Yeah, both the prosecution and defence focusing on the concept of reasonable doubt in the last few hours. The prosecutor arguing that there was no doubt. That Derek Chauvin had killed george floyd. Lets just listen into some of the deliberations from the judge. Deliberations from the udge. Council made h deliberations from the judge. Council made a Mistake Misstatement when argued that the defendant had to apply when argued that the defendant had to apply unlawful force. As in he had to to apply unlawful force. As in he had to attend that the force he was applying had to attend that the force he was applying to be unlawful. Thats not applying to be unlawful. Thats not a correct applying to be unlawful. Thats not a correct statement of the law pursuant a correct statement of the law pursuant to doran. That 87 west second pursuant to doran. That 87 west second eight 26 the state need not show second eight 26 the state need not show that second eight 26 the state need not show that the defendant meant to or knew that show that the defendant meant to or knew that she would violate the law. That is knew that she would violate the law. That is what knew that she would violate the law. That is what mr nelson argued before the jury that is what mr nelson argued before the jury so that is what mr nelson argued before the jury. So we are requesting the court the jury. So we are requesting the court give the jury. So we are requesting the court give a the jury. So we are requesting the court give a curative instruction to the jury court give a curative instruction to the jury as court give a curative instruction to the jury as follows. It is not necessary the jury as follows. It is not necessary for the state to prove that the necessary for the state to prove that the defendant intended to act unlawfully. Only that the defendant intentionally applied for us to another intentionally applied for us to another that this application of force another that this application of force was another that this application of force was unlawful and that this application of force resulted in Bodily Application of force resulted in bodily harm. I believe thats incorrect bodily harm. I believe thats incorrect statement of the law. Which incorrect statement of the law. Which is incorrect statement of the law. Which is contrary to what the current which is contrary to what the current owner which is contrary to what the current owner struck which is contrary to what the current owner struck in which is contrary to what the current owner struck in the l which is contrary to what the. Current owner struck in the first set of current owner struck in the first set of instructions. Current owner struck in the first set of instructions. Current owner struck in the first set of instructions. Your honour, i believe the set of instructions. Your honour, i believe the court set of instructions. Your honour, i believe the Court Instruction set of instructions. Your honour, i believe the Court Instruction was l believe the Court Instruction was that the believe the Court Instruction was that the intentional infliction of bodily that the intentional infliction of bodily harm requires that proves that the bodily harm requires that proves that the defendant intentionally applied unlawful for us to another person applied unlawful for us to another person without that persons consent and that person without that persons consent and that this act resulted in bodily harnr~ and that this act resulted in bodily harnr~ he and that this act resulted in bodily harm. He did not instruct that the defendant harm. He did not instruct that the defendant need to attend his force be unlawful. Merely that he intended to apply be unlawful. Merely that he intended to apply with force which was unlawful. �. ,. , unlawful. Im going to deny the reauest unlawful. Im going to deny the request for unlawful. Im going to deny the request for curative unlawful. Im going to deny the. Request for curative instructions. Unlawful. Im going to deny the i request for curative instructions. I will reread request for curative instructions. I will reread before request for curative instructions. I will reread before the request for curative instructions. I will reread before the beginning. Request for curative instructions. I| will reread before the beginning of rebuttal will reread before the beginning of Rebuttal Statements will reread before the beginning of Rebuttal Statements that will reread before the beginning of Rebuttal Statements that the will reread before the Beginning Ofj Rebuttal Statements that the judge and attorneys Rebuttal Statements that the judge and attorneys that Rebuttal Statements that the judge and attorneys that starts Rebuttal Statements that the judge and attorneys that starts at Rebuttal Statements that the judge and attorneys that starts at the and attorneys that starts at the bottom and attorneys that starts at the bottom of and attorneys that starts at the bottom of page and attorneys that starts at the bottom of page two and attorneys that starts at the bottom of page two and and attorneys that starts at the bottom of page two and goes l and attorneys that starts at the i bottom of page two and goes on and attorneys that starts at the bottom of page two and goes on to pae bottom of page two and goes on to page three bottom of page two and goes on to page three. Which bottom of page two and goes on to page three. Which specifically page three. Which specifically states page three. Which specifically states that page three. Which specifically states that if page three. Which specifically states that if an page three. Which specifically states that if an attorneys page three. Which specifically states that if an Attorneys Argument contains states that if an Attorneys Argument contains any states that if an Attorneys Argument contains any statement states that if an Attorneys Argument contains any statement of states that if an Attorneys Argument contains any statement of the states that if an Attorneys Argument contains any statement of the law. Contains any statement of the law that differs contains any statement of the law that differs from contains any statement of the law that differs from the contains any statement of the law that differs from the law contains any statement of the law that differs from the law i contains any statement of the law that differs from the law i give contains any statement of the law| that differs from the law i give you disregard that differs from the law i give you disregard the that differs from the law i give you disregard the attorney that differs from the law i give you disregard the attorney statement. | that differs from the law i give youi disregard the attorney statement. I will reread disregard the attorney statement. I will reread that disregard the attorney statement. I will reread that and disregard the attorney statement. I will reread that and turn disregard the attorney statement. I will reread that and turn it disregard the attorney statement. I will reread that and turn it over disregard the attorney statement. I will reread that and turn it over to I Will Reread that and turn it over to mr blackwell will reread that and turn it over to mr blackwell who will reread that and turn it over to mr blackwell who I Will Reread that and turn it over to mr blackwell who i assume will reread that and turn it over to mr blackwell who i assume will. Mr blackwell who i assume will answer mr blackwell who i assume will answer this mr blackwell who i assume will answer this exact mr blackwell who i assume will answer this exact issue mr blackwell who i assume will answer this exact issue in mr blackwell who i assume will answer this exact issue in his l answer this exact issue in his rehuttat answer this exact issue in his rebuttal. ~. ,. , rebuttal. We do ask the Courts Uuidance rebuttal. We do ask the Courts Guidance on rebuttal. We do ask the Courts Guidance on another rebuttal. We do ask the Courts Guidance on another issue rebuttal. We do ask the Courts Guidance on another issue andj rebuttal. We do ask the Courts Guidance on another issue and that is mr guidance on another issue and that is mr nelson argued quote mr charman thought is mr nelson argued quote mr charman thought that he was following his Training Thought that he was following his training. There is no chauvin. There training. There is no chauvin. There is training. There is no chauvin. There is no training. There is no chauvin. There is no testimony from mr chauvin there is no testimony from mr chauvin and he did argue that they could chauvin and he did argue that they could confer that he argued that that~~~ could confer that he argued that that. Placing that in context puts that. Placing that in context puts us that. Placing that in context puts us in that. Placing that in context puts us in a that. Placing that in context puts us in a difficult position in that puts us in a difficult position in that we puts us in a difficult position in that we cant comment on his failure to testify that we cant comment on his failure to testify but that statement is directly to testify but that statement is directly at odds with the evidence on the directly at odds with the evidence on the record. Mr directly at odds with the evidence on the record. On the record. Mr nelson, your response on the record. Mr nelson, your response mr on the record. Mr nelson, your response. Mr chauvin on the record. Mr nelson, your response. Mr Chauvin Thoughtl on the record. Mr nelson, your. Response. Mr chauvin thought that on the record. Mr nelson, your response. Mr chauvin thought that he was following response. Mr chauvin thought that he was following his response. Mr chauvin thought that he was following his training. Response. Mr chauvin thought that he was following his training. What response. Mr chauvin thought that he was following his training. What was i was following his training. What was the context to was following his training. What was the context to that was following his training. What was the context to that end . Was following his training. What was the context to that end . Well was following his training. What was the context to that end . Well is was following his training. What was the context to that end . Well is the | the context to that end . Well is the use of force the context to that end . Well is the use of force discussion the context to that end . Well is the use of force discussion when the context to that end . Well is the use of force discussion when youre | use of force discussion when youre talking use of force discussion when youre talking about a reasonable officer following his training you indicated that mr following his training you indicated that mr chauvin thought he was following his training. | that mr chauvin thought he was following his training. Following his training. I dont recall saying following his training. I dont recall saying it, following his training. I dont recall saying it, your following his training. I dont recall saying it, your honor. L following his training. I dont recall saying it, your honor. Even if ou recall saying it, your honor. Even if you did. Recall saying it, your honor. Even if you did. It recall saying it, your honor. Even if you did, it was recall saying it, your honor. Even if you did, it was drowned recall saying it, your honor. Even if you did, it was drowned out by a reasonable if you did, it was drowned out by a reasonable officer. If you did, it was drowned out by a reasonable officer. I if you did, it was drowned out by a reasonable officer. I think if you did, it was drowned out by a reasonable officer. I think its if you did, it was drowned out by a reasonable officer. I think its a i reasonable officer. I think its a reasonable reasonable officer. I think its a reasonable reference reasonable officer. I think its a reasonable reference to reasonable officer. I think its a reasonable reference to draw. Reasonable officer. I think its a i reasonable reference to draw from the evidence reasonable reference to draw from the evidence that reasonable reference to draw from the evidence that exists. Reasonable reference to draw from the evidence that exists. Given i reasonable reference to draw from| the evidence that exists. Given the statement the evidence that exists. Given the statement to the evidence that exists. Given the statement to mr the evidence that exists. Given the statement to mr mcmillan the evidence that exists. Given the i statement to mr mcmillan essentially was an statement to mr mcmillan essentially was an indirect statement to mr mcmillan essentially was an indirect way statement to mr mcmillan essentially was an indirect way of statement to mr mcmillan essentially was an indirect way of saying statement to mr mcmillan essentially was an indirect way of saying he i statement to mr mcmillan essentially was an indirect way of saying he wasi was an indirect way of saying he was following was an indirect way of saying he was following his was an indirect way of saying he was following his training was an indirect way of saying he was following his training for was an indirect way of saying he was following his training for some i was an indirect way of saying he was following his training for some its i following his training for some its a reasonable following his training for some its a reasonable inference following his training for some its a reasonable inference for following his training for some its a reasonable inference for the i a reasonable inference for the council a reasonable inference for the council to a reasonable inference for the council to argue a reasonable inference for the council to argue from a reasonable inference for the council to argue from the i a reasonable inference for the i council to argue from the evidence. And to council to argue from the evidence. And to respond council to argue from the evidence. And to respond to council to argue from the evidence. And to respond to that council to argue from the evidence. And to respond to that specifically. And to respond to that specifically by saying and to respond to that specifically by saying there and to respond to that specifically by saying there is and to respond to that specifically by saying there is no and to respond to that specifically by saying there is no evidence i and to respond to that specifically. By saying there is no evidence would in fact by saying there is no evidence would in fact be by saying there is no evidence would in fact be commenting by saying there is no evidence would in fact be commenting soap by saying there is no evidence would in fact be commenting soap by by saying there is no evidence would in fact be commenting soap by the l in fact be commenting soap by the state in fact be commenting soap by the state is in fact be commenting soap by the state is always in fact be commenting soap by the state is always in. In fact be commenting soap by the state is always in. As in fact be commenting soap by the state is always in. As far in fact be commenting soap by the state is always in. As far back i in fact be commenting soap by the state is always in. As far back as l state is always in. As far back as far as state is always in. As far back as far as the state is always in. As far back as far as the other state is always in. As far back as far as the other issues state is always in. As far back as far as the other issues you i state is always in. As far back as far as the other issues you can l state is always in. As far back as i far as the other issues you can talk about far as the other issues you can talk about reguoting far as the other issues you can talk about re quoting what far as the other issues you can talk about re quoting what the far as the other issues you can talk. About re quoting what the elements are on about re quoting what the elements are on the about re quoting what the elements are on the salt about re quoting what the elements are on the salt in about re quoting what the elements are on the salt in the about re quoting what the elements are on the salt in the third about re quoting what the elements are on the salt in the third degree. L are on the salt in the third degree. Also anything are on the salt in the third degree. Also anything else are on the salt in the third degree. Also anything else that are on the salt in the third degree. Also anything else that you are on the salt in the third degree. Also anything else that you think. Also anything else that you think was a also anything else that you think was a misstatement also anything else that you think was a misstatement of also anything else that you think was a misstatement of law also anything else that you think was a misstatement of law was i also anything else that you think. Was a misstatement of law was up i will read was a misstatement of law was up i will read the was a misstatement of law was up i will read the statements was a misstatement of law was up i will read the statements of was a misstatement of law was up i will read the Statements Ofjudges. Will read the Statements Ofjudges and attorneys will read the Statements Ofjudges and attorneys if will read the Statements Ofjudges and attorneys if you will read the Statements Ofjudges and attorneys if you wish will read the Statements Ofjudges and attorneys if you wish actually, before and attorneys if you wish actually, before i and attorneys if you wish actually, before i do and attorneys if you wish actually, before i do that and attorneys if you wish actually, before i do that do and attorneys if you wish actually, before i do that do you and attorneys if you wish actually, before i do that do you want i and attorneys if you wish actually, before i do that do you want me. And attorneys if you wish actually, | before i do that do you want me to read that, before i do that do you want me to read that, reread before i do that do you want me to read that, reread that before i do that do you want me to read that, reread that or before i do that do you want me to read that, reread that or should i read that, reread that or should i. Read that, reread that or should i~~~ . Read that, reread that or should i~~~ . Yes. Read that, reread that or should i~~~ 7 yes. Your read that, reread that or should i. . Yes, your honor. Read that, reread that or should i. . Yes, your honor. Read that, reread that or should i. . Yes, your honor. 0k. Just to fill you i. . Yes, your honor. 0k. Just to fill you in i. . Yes, your honor. 0k. Just to fill you in on i. . Yes, your honor. 0k. Just to fill you in on what i. . Yes, your honor. 0k. Just to fill you in on what was i. . Yes, your honor. 0k. Just. To fill you in on what was happening this is the Closing Argument stage of the trial of Derek Chauvin. We had first the prosecution making their Closing Argument then we had their Closing Argument then we had the defence making their Closing Argument and now we have lawyers for the prosecution talking to the judge about some of the things that they heard in those Closing Arguments, things they would like to rebut. We have with us a criminal Defence Attorney and a legal attorney for us. Shejoins us from she joins us from you narc. New york. Can you fill us in at the moment . York. Can you fill us in at the moment . , ,. ,. , york. Can you fill us in at the moment . , ,. ,. , moment . Sure. These discussions are takin moment . Sure. These discussions are taking place moment . Sure. These discussions are taking place outside moment . Sure. These discussions are taking place outside the moment . Sure. These discussions are taking place outside the presence i moment . Sure. These discussions are taking place outside the presence of. Taking place outside the presence of the jury. Taking place outside the presence of thejury. Basically taking place outside the presence of the jury. Basically what the prosecution is saying to the judge they are arguing that the Defence Counsel misstated the law in his Closing Arguments. And thats obviously not allowed. They are asking the judge to read a curative instruction. Jury instructions are highly complicated and really one of the most important parts of the case. Its as important as really the evidence was up at what the prosecution wants here is really the judge to highlight that to say listen, eric nelson said something in his Closing Argument, while thats not the law, listen to me instead of listening to him. The judge actually denied that request saying it didnt merit a curative response but that would sort of issue a global admonishment to listen to Thejury Issue A Global Admonishment to listen to the Jury Instructions first and foremost over whatever in attorney says. Because thats not evidence. But the prosecution also argued about the fact that the Defence Counsel stated something to the effect of Derek Chauvin was following his training. While we all know that he had a right against Self Incrimination and did not take the stand but the prosecution is not allowed to use that as a way to have allowed to use that as a way to have a negative inference for thejurors. Each point that out and say look, if you are really innocent he wouldve gotten on the stand and testify. They are not allowed to do that, its part of Derek Chauvin is constitutional right. Thats another issue that the prosecution is, the judge is not having any of it. Should we listen in . find judge is not having any of it. Should we listen in . Judge is not having any of it. Should we listen in . And to argue their clients should we listen in . And to argue their clients because. Should we listen in . And to argue their clients because. However i should we listen in . And to argue | their clients because. However the arguments their clients because. However the arguments or their clients because. However the arguments or other their clients because. However the arguments or other remarks their clients because. However the arguments or other remarks of their clients because. However the arguments or other remarks of an| arguments or other remarks of an Attorney Arguments or other remarks of an attorney are arguments or other remarks of an attorney are not arguments or other remarks of an attorney are not evidence. Arguments or other remarks of an attorney are not evidence. If i arguments or other remarks of an attorney are not evidence. If the i attorney are not evidence. If the Attorneys Attorney are not evidence. If the attorneys or attorney are not evidence. If the attorneys or i attorney are not evidence. If the attorneys or i have attorney are not evidence. If the attorneys or i have made attorney are not evidence. If the attorneys or i have made or attorney are not evidence. If the i attorneys or i have made or should make attorneys or i have made or should make any attorneys or i have made or should make any statement attorneys or i have made or should make any statement as attorneys or i have made or should make any statement as to attorneys or i have made or should make any statement as to what i attorneys or i have made or should| make any statement as to what the evidences, make any statement as to what the evidences, the make any statement as to what the evidences, the difference make any statement as to what the evidences, the difference from i make any statement as to what the | evidences, the difference from your recollecting evidences, the difference from your recollecting of evidences, the difference from your recollecting of the evidences, the difference from your recollecting of the evidence, evidences, the difference from your recollecting of the evidence, you i recollecting of the evidence, you should recollecting of the evidence, you should disregard recollecting of the evidence, you should disregard that recollecting of the evidence, you should disregard that statement| recollecting of the evidence, you i should disregard that statement and rely solely should disregard that statement and rely solely on should disregard that statement and rely solely on your should disregard that statement and rely solely on your own should disregard that statement and rely solely on your own memory. If. Rely solely on your own memory. If an attorneys rely solely on your own memory. If an Attorneys Argument rely solely on your own memory. If an Attorneys Argument contains i rely solely on your own memory. Ifi an Attorneys Argument contains any statement an Attorneys Argument contains any statement of an Attorneys Argument contains any statement of the an Attorneys Argument contains any statement of the law an Attorneys Argument contains any statement of the law that an Attorneys Argument contains any statement of the law that differs i statement of the law that differs from statement of the law that differs from the statement of the law that differs from the law statement of the law that differs from the law i statement of the law that differs from the law i give statement of the law that differs from the law i give you, statement of the law that differs. From the law i give you, Disregard Attorneys from the law i give you, Disregard Attorneys statement. From the law i give you, Disregard Attorneys statement. Mr from the law i give you, Disregard Attorneys statement. Mr blackwell. Good afternoon attorneys statement. Mr blackwell. Good afternoon ladies attorneys statement. Mr blackwell. Good afternoon ladies and attorneys statement. Mr blackwell. I good afternoon Ladies And Gentlemen. Last lawyer i think talking to you for closing, i wont be too long. Im going to Start Talking to you about when to look not what i call the 46th witness. You actually have heard from 45 witnesses on the stand but there is a 46th witness. And this witness was testifying to you before you got here to the court room. They testified over everybody elses testimony on the stand, as the only witness talking to you back in deliberations. And that witness Ladies And Gentlemen is common sense. Common sense. We will continue talking with you all the while because while youve heard hours and hours and hours of discussions here in the closing, ultimately it really isnt that complicated. And what it is you have to decide with respect to the excessive use of force and the issue of causation. The fact is so simple that a child can understand it. In fact a child did understand it when a nine Year Old Girl said get off of him. Thats how simple it was. Get off of him. Common sense. Why is it necessary to continue applying deadly restraint to a man who is defenseless who was handcuffed, who is not resisting, who is not breathing, who doesnt have a pulse . And to go on and do that for another three plus minutes before the ambulance shows up and then continue doing it. How is that a reasonable exercise in the use of force . You can believe your eyes, Ladies And Gentlemen. It was what you thought it was, it was what you saw. It was homicide. Now, mr nelson spent quite a bit of time saying to you before an honest assessment look at all the evidence, considerall an honest assessment look at all the evidence, consider all of it. Reasonable officer, reasonable officer not a magic word that you simply apply to mr chauvin for seven then you do not he becomes a reasonable officer because you apply those words. Reasonable is as reasonable does. And here we saw was reasonable does. And here we saw was reasonable and you didnt get the whole truth. Notice how when you had the discussion about reasonable officer and mr chauvin, the whole narrative cut off before we got to the point that mr floyd was not moving, that he was not conscious, that he didnt have a pulse and that mr chauvin was still on top of them even when the emt showed up. And he still didnt get off of him. How is that what a reasonable officer does . And if you look at the totality of the circumstances which weve heard so much about, what does that tell you exactly where he was coming from . If we are talking about reasonable officer. Now, you heard and among other things that in looking at the totality of circumstances and trying to do an honest assessment, you didnt get the whole story either. You got bits and pieces and parts. And i call it and pieces and parts. And i call it a story Ladies And Gentlemen because its either completely not true or at the facts have been altered in order to make a point to you which also makes it a story. When you you can reach, when you all deliberate its a verdict. A verdict is a latin word that means the truth. You not to reach a story on what all is said is down. Youll be getting out the truth. Why we engage in telling story when we heard evidence, facts from the stand . Why is that . But you just had a number of them. Ill give you a few examples of the stories. You were just talk to about how safe the prone position is. And youve heard this in the trial. The prone position is safe, here the canadian studies after everything you have heard you already know now that not a single one of those studies ever examined anybody who had a knee on the neck. You know that. You also know that about these so called studies, none of them actually measured what was the Oxygen Reserve. That is how was the oxygen actually being affected by putting somebody in the prone position and any amount of weight on them. Never even measured so that you know that you although that wasnt brought up. Youve been told about the studies that show that the prone position is safe. We heard again about Excited Delirium. There is not a single witness who sat in that chair and gave you testimony under oath who told you that they felt that mr george floyd suffered delirium. Not one. One of the criteria for Excited Delirium is the person is in. Impervious to pain. They dont feel pain. And our people say my neck hurts. My knee hurts. Everything hurts. My knee hurts. Everything hurts. They are not grimacing because their wrist hurt. For Excited Delirium. Thats a fact. If thats a fact, why are we talking about a . Why isnt that said if you get to be hearing about Excited Delirium. Then we turn to doctor bakerfor delirium. Then we turn to doctor baker for example where this is discussion of homicide and you were told that homicide was a medical term. Thats not what doctor baker said. Doctor baker said homicide means killed at the hands of another. It means at the hand of another. It means at the hand of another. Is homicide means. At the hands of another. And he was pretty clear in discussing the cause of death. He said it was cardiopulmonary arrest complicating Law Enforcement sub dual, restraint and Neck Compression. And he did explain what complicating means. He said it means in the environment. So it reads as though his cardiopulmonary arrest and the environment of Law Enforcement subdural, restraint and Neck Compression. What you would just told and that was attributed to doctor baker as somehow he meant that this was an unexpected result, it was an unexpected result of the Law Enforcement sub dual restraint and neck subdural restraint and Neck Compression. Doctor baker didnt come in and talk to any of us about use of force by Police Officers, hes not in the mind of any Police Officer. It is not what he said. They are simply words that were put into his mouth, you check your notes on what is testimony actually was and you will see that that wasnt it. Youve heard now for the umpteenth time in this trial, what is the evidence on autopsy for asphyxia . If youre looking at the body tissue youve heard it from witness after witness on the stand. They even pulled out big giant thick textbooks that even Doctor Fowler, the defence own expert says, these are reliable authorities on. Every one of them says that in half or better of the cases where somebody has clearly died from insufficient oxygen, you dont see any evidence of the body tissue. Ladies and gentle man, thats a fact. If this is supposed to be about performing an honest assessment, looking at the totality of evidence, how is that not mentioned to you . In summarising the evidence . How is that i mentioned to you . And i cant even stop there. Because you also told about the loss that applies to this. Your first told byjudge. No yourfirst told byjudge. No question that was accurate. But then you were told by mr nelson. No question, that was not accurate. Ill tell you what i mean. When he was talking about causation, when he talks about fentanyl, heart failure, hypertension and he said that we have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that none of these other factors played a role. Thats not the law. And you dont have to believe me, you can read it yourself, youll have instructions there and see if mr blackwell is telling the truth. That what we need to show is that the defendants actions were a substantial cause of factor in his death. Doesnt have to be the only causal factor. Doesnt have to be the biggest sub factor just has to be one of them. A substantial factor in the cause of death. And the instruction will say that the fact that other causes contributed to the death does not relieve the defendant of criminal liability. There can be other factors. In fact, liability. There can be other factors. Infact, doctor liability. There can be other factors. In fact, doctor baker had a section i think it was called other factors. And he was clear, those other factors are not direct causes of the death, the direct cause was cardiopulmonary arrest that was in an environment of the police subdural restraint and Neck Compression. Point blank. When i got back and get the question again after mr nelson was finished all i did was ask him about what he had written in his certificate on the case. Cause of death, cardiopulmonary arrest, manner of death, homicide at the hands of another. He was Crystal Clear on it. He did not equivocate. But what you have gotten here is a number of what i call stories. That once you analyse them and. Once you analyse them and against the facts and the evidence that youve heard you will see what mean. Take for example, the notion that mr floyd dying of cardiopulmonary arrest, dying from low oxygen was just coincidental. He just happened to die at the same time, in the same place of factors completely unrelated to what mr chauvin was doing with his sub dual restraint and Neck Compression. Thats a story, Ladies And Gentlemen. And defies common sense ill show you what i mean. Oh, he sorry your honor. So if we just treat each day that mr floyd live, he was born october ia, 1973 and just made floyd live, he was born october 1a, 1973 and just made it a dot on a page. And you looked out over his lifetime you will see here if we look over ten years, 20, 30, a8 years up to may 25, 2020 that means that mr floyd would have lived up to that mr floyd would have lived up to that day 17,026 days. Now only one of these thoughts corresponds to may 25. Only one of them. All the rest of these days, all the rest of these dots represent days that mr floyd was living. He was breathing, he had a being, he was living, he was breathing with every single disorder that mr nelson has chronicled. Each and every day. With his struggles with opioid addiction, with his high blood pressure, etc, every single day except the one day. May 25, that tiny little speck of a dot and not even that whole day. Because as we know, there was a ten minute segment, at nine minutes and 29 seconds that he didnt survive. So in mondays town there were 1a0 for those ten minutes seconds. In only one of them was the reason that mr floyd failed to survive and what happened in that space . You know what happen for that Ladies And Gentlemen, thats where if there was deadly force applied by mr chauvin. We know is deadly force because we heard from officer zimmerman on the stand who told us it was deadly force. He said its deadly force because its force capable of killing a person which makes it deadly force. Now, deadly force Ladies And Gentlemen, once you see what mr floyd was subjected to there are certain consequences or risk that come with the prone position and the use of this kind of deadly force. And the primary risk is in effect your breathing. You heard that from witness after witness, after witness was that affect your breathing. Makes it harder to breathe. You put the subject into the prone Recovery Position as soon as possible. Because you dont want to affect their breathing, low oxygen. Do you have evidence of low oxygen. Do you have evidence of low oxygen here . There is evidence of low oxygen that is medically unassailable. Take for example the fact that mr floyd had an anoxic seizure. That is, hes already unconscious, not breathing in the bodyis unconscious, not breathing in the body is simply having a Twitching Reflex will top that Eggnog Stick Seizure represents a low oxygen to the brain. And thats what causes a seizure. Not only that, he suffered from remember pea. And remember we talked about the pea the pauls electrical activity, pea . The common cause of pea is long enough low oxygen. You cant fake it, you cant make that out. There is evidence of low oxygen and it wouldve been what preceded, what would have proceeded from the use of this very kind of deadly force. In this deadly force took place as we know within the nine minutes and 29 seconds. Now, you heard the statement that the state is seeking to ignore significant medical issues. And nothing could be furtherfrom significant medical issues. And nothing could be further from the truth. What you heard from doctor after doctor whether its the er physician, cardiologist, doctor tobin that youve heard so much about, doctorsmart. So many tobin that youve heard so much about, doctor smart. So many of the doctors youve heard that, doctor baker, doctorthomas doctors youve heard that, doctor baker, doctor thomas they all converge here. They recognise first and foremost that there was a use of force by mr chauvin. That set off a number of things medically for mr floyd that culminated in his death. Remember he died of cardiopulmonary arrest. That means the heart and stop and hes no longer breathing. Now, doctor baker will tell you that this stress to which mr floyd was subjected in the sub dual and the restraint by mr chauvin and others was enough and of and by itself to explain it mr floyd demise. When asked the question, what about his Oxygen Levels . Did he have insufficient oxygen . Thats not something i can calculate as a forensic pathologist. Said doctor baker. Thats not something i can calculate as a forensic pathologist said Doctor Fowler. And at the said the same thing. But there doctor, they said they were differed to a pulmonologist in every case. Which is who and what we have in doctor tobin who did the calculations. Who could tell you how much oxygen it wasnt mr floyds body. Not only that, he could tell you that when hes put into the prone position that his oxygen would have decreased by 20 for percent. He can tell you that when weight was put on mr floyds back the oxygen diminished to a3 . He can tell you that with the weight on his back that the hypo fair next would have narrowed to 15 below making it difficult for anyone to breathe through. He was able to tell you medically, scientifically. Not only could mr floyd not have survived this Oxygen Reserve and supply but no human being could have survived it. Based on the science. Based on the science. Now, if its dismissed as theoretical, which is the word i think i heard, theoretical, its the same theoretical, its the same theoretical that Doctor Fowler said that he would defer to someone else because he cant do it. And thats exactly what doctor tobin did. And so here Ladies And Gentlemen, we regret to show you that mr once contact was a substantial cause, a substantial factor in mr floyds death. Chauvin. Did he simply die automatically and exclusively from low oxygen . Ultimately translates into it not breathing and heart stopping because we have cardiopulmonary arrest. Did it first impact the heart that my heart stop first . Ultimately, they both stopped because we have cardiopulmonary arrest all stemming back to the sub dual restraint and net compression. From mr chauvin. They all agree that that was the precipitating point and then from there at the stresses, strains are mr floyds body, the low oxygen culminated in his ultimate demise. And his passing away. Sol want to address several of the points under the heading of what i think are stories that youve heard versus i think, the truth here. When the case started i think you all were asked and talk to about there being two sides to every story. Two sides to every story. Which is one of the most Dangerous Things i think, about the process because it suggests that everything is simply reduced to a story. And if it is a story that means there could be multiple sides to the story and they could never get truth or reality except what we about here getting to the truth. And not simply stories. Now it is most certainly right for example, for a Police Officer to take seriously this overarching mission of the Police Department embracing the sanctity of life and protection of the public as the highest values. But it is equally wrong, it is equally wrong to take this badge, which is a symbol of a commitment to a higher calling to serve the people, to use this badge is eight licence. To abuse the public, to mistreat the public, to not follow proper procedures, to not render aid when they should administer aid. Thats wrong, thats our story that simply wrong. The only two sides to that would be the w mdg for that being wrong. Now you have heard statements to the effect that mr chauvin being concerned about the bystanders and about others. If you are looking at the totality of the evidence you have to Bearin Totality of the evidence you have to bear in mind that at all relevant times here and there were five grown men Police Officers right there. And four right there on the scene and then you had officer chang was there too. There is a radio to call for a back up if they felt it was needed to stop you didnt hear any evidence about any call for a back up at all. There was concern here that mr chauvin was concerned. And i wont say it much more about body language, that is already been discussed and you will decide for yourself whether that was the face of one who was afraid at the time. Because he had all of the power at this point for the sake of the bullets, guns, he had the mace that he threatened the bystanders with, he threatened the bystanders with, he had back up, he had a badge and he had back up, he had a badge and he had back up, he had a badge and he had all of it. And what was there to be afraid of here particularly at the scene . There were three High Schooljuniors the scene . There were three High School Juniors there the scene . There were three High Schooljuniors there and a second grader who is going to the store to get candy. There was a High School Senior who was taking her cousin to the store. A First Responder on the scene. And there was Donna Williams who wanted nothing more than try to intervene to trying to save mr floyds life. 61 year old man that if i gave him a name i would call him the mayor of the neighborhood. Hejust likes to him the mayor of the neighborhood. He just likes to see whats going on and to look out for things but he was simply there to try to also intervene to try to save mr floyds life. So this wasnt the face of fear or concern or worry, you seem with the face of fear or worry look like that day at that time. Thats what fear and worry look like. Went mr george floyd was well aware that with one wrong move of his hand, one turn in the wrong direction and it could be his last term that he could be shot to death over an investigation around a fake 20 bill. That is fear. You were told some stories about the bystanders and the suggestion that they were an unruly crowd. Youve gotten to meet them now. Youve gotten to meet them now. Youve gotten to meet two thirds of the ones who were there at that time. I described them as bouquet of humanity, and i call them that because they came at different at different ages, different genders, different ages, different genders, different races, and they all came together focused on one thing, which was they saw that a human being they did not know was suffering, and they wanted to try to intervene the suffering. And in that sense they were not only symbols of the love and care we want to encourage, but they were also something more than that. They were also symbols of what it means to respect this badge, because they were in a very difficult spot. You saw them on the stand, almost to the last one, in tears. You felt the anguish, even a year after the fact. They felt torn between their love for the sanctity of life itself that has them wanting to intervene to try to save mr floyds life and on the other hand there respect for the authority that there respect for the authority that the badge represents for the city, for the state. They were torn between them. Now the ultimate proof of this is if there is bystanders did not respect this badge they could have very easily taken the law into their own hand and simply removed mr chauvin, then we wouldnt have to have any discussions about how reasonable it was to stay on a mans neck who wasnt even breathing. We wouldnt have to have any of these kinds of discussions at all, but none of them did that. None of them do that because they respect this badge, even if it tore them up inside. None of them did that. Instead they called the police on the police. Instead they picked up their phones to memorialise what they were seeing so that it could not be forgotten and so that it could not be misrepresented. Instead they waited for their day to come in and talk with you or not, Ladies And Gentlemen, to tell their story, but to tell the truth about what they experienced. They didnt deserve to be called unruly, because they werent, and you will hear time and again, oh, the crowd was getting louder, oh, the crowd was getting more agitated. Early in the trial you heard, over, they were getting angrier and angrier, as if we cant see somehow what it was they were getting upset about. The fact that a Defenceless Helpless Man is literally losing his life one breath at a time in front of them and there is nothing that they can do. If you love life, you get excited when you see life being taken, that is your perception. That is what they were excited about. And if we alljust simply wanted a doughnut watching this, you might wonder what is wrong with them. That is why they were upset. So you felt their pain, you felt their sense of helplessness. What you heard about him was a story, Ladies And Gentlemen. Stories are reallyjust excuses that get cold. I are really ust excuses that get cold. ,. , are really ust excuses that get cold. ,. ,. , cold. I obect to use of the word stories. Cold. I object to use of the word stories. The cold. I object to use of the word stories. The fact cold. I object to use of the word stories. The fact of cold. I object to use of the word stories. The fact of the cold. I object to use of the word stories. The fact of the matter i cold. I object to use of the word | stories. The fact of the matter is there can be stories. The fact of the matter is there can be no stories. The fact of the matter is there can be no excuse stories. The fact of the matter is there can be no excuse for i stories. The fact of the matter is | there can be no excuse for police abuse, and i will be clear, Ladies And Gentlemen, i will tell you if i think there is a fact that has been altered, i will tell you what it is, and that is all i mean when i say story, but there is no excuse for police abuse, and youve heard any number of these. So let me walk through some of them. Youve heard accounts that the traffic was distracting to mr shcherban. Well, the fact was that you heard from the 911 dispatcher, who was watching the scene, and she said that the officers remained in the same place, in the same positions, for so long on top of the body of mr floyd that she thought the camera was broken and frozen. They werent distracted. They werent looking around because they were concerned about being disturbed by the traffic or anything else, they had an office of air, office of towel, whose job it was just to fend off and keep away distractions and call others if needed officer tao. You have also heard that the paramedics took too long, they took longer to get there than was planned, should have been there within three minutes and your common sense will tell you that the mere fact of the paramedics took longer than mr shcherban may have thought is simply not a reason to use Excessive Force or to abuse or to be indifferent to the fact that somebody is no longer breathing and doesnt have a pulse, that the paramedics took too long. Heard about the para gangly, which was also referred to as incidental because that is how rare it is an insignificant it is. The hallmark of a paraganglioma, head aches. Mr floyd was not reporting headaches, because that is the hallmark and he didnt have them. If this is about getting at the truth, and as well performing an honest assessment, if thats what were doing, the fact of the matter is of paragangliomas, they have been six cases in all of reported history when somebody had a sudden death from a paraganglioma, ever, period. Carbon monoxide. Now, otherthan Carbon Monoxide. Now, other than mr nelson saying that the car was turned on at the time, nobody from that Witness Stand from the evidence in this case of the police car was. You did hear it was a hybrid vehicle, how are we talking about Carbon Monoxide that there was no evidence from the stand that the car was even on, if were going to talk about Carbon Monoxide, and give this about Carbon Monoxide, and give this a reasonable, honest assessment . But even more to the point about Carbon Monoxide that you cant lose sight of, whose car was it, Ladies And Gentlemen, that if mr floyd is being subdued on the ground by mr chauvin, and if he puts his face in front of and if he puts his face in front of a tailpipe in a car that is spewing out Carbon Monoxide, why isnt that an unusable unreasonable use of force, in your custody is in your care, it is not in your custody i dont care. In your custody is in your care. What reasonable Police Officer would apprehend someone on the grounds to put their face in front of a tailpipe of a car and think that is a defence . It is not particularfair, there think that is a defence . It is not particular fair, there was think that is a defence . It is not particularfair, there was no evidence the car was ever even on and you have learned all you need to know, which was if he were suffering from Carbon Monoxide, as dr tobin told you, you wouldnt be able to get a 98 Oxygen Saturation from the oxygen they gave him artificially. You heard about the Fentanyl Overdose, and with this one, you were just told, oh, overdose, and with this one, you werejust told, oh, earlierthat afternoon he was asleep in the car. Ladies and gentlemen, that is not the hallmark of someone who dies from a Fentanyl Overdose, it is and that you just took a nap and dozed off. If you pass away from a fentanyl off. If you pass away from a fenta nyl overdose, off. If you pass away from a Fentanyl Overdose, you cannot be awakened. You are in a coma. If people are shirking you it is to no avail. Shaking you. If we are doing an honest assessment of the facts, looking at the totality of the facts, if were going to be talking about a Fentanyl Overdose, why that sad . He does not fit the description of anyone who dies from a Fentanyl Description of anyone who dies from a fenta nyl Overdose Description of anyone who dies from a Fentanyl Overdose and even dr fowler can see that from the stand in terms of what a Fentanyl Overdose looks like, it does not look like someone who is saying i cant breathe, my neck hurts, my back hurts, everything hurts. You know, you cant win. Im not trying to win. Thats not what happens when someone is suffering or dying from a fentanyl someone is suffering or dying from a fenta nyl overdose, someone is suffering or dying from a Fentanyl Overdose, they are completely non responsive and not reactive at all. Methamphetamine, Ladies And Gentlemen, what method . There was so little of it that it was below the therapeutic levels that are given. You heard that from the toxicologist, from mms, the lavatory, the medical examiner, pathology. Not pathology but Blood Samples to test for talks. He told you it was a minuscule amount of meth in his blood. Then we heard about the pills. Now, On Cross Examination on the pills, i brought out the fact that what they were saying was a pill that he was taking in the car was just as likely chewing gum, i showed you just before the car he was chewing gum in the store, opened his mouth use of the store, opened his mouth use of the same white substance in his mouth but here is the real deal about the pills, if youre really going to give this an honest assessment of the evidence, why are we talking about pills that are not in his system . We know what is in his bloodstream already. We know he struggles with an opioid addiction. Why are we talking about pills that we know were not in george floyd . Wire . You have to decide that for yourselves, Ladies And Gentlemen, why is that even being brought up when we know what is in his bloodstream . What is the point . We keep Hearing Drugs in the car, drugs in the car, and the drugs were one pill. One. One pill. It was not in george floyd. And then the suggestion that he was somehow taking it in having cups in the police car, which makes no sense. There was no evidence george floyd had taken any pills in the police car at all. There was a pill found only. You heard references and talking about dr tobin and his a6 years of experience studying the way people breathe. But mr chauvin is not a medical doctor. He didnt have these years of experience and hours to pore over records. He didnt need it because you know who else is not a medical doctor . A nine Year Old Girl is also not a medical doctor. He didnt need to be a medical doctor to understand that when somebody is saying i cant breathe, they are notjust somebody is saying i cant breathe, they are not just saying somebody is saying i cant breathe, they are notjust saying it, everything about them is showing that they cant breathe, and when that they cant breathe, and when that ends, theyjust passed out, you dont need a phd, you dont need an mv to understand how fundamental breathing is to live, and when someone is saying i cant breathe and they have passed out, and you are aware that they dont even have are aware that they dont even have a pulse, even a nine year old little girl knows it, get off of him. Thats all you needed to know in that case. Just a couple more of these because i cant even do them all because there were so many. This concern that george floyd would somehow come to again come he would come back around again, and they say we didnt really mean superhuman strength, except maybe we really did because he has all this extra strength now and he is going to do dastardly things. Now, weve heard from three medical examiners, Ladies And Gentlemen, three of them. Between the three of them, they probably have done close to 15,000 autopsies, and not a single one of them testified about one instance ever wear somebody who didnt even have a pulse somehow spontaneously came back to life, broke handcuffs and rampaged the city. That is the fact of this case, not some other thing. Mr floyd didnt even have a pulse. That didntjustify keeping your knee on his neck when he should have been administering cpr when you should have brought him back to life again because you were afraid if you would come to, with no pulse, and rampaged the city. Thats the sort of thing you see in halloween movies, Ladies And Gentlemen, not in real life. Not in real life. The idea that mr floyd suffered from a sudden death, which is what dr fowler was saying, now he will say that mr floyd had a fatal arrhythmia. That is misleading in a way, because as you have heard from dr after doctor, ultimately everybody dies in the hand of a fatal arrhythmia. Everybody dies of cardiopulmonary arrest in the heart stops in the long stop, and then the last thing that happens is you get an arrhythmia and that is it. Now, is there any evidence that there was an arrhythmia as the primary cause of his death, unrelated to the subdural, restraint and Neck Compression on the ground . Zero. There is zero evidence that he had a heart attack. Zero. In fact, his heart attack. Zero. In fact, his heart was in such normal condition that dr baker during the autopsy didnt even have a need to photograph it intact, because it was so normal. Now, dr rich did not see it say anything akin to george floyd having a normal heart. That is not what he said. What he said was he had a strong heart. And what he meant by that is that he sees patients all the time who may be in need of transplants who have serious Cardiac Disease and they cant even get a normal blood pressure, and he talked to you about how george floyd, having lived with this for some time, explained how it is that his body and the arteries that serve the heart were able to compensate in the heart were able to compensate in the case of mr floyd, such that he did not die of a fatal arrhythmia and there is no evidence he died of any heart abnormality. Just two more of these things i really want to clarify. There was a lot of discussion about the police conduct, the situation is going to change rapidly from moment to moment, and i dont want you at all to lose sight of the facts here that for the nine minutes and 29 seconds the problem was there was nothing moving or changing, no matter what, whether mr floyd was calling out for his life, whether he was motionless with an anoxic seizure, whether he had no pulse. There is no movements, no split second decision, no moment to moment to the extent that you are hearing that as representative of this case, it is not represented in this case, it is not represented in this case, it is not represented in this case, does not meet the facts of this case, at all. So the fact of the matter is, Ladies And Gentlemen, the matter is, Ladies And Gentlemen, the use of unreasonable force, the unreasonable use of force is an assault. Here was an assault and it contributed to the death of mr floyd. Now you were told with respect to the law that the state needs to show that mr chauvin intended to act unlawfully or to break the law. Look at your instructions. Thats not accurate. We will in fact, and we own our burden of showing the fact he acted unlawfully but not having to prove that he intended to act unlawfully. We need only to show that he intended to do what he did, which was to put the knee on the net, the knee on the back, and against the shoulder, but it wasnt an accident, and that we will show, and we own that burden. So there really arent two sides to the story about whether this use of force was unreasonable. It was not authorised by the minneapolis Police Department. The pressure on mr floyds nick did affect his ability to breathe, and i know that you were told when mr nelson once just hears this was not a choke, it was not a chokehold, and that Donald Williams had suggested also testified, and if you remember that testimony, Donald Williams disagreed with him every time and said that was in fact a chokehold. Even on the one side and he explained how that even works, and while mr Nelson Quibbled with him, Donald Williams never gave that up in his testimony. So there arent two sides to the story as to the unreasonable use of force, and when mr floyd is saying please, please, i cant breathe, 27 times, injust mr floyd is saying please, please, i cant breathe, 27 times, in just a few minutes, you saw it when mr shcherban did not let up and we didnt get up. Even when he passed out, not breathing any more, he doesnt let up or get up. When he knows he doesnt have a pulse, he doesnt let up or get up. Even when the ambulance comes, he doesnt let up the ambulance comes, he doesnt let up or get up even then, they have to come up and tapped him before he will let up and get out of the body of mr george floyd, and they tried to resuscitate him in the ambulance, and they never do. He never regains consciousness, he never breathes again, his heart never pumps again. And mr george floyd was deceased. So finally, Ladies And Gentlemen, i will sit down in a minute, but i wanted to save to the end what i thought was the biggest shading of the truth or what i call story. I object to that, your honour. The truth or what i call story. I. Object to that, your honour. We disreuard object to that, your honour. We disregard the Phrase Shading the truth disregard the Phrase Shading the truth. ,. ,. ,. , truth. Here is what i thought was the largest truth. Here is what i thought was the largest departure truth. Here is what i thought was the largest departure from i truth. Here is what i thought was the largest departure from the i the largest departure from the evidence, i will show it to you. You were told for example that mr floyd died, that mr floyd died because his heart was too big. You heard that testimony. And now, having seen all the evidence, having heard all the evidence, you know the truth, and the truth of the matter is that the reason george floyd is dead is because mr shcherbans heart was too small. Because mr shcherbans heart was too small. ~. � ,. ,. , because mr shcherbans heart was too small. ~. � ,. , small. Mr chauvins heart was too small. Mr chauvins heart was too small turn small. Mr chauvins heart was too small turn to small. Mr chauvins heart was too small. Turn to page small. Mr chauvins heart was too small. Turn to page 11. Members of the jury, if you have any Question Members of the jury, if you have any question about any part of the testimony or any legal question after testimony or any legal question after you testimony or any legal question after you have retired from your deliberation, please address it to me in deliberation, please address it to me in writing and give it to the sheriffs me in writing and give it to the sheriffs deputy with the juror number sheriffs deputy with the juror number of yourfor sheriffs deputy with the juror number of your for passing on the note number of your for passing on the note it number of your for passing on the note it will number of your for passing on the note. It will take some time to answer note. It will take some time to answer any questions because i will have to answer any questions because i will have to consult with your lawyers and receive have to consult with your lawyers and receive their input before answering your question. I do not say this answering your question. I do not say this to answering your question. I do not say this to discourage questions but only to say this to discourage questions but only to advise you that it will take some only to advise you that it will take some time only to advise you that it will take some time to provide you with an answer some time to provide you with an answer as some time to provide you with an answer as i some time to provide you with an answer. As i told you, you will take with you answer. As i told you, you will take with you into answer. As i told you, you will take with you into the jury room copies of the with you into the jury room copies of the instructions that i am reading of the instructions that i am reading to you. The lawyers and i have reading to you. The lawyers and i have determined that these instructions contain all the laws that are instructions contain all the laws that are necessary for you to know in order that are necessary for you to know in order to that are necessary for you to know in order to decide the case. I cannot in order to decide the case. I cannot give you a trial transcript. No such cannot give you a trial transcript. No such transcript exists. We count on the no such transcript exists. We count on the jury no such transcript exists. We count on the jury to rely on its collective memory. You have been allowed collective memory. You have been allowed to collective memory. You have been allowed to take notes during the trial and allowed to take notes during the trial and you may take those notes with you trial and you may take those notes with you into the jury room. You should with you into the jury room. You should not with you into the jury room. You should not consider those notes binding should not consider those notes binding or should not consider those notes binding or conclusive, whether they are your binding or conclusive, whether they are your notes or those of another juror~ are your notes or those of another juror~ the are your notes or those of another juror. The notes should be used as an aid juror. The notes should be used as an aid to juror. The notes should be used as an aid to your memory, and not as a substitute an aid to your memory, and not as a substitute for an aid to your memory, and not as a substitute for it. It is your recollection of the evidence that should recollection of the evidence that should control. You should disregard anything should control. You should disregard anything contrary to your recollection that may appear from your own recollection that may appear from your own notes or those of another juror~ your own notes or those of another juror~ you your own notes or those of another juror. You should not give any greater juror. You should not give any greater weight to a particular piece of evidence solely because it is referred of evidence solely because it is referred to in a note taken by a juror~ referred to in a note taken by a juror~ we referred to in a note taken by a juror. We all have feelings, assumptions, perceptions, fears and stereotypes about others. Some biases stereotypes about others. Some biases we stereotypes about others. Some biases we are aware of and others we might biases we are aware of and others we might not biases we are aware of and others we might not be fully aware of, which is why might not be fully aware of, which is why they might not be fully aware of, which is why they are called implicit or unconscious biases. No matter how unbiased unconscious biases. No matter how unbiased we think we are, our brains are hard wired to make unconscious decisions are hard wired to make unconscious decisions. We look at others and filter decisions. We look at others and filter what decisions. We look at others and filter what they say through the lens of filter what they say through the lens of our own personal experience and background. Because we all do this, we and background. Because we all do this, we often see life and evaluate evidence this, we often see life and evaluate evidence in this, we often see life and evaluate evidence in a way that tends to favour evidence in a way that tends to favour people who are like ourselves or who favour people who are like ourselves or who have favour people who are like ourselves or who have had Life Experiences like our or who have had Life Experiences like our own. We can also have biases like our own. We can also have biases about people like ourselves. One common example is the Automatic Association one common example is the Automatic Association of mail with career and female association of mail with career and female with family. Bias can affect our thoughts, female with family. Bias can affect ourthoughts, how female with family. Bias can affect our thoughts, how we female with family. Bias can affect ourthoughts, how we remember female with family. Bias can affect our thoughts, how we remember what we see our thoughts, how we remember what we see and our thoughts, how we remember what we see and hear, whom we believe or disbelieve we see and hear, whom we believe or disbelieve and how we make important decisions disbelieve and how we make important decisions. Asjurors, you are being asked decisions. Asjurors, you are being asked to decisions. Asjurors, you are being asked to make an important decision in this asked to make an important decision in this case asked to make an important decision in this case. You must, one, take the time in this case. You must, one, take the time you in this case. You must, one, take the time you need to reflect carefully and thoughtfully about the evidence. Two, think about why you are making evidence. Two, think about why you are making the decision you are making are making the decision you are making and examine it for bias. Reconsider your First Impressions of the people reconsider your First Impressions of the people and the evidence in this case the people and the evidence in this case if the people and the evidence in this case if the the people and the evidence in this case. If the people involved in this case. If the people involved in this case were case. If the people involved in this case were from different backgrounds, for example richer or poorer, backgrounds, for example richer or poorer, more or less educated, older or younger, poorer, more or less educated, older oryounger, or poorer, more or less educated, older oryounger, or ofa poorer, more or less educated, older or younger, or of a different gender, or younger, or of a different gender, gender identity, race, religion gender, gender identity, race, religion or gender, gender identity, race, religion or sexual orientation, would religion or sexual orientation, would you religion or sexual orientation, would you still review them and the evidence would you still review them and the evidence the same way . Three, listen to one evidence the same way . Three, listen to one another. You must carefully evaluate to one another. You must carefully evaluate the evidence and resist and help each evaluate the evidence and resist and help each other resist any urge to reach help each other resist any urge to reach a help each other resist any urge to reach a verdict influenced by bias for or reach a verdict influenced by bias for or against any party or witness. Each for or against any party or witness. Each of for or against any party or witness. Each of you for or against any party or witness. Each of you have different backgrounds and will be viewing this case in backgrounds and will be viewing this case in light of your own insights, assumptions and biases. Listening to different assumptions and biases. Listening to different perspectives may help you to identify possible effects of these to identify possible effects of these hidden biases may have on decision making. And four, resist jumping decision making. And four, resist jumping to decision making. And four, resist jumping to conclusions based on personal jumping to conclusions based on personal likes or dislikes, generalisations, gut feelings, burgesses, sympathies, stereotypes. Burgesses, sympathies, stereotypes. Burgesses, sympathies, stereotypes. Burgesses, sympathies, stereo es. ,. ,. , stereotypes. Studio you are listeninu stereotypes. Studio you are listening to stereotypes. Studio you are listening to judge stereotypes. Studio you are listening to judge peter cahill i stereotypes. Studio you are i listening to judge peter cahill give the Listening Tojudge Peter Cahill give the final instructions to the jury in the murder trial of Derek Chauvin, the former Police Officer charged with the murder of george floyd last year, an unarmed black man. Thejury floyd last year, an unarmed black man. The jury will now go away. The 12 members of the jury will now go away and make their deliberations. They have had the Closing Arguments, three weeks worth of witnesses, and at some point they will come back with a verdict. Stay with us on bbc news. According to the met office it has been the cold start to april since 2013, temperatures two to a degrees lower than we would expect but it has notjust been cold, it has been dried, as these images of cracked ground from various parts of england on monday easily show. As we look at the rainfall total so far this month, we should be at 100 . Falling well short in all areas and for parts of england and wales we have seen less than a tenth if not lower than what we would normally expect this time of year. Looking at the forecast chart for the rainfall the rest of this week, even taking into account some of mondays rain across parts of scotland and northern ireland, precious little to come particularly for england and wales. We would hope this Weather Front would bring rain to us as it pushes through southwards tuesday, but with High Pressure around it, the rain just turns lighter and pecchia. The High Pressure basically ringing out those rain clouds. We got the mist and low cloud back again for tuesday across eastern coastal counties of england, burning back after being inland, so lots of warm sunshine across much of england and wales, light winds, temperatures into the mid teens. A much colder day north of our cold front in scotland and northern ireland, temperatures down by seven or eight celsius the sum compared to monday. A few late showers possible across parts of england and wales, very few in number, any shower is mainly confined to this Weather Front as it pushes its way southwards through the night and into wednesday. High pressure building around it, that means not much in the way of wet weather, but as the Weather Front pushes its way to the south, we open the door back to colder air. You will notice that particularly because northern is in scotland, Eastern Counties of england with the breeze coming off the sea, taking the early cloud from northern parts of england and wales to the south and west, one or two showers. It could get to 16 degrees across parts of devon, cornwall and somerset but notice the eastern coast back down into single figures once more. The chill will be noticeable out of the sun. As we go through into thursday, High Pressure is firmly overhead. Around the centre bit, some mist and fog, light winds warming up nicely after a frosty start. Around the periphery is a bit more of a breeze, and certainly towards the channel islands, across the south west of england. Temperature rise is limited here as it will be on the eastern coast, but across many Western Areas the sun is Strong Enough even after a chilly start won the grand without being dry and those temperatures lift into the maid if high teens. Do it all again lift into the maid if high teens. Do it allagain in lift into the maid if high teens. Do it all again in fact on friday after a frosty start with a High Pressure continuing to build, breezy conditions through English Channel areas, bit of patchy cloud in northern scotland, the odd path of Fairweather Cloud elsewhere, but it could be 17 or 18 degrees for one or two. Still chilly down to one of those eastern coasts, but not as chilly as it will be on tuesday. The start of the weekend, the High Pressure is firmly in place, really doesnt want to give up but we could start to see some low cloud developed through the north sea, brought in across some parts of southern and eastern england, and Fairweather Cloud building up could spread out, so a slightly cloudy afternoon than the morning, but in the west the best of the sunshine after a frosty start, another reasonably warm day. Then through sunday, the Weather System could just clip scotland, pushing them to the north sea, and is it departs into the starting next week look whats back. High pressure to the rest of us, low pressure to the east, dragging in northerly winds so we go back to temperatures lower than normal it looks like into next week. How severe, that is something well to keep a close eye on but gardeners will not like the overnight fast becoming widespread and with the ground dry it stays frozen. Tonight at ten outrage as englands richest clubs announce plans to join a new football superleague. Liverpool, arsenal and Manchester United are among those joining the Breakaway League along with italian and spanish clubs prompting anger across the board. Pretty much the same as most peoples reaction, i think. One of alarm, one of concern and disgust, in many ways. Protests at elland road tonight where leeds faced liverpool as many wondered what it would mean for the premier league. For people, greedy people to just come in and treat it like their own personal hedge fund is disgusting. Its going to ruin. The money that gets passed down to grassroots football, its going to completely destroy the whole structure of english football. Well be looking at whats behind this seismic decision. Also tonight