Of course, the jury can convict him of all of those, of none of those. Were still waiting to hear what the actual verdict will be. There is no time frame either. They can deliberate as long as they need in order to come to some kind of conclusion here. Of course this is all happening as this city is in a state of lockdown here. Downtown minneapolis, you see buildings surrounded by fences. Theyre tl are members of the National Guard out here. All five of the citys police p pr precincts are gated up. Authorities railroad slammed for being caught flatfooted, not having resources on hand. The governor said theyll have a number of resources out here just in case as the world watches to see what this verdict will be. Jim and poppy. Coming from a governor who himself served in the National Guard for almost 25 years. And that fact, josh, they called in Law Enforcement from ohio, from nebraska, to help as well, josh campbell. Thank you very much. Lets bring in laura coates, former federal prosecutor and minnesota native. That is very relevant here. Charles ramsey, former Police Commissioner in d. C. As well as philadelphia. Lets begin with you. You were a former federal prosecutor. How you would close this case out if you were making the closing arguments today or the rebuttal . You use the star witness. The 9 29 to drive the point home of what everyone saw happen. That not the officer that owed a duty of george floyd, no the only did he substantially cause the death of george floyd by refusing to take his knee off the neck, and i do mean refusing to do so, even in spite of all of the begging from bystanders and even an emt for him to remove his knee from his neck still he persisted. You bring home the point by the idea of Law Enforcement officials that say this was not abiding by training. This is the opposite of training. There was a duty of care owed even if if you yourself did not believe you were the cause of his physical duress. You still had a duty to perform cpr, to take his pulse, to try to get him assistance. You didnt do any of those things. You drive home the point here that when once george floyd was in the custody of police, the duty of care even expanded even more. All of these things they chose not to do. You have to walk them through element by element so there is no stone left unturned and no onus put on the jurors to connect the dots from the witness testimony to the specific elements according to statutory language. That is the heavy lifting of the prosecution at this stage. Charles ramsey, what did we learn about policing in america in this trial . I dont want to expand too far beyond it. Theyre very specific conditions. And facts here. But there are lessons. What lessons . Well, sure this are lessons. And systemic change needs to occur. Reform needs to occur. There is no question about that. I mean weve had a string of these incidents. Majority of people in policing do the job and do it well. Do it properly every single day. But one Derek Chauvin in our ranks is one too many. And so we have to face it and we have to deal with it and really come up with ways in which we can rid our ranks not only of those folks but not gbring any more onboard and rebuild or even build some kind of relationship with many of our communities because right now the relationship just is nowhere. I mean zero when you look at what is taking place. And we have to start and make it happen. The correct way. Laura, the jury will be charged. And then they will go and they will deliberate for as long as they need. They can bring questions to the judge that we will see on camera, right . The judge will answer those on camera which is important. Well know what the jury is asking. But that bar of substantial causal factor, how does the jury deliberate on what is substantial or what is not . Is it completely subjective, up to them . Its not entirely subjective. Although, the jurors are going to be the people to ultimately to determine the facts and the credibility in this case. And interpret the law. However, remember, substantial causal factor does not mean they have to have a percentage allocated here and if its over 90 10 or 70 30, its not about being the sole cause of death but if it contributed to the dmej a substantial way. A reason that not george floyd would have died some day but why he died in this particular moment. Remember that, is a theme for the prosecutions case here. The idea of saying, look, the Underlying Health conditions, the idea of perhaps heart disease, the idea of drug addiction. Th things may have caught up with george floyd on the long run, but what happened on may 25th, what caught up for that minute was the knee and conduct of Derek Chauvin. They have to continuously bring this point home. There is no need to have the technicalities of percent aages. The substantial causal factor of his death and not undermind by the defense was Derek Chauvin, the defendant in this case. Laura coates, you have said that you can learn some crlues y the questions that the jurors ask. Can you also in your experience devine any based on how long they deliberate . Again this is with the caveat that these are 12 human beings and, you know, whole host of things that dont indicate but in your experience, does a longer deliberation indicate anything versus a shorter one . It can. If you have a question that asks for certain evidence, thats a clue about what theyre hung up. You start hearing questions about Carbon Monoxide poisoning, the prosecution has a problem. If you see questions about how to interpret aspects of the law and different elements, terms like depraved heart, what was the underlying felony assault . Those sorts of things, then its opportunity for the prosecution to be able to expand upon it in a good way. However, sometimes what happens is people are under the impression that juries go back there and say all right, talk here. Who thinks hes guilty . Whos not . Good, done deal. Theyre told to go through the different elements. Has the prosecution carried the burden on each of the elements for each of the three charges . So they could be going through methodically to make sure that they in fact can substantiate the verdict on each of the elements and the prosecution has done their job. But the idea of just having a hands up right now and what is happening, what is everyone think . Can we go back home . Not what happens in a jury deliberation room. Charles ramsey, someone that lead multiple police forces, i wonder what you think coming over the weekend from minnesotas Lieutenant Governor peggy flanigan. She wrote okay. Lets listen into the courtroom in minneapolis. The judge just entered. This is all about to begin. Were waiting for closing arguments. Im going to give you some instructions on the law. You have a copy on your seat. You may in fact, i encourage that you follow along as i read them to you. There will be a point where ill ask you to put the remaining instructions on your chair so that you can listen to the closing arguments of counsel. Members of the jury, i instruct you it is your duty to decide the questions of fact in this case. It is my duty to give you the rules of law that you must apply in arriving at your verdict. You have now heard the evidence and soon youll hear the arguments of counsel. At this time, i will instruct you in the law applicable to this case. You must follow and apply the rules of law as i give them to you. Even if you know what the law is or should be different. You have each been given a copy of the instructions to follow along as i read and you may take your copy with you when you retire to the jury room. Nevertheless, you should listen carefully and attentively as i read them to you now. Please note that the titles of the individual sections of the instructions are not a part of the instructions but merely places headings to assist you in finding a topic. Deciding questions of fact is your exclusive responsibility. In doing so, you must consider all the evidence you have heard and seen in this trial and you must disregard anything that you may have heard or seen elsewhere about this case. I have not by these instructions nor by any ruling or expression during the trial intended to indicate my opinion regarding the facts or the outcome of this case. If i have said or done anything that would seem to indicate such an opinion, you are to disregard it. You must consider these instructions as a whole and regard each instruction in light of all the others. The order in which the instructions are given is of no significance. Youre free to consider the issues in any order you wish. The defendant is presumed innocent of the charges made. This presumption remains with the defendant unless and until he has been Proven Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant the fact that the defendant has been brought before the court by the ordinary processes of the law and is on trial should not be considered by you in any way suggesting guilt. The burden of proving guilt is on the state. The defendant does not have to prove his innocence. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is such proof as ordinarily prudent men and women would act upon in their most important affairs. Use your common sense. It does not mean a fanciful or capricious doubt nor does it mean beyond all possibility of doubt. A fact may be proven by direct or circumstantial evident or by both. The law does not prefer one form of evidence over the other. The fact is proven by direct evidence when, for example, it is proven by witnesses who testify as to what they saw, heard, or experienced. Or by physical evidence of the fact itself. A fact is proven by circumstantial evidence when its existence is reasonably iner iffed from other facts proven in the case. For example, if a person watches Deer Crossing a snow covered field, the person has direct evidence of deer walking in the field because the person sees it. If the person does not see deer but sees deer tracks in the snow, the deer tracks are circumstantial evidence that deer walked in the field because that factual conclusion can reasonably be inferred from the tracks in the snow. They have to argue their clients cause. However, the arguments other other remarks of an attorney are not evidence. If the attorney or i have made or should make any statement as to what the evidence is that differs from your recollection of the evidence, you should disregard the statement and rely solely on your own memory. If an attorneys argument contains any statement of the law that differs from the law i give you, disregard the attorneys statement. The state has brought three charges or counts against the defendant. Each count charges a separate and different offense. You must consider the evidence applicable to each count as though it were the only accusation before you for consideration. And you must state your findings as to each count in a separate verdict. On influence by the fact that your verdict as to any other count or counts is in favor of or against the defendant. The defendant may be found guilty or not guilty of any or all of the offenses charged depending on the evidence and the weight you give it under the courts instructions. Im about to instruct you on the law that youre to apply to the charges and the defense. Before doing so, i am going to define a few words and phrase thats appear more than once in the elements of the charges and the defense that follow. The words and phrases being defined are bold and in written copy of the instructions youll be receiving. You should use these definitions for the words and phrases in your deliberations. Atte attempted means that the defendant did an act a substantial step toward and more than mere preparation for causing the result and that the defendant did that act with intent to cause that result. There are several forms of bodily harm relevant to some of the charges or the defense. Bodily harm means physical pain or injury, illness, any impairment of a persons physical condition. Substantial bodily harm means bodily harm that involves a temporary but substantial disfigurement that causes a temporary but substantial loss or impairment or the function of any bodily member or organ or causes a fracture of any bodily member. Great bodily harm means Bodily Injury that creates a high probability of death. That causes serious permanent disfigurement or that causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily harm. To cause death, causing death or caused the death means that defendants act or acts were substantial causal factor in causing the death of george floyd. The defendant is criminally libel for all the consequences of his actions that occur in the ordinary and natural course of events including those consequences brought about by one or more intervening causes if such intervening causes were the natural result of the defendants acts. The fact that other causes contribute to the death does not relieve the defendant of criminal liability. However, the defendant is not crim criminally libel if a superseding cause caused the death. A superseding cause is a cause that comes after the defendants acts, altered the natural sequence of events and is the sole result that would not otherwise have occurred. To know, to have knowledge, or knew requires only that defendant believes that the specified facts exist. Intentionally or intentional means that defendant either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the results specified or believes that the act performed if successful will cause the result. In addition, the defendant must have knowledge of those facts that are necessary to make his conduct criminal and are set forth after the word intentionally or intentional. With intent to or intended means that the defendant either had a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified or believes that the act performed if successful will cause that result. It is not necessary that defendant have the intent and n. Advance. The necessary intent can develop during the commission of the act. Police officer is an employee of the Police Department charged with the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of the generally criminal laws of the state of minnesota and who has the full power of arrest. A Law Enforcement agency is a unit of state or local government that is authorized by law to grant full powers of arrest and to charge a person with duties of preventing and detecting crime and enforcing the general criminal laws of the state of minnesota. The minneapolis Police Department is a Law Enforcement agency for these purposes. The definition of any word or phrase with a specific legal meaning that appears only once in the elements or the defenses will be defined where it appears later in these instructions. The defendant is charged in count one with murder in the Second Degree in connection with the death of george floyd. Under minnesota law, a person causing the death of another without intent to cause the death of any person while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense is guilty of the crime of murder in the Second Degree. He is aiding in the commission of this crime. The elements of the crime of murder in the Second Degree while committing a felony are, first element, the death of george floyd must be proven. Second element the defendant caused the death of george floyd. Third element, the defendant at the time of causing the death of george floyd was committing or attempting to commit the felony offense of assault in the third degree. It is not necessary for the state to prove the defendant had an intent to kill george floyd but it must prove that defendant committed or attempted to commit the underlying felony of assault in the third degree. There are two elements after sault. First, he assaulted george floyd. Assault is intentional infliction of bodily harm or intent to inflict bodily harm on the another. The intention of bodily harm requires proof that destine tensionally applied unlawful force to a person without that persons content and that the act resulted in bodily harm. Second, destine flikted substantial bodily harm on george floyd. It is not necessary for the state to prove that the destine tended to inflict substantial bodily harm or knew that his actions would inflict substantial bodily harm. Only that he intented and george floyd sustained bodily harm. Fourth element, on or about may 25th, 2020 in hennepin county. If you find each of the elements is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is guilty of this charge. If you find that any of the elements have not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is not guilty of this charge. Unless you find the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant is liable for this crime committed by another person or persons according to the instructions below that is on page eight under the heading liability from crimes of another. Count two in the murder in third degree in connection with the death of george floyd. Under minnesota law, a person causing the death of another by purpose traiting an act eminently dangerous to others and depraved mind without regard to human life but without intent to cause the death of any person is guilty of murder in the third degree. The defendant is charged with committing this crime or intentionally aiding the commission of this crime. The elements of the crime of murder in the third degree are first element, the death of george floyd must be proven. Second element, the defendant caused the death of george floyd. Third element, the defendant caused the death of jogeorge fld by an act that is eminently dangerous to other persons. He commits an act dangerous to others when the act is highly likely to cause death. Fourth element, defendant acted with amental state consisting of reckless disregard for human life. The defendants act may not have been specifically intended to cause death and may not have been specifically directed at the particular person whose death occurred, but must have been committed with a conscious indifference to the loss of life that the eminently dangerous act could cause. The defendants act to place on or about may 25th, 2020 in hennepin county. If you find that each of these elements has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is guilty of this charge. If you find that any of these elements has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is not guilty of this charge, unless you find the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is liable for this crime committed by another person or persons according to the instructions that are listed on page eight under the heading liability for crimes of another. The defendant is charged in count three are manslaughter in the Second Degree in connection with the death of george floyd. Under minnesota law, whoever by culpable negligence and creates an unreasonable risk and consciously takes the chance of causing death or great bodily harm to another person, causes the death of another is guilty of murder of manslaughter in the Second Degree. The defendant is chargeded with committing this crime or intensely aiding the commission of this crime. The elements of manslaughter in the Second Degree are first element, the death of george floyd must be proven. Second element, he caused the death of george floyd by culpable negligence whereby the defendant created unreasonable risk and consciously took a chance of causing death or great bodily harm. Call pabl negligence is intentional conduct of the defendant may not have intended to be harmful but that an ordinary and reasonably prudent person would recognize as involving a strong probability of injury to others. The defendants act on may 25th, 2020 in hennepin county. If you find each of the elements is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is guilty of this charge. If you find that any of these elements has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is not guilty of this charge. Unless you find state proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is liable for this crime committed by another person or persons according to the following instruction the following instructions applied to all three of the charges i just given you. The defendant is guilty of a crime committed by another person or persons only if the defendant has played an intentional royal in aiding the commission of that crime and maud no reasonable effort to prevent the crime before committed. Intentional role includes intentionally aiding, advising, hiring, counseling, conspiring with, or procuring another to commit the crime. The defendants presence or actions constitute intentionally aiding only if at first the defendant knew another person or persons were going to commit or were committing a crime. Second, the destfendant defenda intended that it aided in that crime. If he aid another person or persons in committing a crime or intentionally advised, hired, counselled, conspired with or otherwise procured the other person or persons to commit it, the defendant is also guilty of any other crime the other person or persons commit while trying to commit the intended crime. If that other crime was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant, as a probable consequence of trying to commit the intended crime. The defendant is guilty of the crime under this theory of intensely aiding in the commission of a crime by another person or persons only if the other person or persons commit the crime. The defendant is not guilty for aiding, advising, hiring, counselling, conspiring, or otherwise procuring the commission of one of the charged crimes unless that crime is actually committed. The defendant or the state, rather, the state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the destine tensionally aided another person in committing the charged crime. No crime is committed if a Police Officers actions were justified by the Police Officers use of reasonable force in the line of duty in effecting a lawful arrest or preventing an escape from custody. The kind and degree of force a Police Officer may lawfully use in executing his duties is limited by what a reasonable Police Officer in the same situation would believe to be necessary. Any use of force beyond that is not reasonable. To determine if the actions of the Police Officer were reasonable, you must look at those facts which a reasonable officer in the same situation would have known at the precise moment the officer acted with force. You must decide whether the officers actions were objectively reasonable and n. Light of the totality of the facts and circumstances con fronting the officer and without regard to the officers own subjective state of mind, intentions or motivations. The defendant is not guilty of a crime if he used force as authorized by law. To prove guilt, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants use of force was not authorized by law. You are the sole judges of whether a witness is to be believed and of weight to be given a witness testimony. There are no hard and fast rules to guide you in this respect n determining believability and weight of testimony, you may take into consideration the witness interest or lack of interest in the outcome of the case. [ no audio ] so what just happened is that it looks like the feed, the live audio and video feed from the courtroom just froze. Obviously, were waiting to get it back. Jim, he was instructing the jury, lengthy instruction theres even before the closing arguments begin here in what should be just a few minutes. Thats right. You get a sense of what is before the jury here. For instance, he brought up this consent of a superseding cause. In other words, when they judge what caused floyds death, by the way as laura coates and others noted, it doesnt have to be one thing. In other words, the knee on the neck can be a substantial cause not the only cause. But he does describe this concept of a superseding cause. Laura coates, youre watching the judges instructions there. What struck you about that . What challenge does it present to the jury . First of all, if youre the prosecution, you are thrilled that jury instructions are not following you. Because now you have the last word in front of the jury if you rebutt the defense. That say huge advantage for prosecutors to have the last word. The idea, superseding vent. Remember, Derek Chauvins kneeling and failing to render aid need not have been the sole cause of death. Hit to substantially factor into it. So if there was Something Else like an alien space ship came down and suddenly they were able to intercept this entire event, then, no, Derek Chauvin would not be guilty. However that, did not happen. The idea of a superseding event means something that no one could predict that, was not a natural consequence of an unreasonable use of force, they could not be liable. For example, the cashingon monoxide theory. This is where this will factor n remember, Carbon Monoxide poisoning is deadly. But if the use by the use of a restraint that kept him if a prone handcuffed position with his head facing an exhaust pipe if, that was a natural result of that restraint on unreasonable force, then that is not a superseding event. That is the natural cause and reaction to what already happened. So every aspect of this he is cleared for. The jury, charles ramsey, is sequestered now. All right. Its back. Lets listen in. The. On the physical wellbeing of george floyd. This evidence is not to be used as evidence of the character of george floyd. During the testimony of some witnesses, the parties introduced demonstrative exhibits in the form of charts, summaries, animated videos. This information was presented to assist you as an aid in your understanding of the witnesss testimony. And to help explain the facts disclosed by the records, other documents, testimony, and other evidence that was received during the trial. If any chart, summary or an malted video is not consistent with the facts or figures shown by evidence in the case as you find them, you should disregard the chart or summary or animated video and determine the facts from the underlying evidence. Earlier during these instructions i defined certain words and phrases. And you are to use those definitions in your deliberations. If i have not defined a word or phrase, you shall apply the common ordinary meaning of that word or phrase. During this trial i ruled on objections to certain testimony and xiexhibits. You must not concern yourself with the reasons for the rulings because they are controlled by the rules of evidence. By admitting into evidence testimony and xiblts its too which objection was made, i did not intend to indicate the weight to be given such testimony and evidence. You are not to speculate as to possible answers to questions i did not require to be answered. You are to disregard all evidence and statements of attorneys that i have ordered stricken or told you to disregard. With that, i ask you to put your instructions under your chair as we listen to the closing arguments of counsel. Is the state ready to proceed with closing . Yes, your honor. You may proceed. Thank you. May it please the court, counsel, members of the jury. His name was George Perry Floyd jr. And he was born on october 14, 1973. An in fayetteville, North Carolina to his parents george floyd sr. And larcinia jones floyd. Sissy. The may tree ark. You met George Floyds brother and you heard all about sissy floyd. She was George Floyds mom. She was the mom of the house. She was the mom of the neighborhood. And you heard about the special bond that she and george floyd shared during his life. You heard about their relationship, how he would always take time, special attention to be with his mother. How he would still cuddle with her in the fetal position. You heard that. And from George Floyds brother you learned all about georges childhood. And during his time growing up in that house, george floyd was surrounded by people. People he knew. People who knew him. People he recognized. A familiar face to pick out in the crowd. People need that. George floyd was surrounded by people he cared about and who cared about him throughout his life. Throughout his childhood in that house. Through his adolescence into his adulthood. On may 25, 2020, george floyd died. Face down on the pavement. Right on 38th and chicago in minneapolis. 9 29. 9 29. During this time, george floyd struggled. Desperate to breathe, to make enough room in his chest to breathe. But the force was too much. He was trapped. He was trapped with the unyielding pavement underneath him as unjeelding as the men who held him down. Pushing him. A knee to the neck. A knee to the back. Twisting his fingers, holding his legs for 9 29. The defendants weight on him. The lungs in his chest unable to expand because there wasnt enough room to breathe. George floyd tried. He pushed his bare shoulder against the pavement to lift himself to give his chest, to give his lungs enough room in his chest to breathe. But the pavement tearing into his bare skin. As he desperately pushed with his knuckles to make space so hed have room to breathe, the pavement lacerated, lacerated his knuckles. The defendant stayed on top of him for 9 29. So bdesperate to breathe, he pushed with his face, with had is face. To lift himself. To open his chest. To give his lungs room to breathe. The pavement tearing into his skin. George floyd losing strength. Not super human strength. There is no super human strength. That day. There is no super human strength because there is no such thing as a super human. Those exist in comic books. At 38th and xhaug a very real place. Not super humans. Only humans. Just a human, just a man lying on the pavement being pressed upon desperately crying out, a grown man crying out for his mother. A human being. And in that time, in that place, while he was surrounded in life by people he knew him, faces he could pick out, there was no one there he knew. He was surrounded by strangers. Strangers, all of them, 9 29. He surrounded by strangers, not a familiar face to say his final words. But he did say them to someone. He said them to someone who he did not know by name, but he knew him on the uniform he wore and the badge he wore. He called him mr. Officer. Thats what he called him. Mr. Officer. Mr. Officer would help, would call the police when he helped. He pleaded with mr. Officer. George floyds final words on may 25, 2020, were, please. I cant breathe. And he said those words to mr. Officer. He said those words to the defendant. He asked for help with his very last breath. But mr. Officer did not help. The defendant did not help. He stayed on top of him. Continued to push him down, to grind his knees, to twist his hand, to twist his fingers into the handcuff thats bound him, looking at him. Staring staring down at times the horrified bystanders who gathered and watched this unfold. The motto of the minneapolis Police Department is to protect with courage and to serve with compassion. But george floyd was not a threat to anyone. He wasnt trying to hurt anyone and wasnt trying to do anything to anyone. Facing george floyd that day, that did not require one ounce of courage and none was shown. No courage was required. All that was required was a little compassion. And none was shown on that day. This was a call about counterfeit 20 bill. All that was required was some compassion. Humans need that. People need that. The more fundamental than that and more practical at that time in that place with george floyd needed was some oxygen. Thats what he needed. He needed to breath. Because people need that. Humans need that. The defendant heard him say that over and over. He heard him but he just didnt listen. He continued to push him down, to grind into him. To shimmy, to twist his hand for 9 29. George floyd begged and the defendant continued this assault. When he was unable to speak the defendant tuned. Beyond the point that he had a pulse, the defendant continued this assault. 9 29. When the ambulance arrived, the ambulance was here and the defendant continued. He stayed on top of him. He would not get up. He would not let up. He stayed on him, grinding into him, continuing to twist his fingers, to hold him down. He had no pulse. He was not breathing. He was not spresponsive and the defendant had to know what was right beneath him. Right beneath him. You saw the video. You saw the point when the ambulance arrived and fuinally after a paramedic, the defendant still did not get up. And the paramedic tapped him and fu funl finally defendant got up and they lifted mr. Floyd on to the gurney and you saw the way he was not in was nothing there. His head had to be lifted from the ground. He was limp. The defendant had to know that. He was there. He was on top of him. He was on top of him. On top of him. Sometimes you ask for the truth. Sometimes you insist on the truth. The truth is the defendant was on top of him for 9 29. And he had to know. He had to know. The medical examiner would find the cause of George Floyds death to be cardiopulmonary arrest, complicating Law Enforcements subdual restraint and neck compression. What you saw the defendant and the other officers doing to george floyd caused his death. The medical examiner ruled the death a homicide. Death at the hands of another. What the defendant did to george floyd killed him. It was ruled a homicide. The defendant is charged with murder. Charged with murder and charged with manslaughter. The defendant at the time was a Police Officer. It may be hard. It may be hard for any of you to imagine a Police Officer doing Something Like this. Remember, in jury selection, we talked about bias and we talked about setting biases and preconceived notions behind. Well, imagining a Police Officer committing a crime might be the most difficult thing you have to set aside. 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 theyre going to listen to us. Even after the bystanders saw what they saw, after they saw this shocking display of abuse of police power and a man murdered in front of them. They called the police. Donald williams. He saw this. You heard him. He testified. He called the police. A 9yearold. What did she suggest . We need to call the police on the police. Thats our expectation. Even after seeing this. Even after witnessing this. Our expectation is that the police are going to help. And with reason. And with good reason. Policing is the most noble profession. It is. And to be very clear, this case this case is called the state of minnesota versus Derek Chauvin. This case is not called the state of minnesota versus the police. It is not. Policing is a noble profession. It is a profession. You met several Minneapolis Police officers during this trial. You met them. They took the stand. They testified. Make no mistake. This is not a prosecution of the police. It is a prosecution of the defendant. And there is nothing worse for good police than a bad police. Who doesnt follow the rules. Who doesnt follow procedures. Who doesnt follow training. Who ignores the policies of the department, of the motto of the department to protect with courage, to serve with compassion. The chief of police in minneapolis Police Department, he took the stand. He testified and he told you what that badge that he wears over his heart means. Its a public trust. Theyre there to help us. Its a professional organization. There are standards. There are rules. There is a code of conduct. There is a use of force policy. There is extensive training. The police are first responders. Theyre who we call for help. And they help us. They have cpr training. If there is more training than simply use of force. There is more to policing than putting handcuffs on people and hauling them away to be true. Right . There are other kinds of training. There is procedural justice. There is crisis intervention training. There is medical training and defensive tactics and deescalation. All of this training, hundreds, hundreds of hours of training. People, staff, training and they told you. We dont train this. They told you that. The life and protection of the public, those are the corner stones of minneapolis Police Departments use of forc e policy. That day his badge wasnt in the right place. The defendant was a Police Officer. He was. And again, you need to set aside notion that its impossible for a ploolice officer to do somethg like. This defendant is on trial not for being a Police Officer, its not the state versus the police. Hes no the on trial for who he was. Hes on trial for what he did. That is what he did on that day. 9 29. That is what he did. He didnt follow training. Hundreds of thundershowers of raining that he had, he did not follow the departments use of force. He did not perform cpr. He knew better. He just didnt do better. He just didnt do better. Of remember during opening statement, counsel said that the defendant followed the rules and followed his training. Did you hear evidence of that . Did you hear evidence of that from the stand . Or did you hear something quite different . The chief of police testified, vee lated the use of force policy. He violated the deescalation policy. You heard the trainer, we dont train this. This is not who we are. No. That representation was simply wrong. That is just a story. What the defendant did was not policing. What the defendant did was an assault. Im going to discuss the law with you in a bit here. And explain the courts already provided you some instructions on seconddegree murder. And you know under the laws of this state, if you commit in a certain level of assault, felony level assault and a person dies as a result of your assault, youre guilty of murder. Its as simple as that. And what the defendant did here was a straight up felony assault. This was not policing. It was unnecessary. It was gratuitous. It was disproportionate, and he did it on purpose. No question. This is note an accident. He did not trip and fall and find himself upon George Floyds neck. He did what he did on purpose. And it killed george floyd. That force for 9 29. That killed george floyd. He betrayed the badge. And everything that stood for. Its no the how theyre trained. Its not following the rules. This is not an antipolice prosecution. Its a pro police prosecution. He abandoned training and killed a man and why . Right out in the public. Right out in broad daylight. In front of several bystanders as they looked in shock, in horror. Why . Well this all started over a call of an alleged counterfeit 20 bill. But George Floyds life was taken for something worth far, far less. Far less. You saw the photo. You saw the body language. You can learn a lot about someone by looking at their body language. His ego, his pride, not the kind of pride that makes you do better, be better. The kind of ego based pride. The defendant was not going to be told what to do. He was not going to let the bystanders tell him what to do. He was going to do what he wanted, how he wanted for as long as he wanted. And there was nothing nothing they could do about it. Because he had the authority. The bystanders were powerless. They were powerless to do anything. The defendant, he chose pride over policing. Charles mcmillan, 61 years old, interesting man. Right . You remember when he testified. He had the glasses. If any of you in the front row when he walked by happened to notice his shoes. If you looked at his shoes, you probably saw your reflection in his shoes. He dressed for court like it was the most important day of his life. Interesting man. He was there. He sort of narrating this horrific scene throughout. You hear him in the video. He called out to george floyd. He said, you cant win. You cant win. And george floyd replied, im not trying to win. Im not trying to win. Im scared. But the defendant, the defendant was trying to win. He wasnt going to be told what to do. He wasnt going to take a challenge to his authority. He was trying to win. And george floyd paid for it with his life. Now also need to be clear this is not the trial of george floyd. George floyd is not on trial here. You heard things about george floyd and struggled with drug addiction. He was being investigated for allegedly passing a fake 20 billion to that there was never any evidence introduced he knew was fake in the first place. He didnt get a truly when he was alive. Hes not on trial here. Defense claims that he was noncompliant. Noncompliant. Well, lets revisit what happened before the 9 29. Its memorial day, may 25th, 2020. And george floyd is sitting in a car in the drivers seat with two friends. He was in cup foods. He had been in the store. He was walking. He was talking. He was breathing. As a live as any person, any human in this room. Back to the car. There is a tap to the window. He looks to his left and is startled. This is what he sees. This is what he sees. Within seconds of the approach, officer lane tapped on the widow and within seconds he pulls his gun and holds it inches from George Floyds face. And starts shouting profanities, show me your [ beep ] hands. Show me your fing hands screaming at him. This is within seconds. You can tell a lot about someone by looking at their body language. How does mr. Floyd look in this photo . Terrified . The officer on the drivers side, the officer on the passenger side, lane orders floyd to put his hands on the steering wheel. He does. Thats not resistance. That is compliance. Lane orders floyd to get out of the car. He does. Thats not resistance. Thats compliance. They ordered him they want him handcuffed. That is compliance. On the handcuffs, you recall the testimony. They werent properly double locked. And so they continued to ratchet. Theyre not on correctly. Theyre on too tight. Throughout, you listen to the videos throughout the videos, can you hear the sound of those handcuffs ratcheting, tight eastern tighter. Mr. Floyd is trying to explain to the police that his wrists hurt. Impervious in pain. Please. I continues. They tell him to go over to the dragon walk. He goes over to the dragon walk. That is not resistance. Thats compliance. They ask him to sit down. He sits down. Not resistance, compliance. Not trying to escape, not trying to evade arrest, no the trying to assault anybody, shoot anybody, stab anybody, punch anybody, no. Compliance. Sits down on the ground. They ask him his name. He gives his name. He spells it. Thats not resistance. Thats compliance. They ask him to get up. He gets up. They ask him to go across the street, he goes across the street. Where is the resistance . Where is that . They take him over to the car. Okay . They take him over to the car. George floyd is a big guy. Right . You can see here. I mean hes almost as big as officer lane. Hes a big guy. Hes a big person. Back of the squad car is not. Thats what they wanted him to get into. And to george floyd, that looked he looked at. That that looked like a little cage. He tried to explain himself to the officers. That he had anxiety. That he had claustrophobia. They wanted had imto get in the back of this little car. He just wasnt automobile to bring himself to do it. He wasnt able to bring himself to do it. Okay. Okay. Okay. Let me count. Im going in. Please. So he is trying to work up at built to get in the car. He is explaining himself repeatedly. You can see this is where the defendant and officer thao start coming into the scene. They start to come to the scene. 19year veteran of the police force with all of the training that involves, over 800 hours of training. 40 hour crisis intervention training. Scenario based training where theyre taught to recognize the signs of someone who is experiencing a crisis. A crisis. You know, he couldnt bring hum self to get in. And sometimes people cant bring themselves to get in. And this is not new. This is not new. This is not ground breaking. People have emotions. People have things happen to them. The police train for this. They recognize this. You dont get to meet the police on your best day very often. You dont call the police and say everythings fine. Just wanted you to know. Right . That doesnt happen. This is a whole raufnge of different issues. It could be a death in the family that can cause extreme emotional response. You know, recall when officer lane approached the car, george floyd talked about losing his mother. He lost her in 2018. Those wounds still right there on the surface. Emotion. It could involve a divorce. Bad financial news. Right . Mental illness, Mental Health issues like drug and alcohol abuse. All of those thins can cause someone to not resist but just not bring themselves to comply at that moment at that time. And this is nothing new. They train for it. They plan for it. They prepare for it. They have a policy on it. Right . Recognizing persons in crisis. He testified. He testified that they have