day of testimony. jurors for the first time hearing from ky