injury to him. there is obviously a change between him being able to enunciates, and speak. two sounds of pain, and extraordinary chest injury coming from his body. when you look at that, not as the parents. not as distraction of a human being but as a prosecutor. what does that tell you. it is very strong evidence for the knowing part that this persons already very injured, you know, from a defense standpoint. those officers could argue i couldn t tell, i m not a doctor. that something was going on. i thought was high andra s, something like that. they can argue those things or the council will, because i doubt they ll testify. but the problem for them goes back to the fact that there is no evidence of him resisting. there s no reason that they need to potato pie force to him. and that is part of the
is back home now with his family. so speaking of that officer, i m joined now by the attorney for desmond mills jr., blake ballen. blake, thank you so much for joining us. i really appreciate it. the police chief in an interview just a short while ago said that there is no evidence to substantiate the claim of reckless driving. they haven t found any evidence in video or otherwise. right. what s your reaction to that? that proof is in the pugd. . i need to see it. i haven t seen the video we re all waiting to see. i haven t seen anything about the stop from a defense standpoint. this is the beginning stages of things and we are looking forward to seeing what what evi they have. the officers had a duty of care, it was said by the police chief that they did not follow the memphis police department s guidelines for duty of care, this he did not render care, obviously there is also the kidnapping charge as well. how do you respond to that? well, specifically focused on
does this imply that they did give up more additional information since this is they have come back again? i think it implies that they probably tried to assert some kind of privilege or rely on something that the president said, a court probably looked at it and said that there are there might be individual statements you can have protected but you ve got to come in. sew, yes, probably more i don t get the sense this is pure speculation they were blowing off the subpoena or fighting with the justice department but they can object to questions as they come in and may not answer everything they are asked. hard to know what they may have invoked in the grand jury room. from a defense standpoint, you want to watch out they don t spin later on the prosecutors. in that sense, they are locking them in. this comes a kay after we saw that appeals court say that strike down the trump team s request for a special master,
with some of his aides like giuliani and lawyer eastman. some of the committee s work has been on establishing that the president knew or should have known that he did, indeed, lose the election. you have the attorney general testifying that he told him that those claims were bs and others here. from a defense standpoint, what would the president have to show to undermine that argument? is it as simple as saying finding one helpful witness to say, well, i told him he did win the election and he believed me. is it that simple? it s not that simple. there are two very basic problems. judge luttig point to them, george conway pointed to them. willful ignorance of the facts doesn t count. you can t sap, i chose to believe i got more votes even though all the facts point the other way. you can t be an ostrich and have
the witness stand. all of us debated beforehand will we see kyle rittenhouse on the wind stand, obviously it worked and do you agree that he had no choice but to do that. not as a matter of law, but yes, i think as a matter of strategy, he had no choice. you have to put your client on the stand if you re claiming self-defense. it was interesting to hear the defense say they had two mock juries. we can debate the value of mock juries, but he did much better from the defense standpoint, when they put their client on the stand. kyle rittenhouse, the prosecution did not do much to undermine him. they pointed out some sort of minor inconsistencies and things he said on the night of, and later. nothing that undermines the core defense argument which was he was attacked. every time he s shot, he was attacked, whether with a gun by gaij graij goross i want to go to you because you know jurors, you re a jury