ryan young outside the courthouse. ryan, court taking a lunch break right now. the defense will resume closing arguments momentarily. walk us through what we've heard so far. >> reporter: you know, i'll get to that in just a second, but ana, sort of the temperature sort of rised, went up today, and in fact as we've been up here even during the lunch break we've seen more protesters sort of arrive to this lowies can a. one of the reasons why i'm going to bring this up is they are men with long weapons who are outside the court, and they are standing just outside the perimeter of the courthouse steps and when the defense attorneys left for lunch this afternoon, they actually had to walk by these men with the guns, and i can tell you could tell they were nervous about walking by the men with long guns. as you can believe you know the defense attorney has been raising objections to all sorts of things that have been happening outside. peaceful protests that have been going on, pastors arriving so can i only imagine what will happen when this recess is over and there's going to be a conversation about the protesters who showed up with weapons. now, they have walked to a different direction at this point. we tried to make contact with them to figure out what group they are a part of. i'm not sure about that just yet, and as we get more information about that we'll pass day long to you. as far as this case is concerned so far, the prosecution started this morning and really started hammering at the fact of what the men had the choices to do that day, and the fact that they did not have to chase ahmaud arbery over and over again, especially after calling police. they went sort of point by point through the law and what the charges were. in fact, take a listen to the prosecution earlier this morning. >> all three of these defendants may assumptions, made assumptions that was was going on that day, and they made their decision to attack ahmaud arbery in their driveways because he was a black man running down the street. well, they are going to try and convince you that ahmaud arbery was the attacker that he was somehow threatening to them. three on one, two pickup trucks, two guns. mr. arbery, nothing in his pockets, not a cell phone, not a gun, not even an i.d. they wanted you to believe that he was a danger to them and mr. ruben said it in his opening statement. he was scary. you are the initial unjustified aggressor you don't goat claim self-defense. if you're committing a felony against somebody, you don't get a claim of self-defense, and the third one is if you provoke somebody so that they defend themselves against you and then you go oh, look, he attacked me first, but you really were the one who was provoking the attack on yourself, you don't get to claim self-defense and that's the law. >> reporter: yeah, aprila you heard the reference to being a black man. it was something that if you think about it, race hasn't played a big role inside this trial when the jury has been seated down. of course, when that hasn't happened there's been conversation outside when the jury was outside of the jury pool so it was interesting to hear it being brought up now. let's not forgot there's so much conversation about the jury makeup. the prosecution, the defense for its part started to finally soften its client, travis mcmichael talking about the fact he had a duty to protect his neighborhood. take a listen to this exchange for the defense about travis mcmichael and what they were doing that day. >> travis had all of this. he was reading facebook, everything going on at larry english's house, knowing about what happened in satila shores. speaking about what happened, his own experience, overs rash and matt albenzi, this is what he carried with him when he left the driveway that day. reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion. this is where the duty and responsibility in following the law becomes intertwined in heartache and tragedy. because you do have the right to perform a citizen's arrest. you do have the right to have a firearm when you make an arrest. you do have the right to stop a person and to hold them and to detain them for police, and there is risk with that, and there are tragic consequences that can come from that. >> reporter: ana, as can you imagine, this has been tough for both families when it comes to everything that has been happening inside the court. we do know at one point that ahmaud arbery's mother walked out of court as they were talking and showing pictures so when you put all of this together you understand the pressure on this community, especially as these closing arguments continue. ana? >> ryan young, thank you. with us now is cnn senior legal analyst ely hopig, former prosecutor and areva martin. thanks for being with us. elie, your top takeaways. >> i thought the prosecutor was masterful. there were not many dramatics, what you see in movies but in the real world prosecutors are trained to be concise and well-organized and we saw that out of the prosecutor said. the other thing is she was thematic. show kept on hitting on the key themes in very concise little snippets. they made assumptions. they made driveway decisions he was unarmed. he ran away. they chased him down and they attacked him. that kind of very simple well-supported phrase is something that the jury tends to take into the jury room with them and remember. now on the defense side, i thought the defense lawyer was effective as well. his job was to spin the counternarrative and he made the argument that his client had reason to think a crime was committed and believed he was under attack. the problem is a lot of that depended on travis mcmichael's own testimony which i think was heavily undermined during the cross-examination so when the prosecutor gets back up later this afternoon, look for her to argue to the jury you don't have to believe him. in fact you should not believe his it can. >> areva, the defense is only halfway through the closing arguments. they have about three hours to do all of them, and throughout the trial they argued these men were attempting a citizen's arrest, that they were trying to detain arbery because they thought he had burglarized a house and travis mcmichael's attorney really made that a focus of his closing arguments with this big setup about crime in the neighborhood. let's listen. >> you heard about satilla shores from several witnesses who came to talk to you about what they were experiencing in this once idyllic neighborhood. you heard a lot of people saying why call the police what's the point? the crime is over and people are gone, but they told you that what was happening in their neighborhood scared them. it caused them concern. it was unsettling to imagine people lurking and sneaking around your property at night so that your cameras were going off, your doorbell camera is going off. that's frightening. >> areva, how strong that argument to explain the actions taken by travis mcmichael and his father? >> i think it's a problem with that argument, ana. if you follow that argument to its long call conclusion, it says that citizens have the right to engage in this kind of vigilante-style justice rather than if you have a problem with police responding untimely to calls in your neighborhood, the response to that is to get rid of your police chief, to elect a new mayor. it's to enact some additional legislation, get more money to your police. it's not for citizens to take it upon themselves to try, to you know, stop someone who is running down the street to effectuate an arrest and use the kind of deadly force that travis mcmichael used, so the whole argument assumes that they had a right to stop ahmaud arbery and keep in mind there was never any testimony that they said they were trying to effectuate a citizen's arrest. the prosecutor i think did a brilliant job of saying this is all made up. this is a fantasy that was created by the lawyers after the fact some 18 months later. there was nothing happening at the time of this encounter with ahmaud arbery or when travis mcmichael gave his police statement to suggest that he was engaged in any kind of citizen's arrest so i think the saturday a stretch and if you use your common sense which is what the prosecutor keeps reminding the jurors to do, i don't think they are going to buy that argument. >> elie, there are three different defendants. right now we've really only heard from travis mcmichael's defense lawyer. they are all represented by different lawyers. do you expect other defense attorneys to present something different in their closing arguments? >> i do, ana. so what happens sometimes in multiple defendant cases like this is there becomes a race to become the forgotten markings you want, if you're representing one of the lesser defendants, you want the jury to essentially forgot about your client, so i think the theme this afternoon when we hear from the lawyers for gregory mcmichael and for rode bryan is going to be what did my guy do? i think the lawyer for the father says my guy was old, having health problems, he was just in the bed of the truck and i think the lawyer for roddy bryan is going to say my guy wasn't even physically there. he was down the street. the prosecutor did a really good job anticipating that because she explained to the jury very early on accomplice liability, party to a crime meaning if you did anything to help this along to promote it, you're liable for the crime so watch that for an important battleground this afternoon. >> areva, how challenge something for a prosecutor to try a case against three different defendants who had different roles but are all face the same charges? >> it can be really complicated, because the jurors will have to parse this out and determine if these charges that have been brought against travis mcmichael who they will see as the main culprit here, if they apply to the other defendants, but i do think the prosecutor did a good job to. use that analogy of everybody gets a super bowl ring, you know. driving home that point that everybody on the team, whether, you know, you're on that field or not okay you are celebrating as the game is won, and in this case everyone that par tis paid, that encouraged, that encried the or aid or abetted is responsible and i think the jurors got that. i think she used such good analogies to drive home her point of what could be very complicated legal issues she made them very relatable to the jury. >> the prosecutor's argument was succinct, only lasted about an hour so she have the last word with a rebuttal. she has about two hours left in her time. is it a good strategy to leave that much time on the schnabel. >> i think, ana. juries have very limited attention spans. they are human beings. the rule of thumb we used to use is you're going to lose your jury 45 minutes or so in. if you have to go longer, fine, but want to keep it succinct, and i think what the prosecutor is doing she knows she will have to clean up after three different defense closings so i hi she's leaving herself enough room to address in more detail what we'll hear from the three defense attorneys. >> areva, given all the racial underattorney generals the prosecutor mentioned raise only directly once in her closing argument. what do you make that have? >> i think it was smart. i think you're in new york, i'm in los angeles. this case is in brunswick, georgia. there are 11 white people on this jury. there's only one person of color, so to make this case solely about race i think would have been a mistake for this prosecutor as much as most of us who do this for a living, a civil right lawyer, know it's all about ration, but i think in terms of trying to keep the jury focused on the facts of this case, that was smart on her case. travis mcmichael tried to investigate a white guy sleeping under the bridge and took issue with the white couple that went into the house, but the problem is he didn't get no his truck with a shotgun and dad in the bed with a .357 magnum and chase down the white people in this neighborhood and then ultimately shoot and kill them so race is a part of this case but i think the prosecutor was smart to use it in the way that she did during her closing argument. >> thank you. please stand by as we're going to be returning to court just as soon as they get back from lunch. that should happen here in the next 15, 20 minutes or so. also breaking today. president biden renominating jerome powell to lead the federal reserve for a second term as the nation struggles to fight rights inflation. we will hear from bolt of them in just moments. plus, a horrific end to a holiday celebration. a driver plows into a christmas parade killing at least five people hurting dozens of others. ten kids in icu right now. we'll take you there live. stay with us. you're in the cnn "newsroom." twenty-seven, twenty-eight, twenty-nine... ♪ ♪ we've been waiting all year to come together... it worked! have a happy and safe holiday season from lexus. like you, my hands are everything to me. but i was diagnosed with dupuytren's contracture. and it got to the point where things i took for granted got tougher to do. thought surgery was my only option. turns out i was wrong. so when a hand specialist told me about nonsurgical treatments, it was a total game changer. like you, my hands have a lot more to do. learn more at factsonhand.com today. this is the new world of work. each day looks different than the last. but whatever work becomes... the servicenow platform will make it just, flow. whether it's finding ways to help you serve your customers, orchestrating a safe return to the office... wait. an office? what's an office? or solving a workplace challenge that's yet to come. whatever the new world of work takes your business, the world works with servicenow. we now know who the president wants at helm of america's economic policy. any minute now the president will speak about his decision to nominate jerome powell to sever as federal reserve chairman for a second term. powell was initially elevated to run the central banking system four years ago by then president president trump. jeff zeleny joins us and matt egan from new york. what went into the decision to keep powell? >> reporter: first and foremost consistency with the economy. reoperation jerome powell at this point the white house feared would have really shake ebb the economy or could have shaken the economy as the white house is so attuned to inflation and rights prize so the consistency with jerome powell, what he brings to this supposition what led president biden to make this choice. yes, there was a lot of criticism from the left, but this is something that president biden firmly believed he thought that this was necessary, and really this is how things have been done normally before president trump was in office. usually presidents reaffirm a second term of someone to lead the federal reserve. this is essentially going back to business. you know, this is not a big surprise at all, but there were some loud voices from the lev -- >> jeff, i'm going to interrupt. let's go live to the president. >> occurred last night during the holiday parade in wisconsin. while we don't have all the facts and details yet, we know this morning that five families in waukesha are facing fresh grief of a life without a loved one. at least 40 americans are suffering from injuries, some of them in critical condition, and an entire community is struggling, struggling to cope with the horrific act of violence. last night the people of waukesha were gathered to celebrate the start of a season of hope and togetherness and thanksgiving. this morning jill and i and the entire biden family and i'm sure all of us pray that that same spirit is going to embrace and lift up all the victims of this tragedy bringing recovery from the injuries and wrapping the families of those who died in support of their community. we're all grateful to the extraordinary work of first responders from law enforcement to the emergency room doctors who are working around the clock to deal with the terrible consequence of what happened last night. my administration is monitoring the situation very closely. but now let me turn to today's announcement. 20 months ago the covid-19 pandemic exproceeded in america creating the worst economic crisis we've faced since the great depression wreaking havoc not only on our economy but the economies across the world. in just two months over 20 million americans lost their jobs and the unemployment rate shot up to 14.8%, the highest ever recorded in america, and all of you remember the scenes, major cities and small towns, main streets that looked like ghost towns, boarded up businesses, empty roads, empty highways, empty airports and empty train stations. offices were closed. schools were closed, and hospitals were taken to the breaking point. when you remember the depths of the crisis we faced, it's all the more amazing the progress that we've made since then. we've gone from an economy that was shut down to an economy as leading the world in economic growth. we've gone from small businesses being shuttered to a record number of new small businesses starting up, around we've gone from a devastating job destruction to record new job creation. don't get me wrong. we still have a long way to go to fully recover from all the pain and destruction caused by the pandemic, and we're still dealing with the difficult challenges and complications caused by covid-19 that are driving up costs for american families. i know for a lot of americans things are still very hard, very hard, but if you look at all the facts, all of the facts, you can only come to one conclusion. we've made enormous progress in this country. first and foremost, our economy is creating jobs, lots of jobs. in fact, we've seen a record new job growth in america this year, 5.6 million jobs just since i was sworn in on january the 20. more jobs created at this point in a new presidency than ever before in american history. we have seen a dramatic drop in the unemployment rail. from a high of 14.8% in april of 2020 to 4.6% today. earlier this year, independent experts were predicting it would take until the end of 2023 to see unemployment that low. our economy is creating new businesses, lots of new businesses. in fact, americans are starting small businesses at a record rate. up 30% compared to before the pandemic. economists will tell you that an increase in new business is one of the best signs of an economy, an economy that's becoming more innovative and more dynamic, and that's because small businesses aren't just the heart and soul of america. they are not just the bedrock of so many communities across the country, america's small businesses are the primary job creators, innovators and drivers that power our economic progress. that's why it's a powerful statement about -- of the faith about -- that we have in our country, where our country and our economy is heading. small business creation is surging, surging in america today, which is why i'm proud to say if you look at my presidency so far, it's a jobs presidency, and it's a small business presidency, so, if you look at the facts here's what the record shows. record job creation. record economic growth. record new small business creation. that's the story that should give us confidence about the economy that we're building. confidence in ourself. confidence in the future. now after years of wages being flat or falling behind we're also seeing something else. things are getting better for american workers, higher wages, better benefits, more flexible schedules. balance sheets for american families are better as well. savings are up. home equity is up. credit card balances are down, and if you continue and combine the wage increases we've seen with -- with the direct relief my administration has provided to middle class families, the typical middle class family's disposable income has gone up 2% this year even after accounting for higher prices. that's the kind of recovery just one year after a crippling worldwide economic crisis that's unprecedented, and it takes us -- you know, it makes us stand out from the rest world. america is the only major economy, the only one in the world where the economy is bigger today and families have more money in their pockets today than before the pandemic hit. that's even after accounting for inflation. none of our competitors internationally can say that, none. it's a testament to the hard work and perseverance of the american people. it's a testament to the effectiveness of the vaccines and our vaccination effort, and it's a testament to the economic policies we've fought so hard to pass and put in place, especially the american res u-plan, and it's a testament to the federal reserve, but for all the progress we've made we know we still are facing challenges, serious challenges. we know there's a lot of fear and uncertainty in the country. we know -- we know it's tough for families to keep up with the rising cost of gasoline, food, housing and other essentials. it's not just an american problem. it's a worldwide problem. it doesn't make it easier for americans, but it's a worldwide problem. every country is dealing with the same problems emerging from the pandemic. supply chain bottlenecks, disruption caused by spikes in covid-19, elevated prices. they are all taking a bite out of our family budgets. perhaps no entity plays a more important role in navigating these challenges than the federal reserve because it's the fed's job to balance two key goals, but first it's to achieve maximum employment, to get as many american workers -- americans working as possible. the second is to keep inflation low and stable. to meet these goals because it's going to require patience, skill and independence, that's why today i'm nominating jerome powell for a second term as chair of the federal reserve, and i'm -- i'm nominating lionel brainard to take the position as vice chair of the federal reserve. when our country was hemorrhaging jobs last year and there was panic in our financial markets, jay's steady and decisive leadership helped to stabilized markets and put our economy on track to a robust recovery. jay is a believer in the benefits of what economists call maximum employment. that's an economy where companies have to compete to attract workers instead of workers competing with each other for jobs, where american workers get steady wage increases after decades of stagnation, and where the benefits of economic growth are broadly shared by everyone in the country, not just concentrated for those at the top. jay said it well last month, and i'm going to quote him. he said, and i quote, an economy is healthier and stronger when as many people as possible are able to work. if entrenched inequities prevent some americans from participating fully in our labor markets, not only will they be held back from opportunities, but the economy overall will not realize its potential, and those have historically been left behind stand the best chance of prospering in a strong economy with plentiful job opportunities, end of quote. as chair, jay undertook a landmark review to reinforce the federal reserve's mission towards delivering full employment, for making strong progress towards that goal now, and i believe jay is the right person to see us through and finish that effort while also addressing the threat of inflation and what it poses to our economies and families. jay and i have had a chance to discuss his views on priorities for the federal reserve in the years ahead. he's made clear to me that a top priority will be to accelerate the fed's effort to address and mitigate the risk that climate change poses to our financial system and our economy. extreme weather has cost our economy over $600 billion over the last ten years. we have to make sure our financial system can withstand climate change and is prepared to transition to clean energy. the fed must be a leader among central banks globally in addressing climate-related financial risks. he's also underscored the importance of the fed taking a more proactive role in the months and years ahead and making sure that our financial regulations are staying ahead of emerging risks, be they from innovations and cryptocurrency or the practice of less regulated non-bank financial institutions. having served as vice president during the depths of the 2009 financial crisis, having worked with president obama to put in place a stronger financial rules of the road, i understand the stakes of our regulations falling asleep at the switch, regulators falling asleep at the switch. jay, along with the other members of the federal board that i will nominate, must ensure that we never again expose our economy and american families to those kinds of risks. i respect jay's independence, and i also trust that he will follow through on his commitment to prioritize these issues with the skill that he has shown in his service to date. now, some will no doubt question why i'm renominating jay where he was the choice of a republican predecessors. why aim not picking a democrat? why am i not picking fresh blood or take the fed in a different direction? put directly at this moment of both enormous potential and enormous uncertainty for our economy, we need stability and independence at the federal reserve. jay's proven the independence that i value in the federal -- in the fed chair. in the last administration he stood up to unprecedented political interference and in doing so successfully maintained the integrity and credibility of this institution. it's just one of the many reasons that jay has support from across the political spectrum n.2018, he was confirmed with 84 votes in the united states senate. his approach as fed chair has earned the respect and support of groups from the raffle awful to the business roundtablebury brings me to one more reason why i have chosen to renominate jay. i believe having fed leadership with broad bipartisan support is important, especially now in such a politically divided nation. i believe we need to doing everything we can to take the bitter partisanship of today's politics out of something as important as the independence and credibility of the federal reserve. this is vital to maintain public trust in an independent institution like the federal reserve, and that is why aim so proud as well to nominate dr. brainard, you know, to serve of as vice chair of the federal reserve. you know, by promoting her to the board she's elevating the service of the federal reserve. she spent years recommending americans around the world on economic issues and spent the last decade as a member of the fed most recently working side by side with jay as the fed navigated historic and financial crises and reaffirmed its commitment to a full employment economy. throughout her time at the fed she's also been a steadfast voice for tough rules to protect the pensions an savings of the american people. she's led the fed's efforts to make sure that the banking system serves everyone in the communities they serve of so that regard lesion of where you live or your background, every american can have access to credit that they need to start a business, buy a home and just have a fair chance at life. she's done pioneering work on how the fed should account for the emerging risk of climate change to our financial system and like jay, her expertise and leadership have earned her the respect and support of republicans and democrats alike. i'm proud to nominate her to the vital role of vice chair of the federal reserve. beyond jay and lael, i look forward in the coming weeks to nominate additional members of the federal reserve board of governors including a new vice chair for supervision. these individuals will help safeguard our financial system and alongside their leadership help to support and continue this historic economic recovery. while jay and lael bring continuity and stability to the fed, my additions will bring new perspectives and new voices. i also dredge that my additions will bring new diversity to the fed which is much-needed and long overdue in my view. last year the pandemic shut down much of the global economy. now there's a worldwide reawakening and it's creating both an incredible opportunity and tough challenges. as economies all across the world come back from this pandemic, america is leading the way. like every country in the world, we have to deal with these issues of rising cost, but we should remember we have the skill and tools to get turned control. all other countries are stumbling out of this pandemic. we're racing ahead because so much of the rest our economy is doing well because we have created so many new jobs as fast as we have. we're in a position to attack inflation from the position of strength, not weakness, and in times like these we need steady, tested, principled leadership at the fed. we need people with sound judgment of proven courage to preserve the independence of the fed and we need people of character and integrity who can be trusted to keep their focus on the right long-term goals of our country, for our country, and i'm confident that jay and lael are those poem. now i would like to give them both a chance to say a few word. we'll start with jay and then i'll turn to lael. >> okay. the president making it official. he is renominating jerome powell to a second term as chairman of the federal reserve. that is pending senate confirmation. for now let's take you back to close arguments of the trial of the three men accused of killing ahmaud arbery. this is the defense continuing their closing arguments. this is the attorney of the guest greg mcmichael. >> he spent years as a life insurance salsman not because he liked it, but he did it because he wanted to see his three kids grow up in a neighborhood that was safe and secure, a safe home surrounded by a community of neighbors who cared for each other, band-aids for skinned knees, july 4th parties, block parties that went on for hours, crocheted baby blankets when a new child was born, casseroles when we had lost a loved one. he worked hard day and night to provide those things for the people that he loved. larry english was a contractor in douglas, georgia who worked hard every day to provide for his wife and two children, and to save for his dream, to live on the water in a neighborhood just like that, safe, secure, filled with people who would care for each other, and when he became ill he and his wife amy had to fast forward their dreams. they fast forward that had retirement dream, bought that land and began working on their dream home. the project of building that home in satilla shores. it's the sort of life we all have the right to seek. the safety and security and comfort of people that we care about and who care about us. we work hard for our stuff. it's ours and no one has the right to take it. and we should never ever have to fear intruders. the police can be count on to help, to respond, but they can't be everywhere, and they can't be everything. a good neighborhood is always policing itself. mr. moore, you really need to put a fence around that swimming pool. i'm worried a child will fall in. mrs. pannoch, bobby is flying down crossbrook drive again in that new car. have you to talk to him and get him to slow down so no one is hurt. the police can't be everywhere, and in a safe, secure neighborhood police are helped by those neighbors. officer rash testified neighbors help neighbors and neighbors help the police. there are really only two questions for you to answer to reach your verdict in the charges that the state has brought against greg m cmichael. did greg mcmichael have reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion to believe that ahmaud arbery had committed a burglary at 220 satilla drive, and did he have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that ahmaud arbery was escaping or attempting to escape yet again on february 23rd? it is a nine-count indictment, nine counts, so why only two questions? well, i want to suggest to you what the state suggested but in reverse. i'd like to suggest a methodical efficient way to think about all this law and all of these charges. i suggest that you begin at the beginning. count one, malice murder, and then take all the rest of those counts two through nine as one big chunk as you consider these important questions. even count one, that malice murder count is defended by the answers to those questions, but with malice murder i suggest to you you don't even have to get to those questions. greg mcmichael pulled no trigger. how could the state seek a conviction for malice murder as greg stood in the bed of the pickup truck on the phone with 911 as the fatal shots were fired? as a party to the crime. you were told about the law that the judge will give you. if someone intentionally helps or aids or procures or hires or assists in the commission of a crime, they can be as guilty as the principal, as the person who fired the shots, but what is so very different about count someone that it's malice murder. it requires the desire and the intent to kill, the deliberate intention to take the life of another human being where all of the circumstances of the killing show that an individual acted with an abanned and malignant heart. the state will have to be asking you to find that greg mcmichael advised or encouraged travis mcmichael, his son, to take the life of ahmaud arbery because that's what he wanted to do. for no reason other than to see that young man die and to see him die at hands of his own son, and to do it, right there in front of his eyes because the guy keeps breaking down, breaking into that house down the street. that's the level of criminal intent, the level of depravity, heartlessness, sickness that you would need to find beyond a reasonable doubt to find greg mcmichael guilty of malice murder. that's why i suggest that you begin with count one and quickly dispatch of it with a not guilty verdict, and then move down to the remaining counts, counts two through nine because it comes down to this. if greg mcmichael was authorized by law to attempt to execute a citizen's arrest, to try to detain aari for the police to come and do their job, to try to keep peace and safety within that neighborhood, then they were within the law to hold him there for the police. how else does one hold an individual who does not want to be arrested for the police? you have to contain him, not false imprison him, contain him. you have to possibly hold him at gunpoint without firing a shot, not an aggravated assault, but the use of a reasonable and measured amount of force to make him stay where he did not want to stay. so if they were acting within the law in trying to execute a citizen's arrest, to detain aari for the police, then travis had every single right to defend himself. when ahmaud arbery inexplicably took the sharp left turn at the front of the truck seeking to disarm travis mcmichael. so, who has got to prove what? we begin as we always begin in a courtroom, with innocence, and we stay there unless and until the state proves to you that this was not a citizen's arrest and that travis was not justified in defending himself against ahmaud arbery's attack, and they have to convince you of that, remove your belief in that citizen's arrest or justification to such a degree that you've got left nothing in your minds to doubt it, and that sounds like an enormous burden. why? because they have to make you sure of it. you have to have no hesitation, no ambivalence, absolute certainty because this is the highest level of proof we ever ask for in a court root the court will tell you when they say murder and the facts raise justification and the judge will tell you, justification in self-defense? justification is citizen's arrest. that when the facts are roysed to support those particular defenses that the state has to prove them and that you were justified. >> in is the standard so incredible will. the answer is something you witnessed in this very courtroom. even in science errors can happen, and without diligent next and inquiry people can be stripped of their freedoms for another's inattention to mistake. imagine, if dr. donahue with all that experience who made the decision, the conclusion that the muzzle to target iran, the end of travis' shotgun to the chest or awry was based on a before if compared withouting in watched the video and more egregiously without having to look at the close that covered the body:. imagine if all that happened in this case, want to have misled you? wouldn't that have allowed you to wonder how what you saw in that video could match the opinion of a scientist? imagine if bryan leopard hadn't tested ahmaud arbery's shirt and scientifically concluded based on that stippling that these were contact or near contact wounds. imagine, further, if i hadn't e-mailed dr. done how to take on another look at his conclusions based on the close and brian leopard eats report and further imagine if dr. if he wasn't wile made a mistake and take another look at the science. so that instead of three to four feet, we now know it's contact were three inches. three inches. as opposed to four feet. that is a demonstration to you why this system has to work this way. why the state has such a high burden with evidence that leaves absolutely no reason to doubt before any one of you can consider declaring that man seeking to protect himself and his community is a murderer. you determine the facts. and the judge will tell you the law. so, of course, you need to be given the facts accurately. and completely. the painful beauty of this case is that almost all of it is recorded. security videos from outside of people's homes on satilla shores, difficult to listen to 911 tapes and then of course the really hard thing to look at, the cell phone video that captured the last moments. based on those undisputed recorded facts, still in the face of all that you heard and saw, the state's case demonstrated an opening state, that what mr. hoag told you in opening statement. he told you, greg mcmichael was absolutely certain and he was absolutely right. you were so attentive and i thank you for that. we all do. you took a lot of notes and there was a lot of things to take notes about. so you know that the very first words out of greg mcmichael's mouth is that there was no doubt in his mind as to who this guy was. he told officer brand that and it was captured on the body cam that you saw. and later in interviewed at glynn county police department by parker marcy, that investigator told you here is his statement, here is what he told me, i watched him and when he came by me i got a good, really good look sat him so i mean it's the same guy. and it was ahmaud arbery on the video. he was an intruder. larry english had reported because he believed that an intruder had taken thousands of dollars of boat equipment off the off shore boat that had been parked in his rv parking garage. it was ahmaud arbery returning night after night without authority to a place where valuables were stored, with no legitimate reason for being there. and it was ahmaud arbery as greg mcmichael told immediately after being questioned who had hauled ass from that house on february 23rd after he looked through the window at matt albenzo on the phone that he ran from that home. add all that knowledge, that certainty to what he learned when travis jumped into the truck and hashared with hame wh he saw on the driver's side of the truck. that is not in evidence and i object to -- this was never in evidence and arguing with facts not in evidence. >> i believe that is in evidence and i believe that controversy mcmichael testified on these statements that i'm talking about did come into evidence. i believe the jury will remember the evidence. >> ladies and gentlemen, it is up to the jury to recalm the evidence that has been presented in this trial. what the lawyers say is not evidence so it is up to you to recall what the evidence is in the case and go ahead and address this matter on that basis. i will have a complete listing of all statements made but it is to you, ladies and gentlemen to recall that and just because a lawyer said something that does not mean it is evidence, and this is argument. go ahead. >> you will be the decider of the fact and you took the notes and i trust you will remember what you remember from this trial. that travis jumped into the driver's seat of that truck after having seen matt albenzie standing in front of 220 satilla drive and pointing down that street. signaling down that street. that the man that travis mcmichael had seen only 11 days earlier, with his own eyes, and then slowly pulled up alongside so that he could confirm for himself, dad's right. this is the guy. and the judge will tell you, you will gather the facts from the totality of the circumstances. did they have a reasonable and probable cause to believe that this was the guy and you can know and the judge will tell you that you gather that from every sense that you have. your hearing, your sight, your sense of what is going on around you. certainty, though, is way higher standard than what you even need to find in this case. certainty was way more knowledge than they needed to detain ahmaud arbery to execute a citizens arrest and that was greg mcmichael 's intent. he said it from the very beginning. he was asked by the investigator parker marcy testified to you, what was your intent had he stopped? and he said as clear as a bell, hold him for the police so that he could be arrested. the judge will charge you that a private citizen can effectuate an arrest, detaining someone for the police to arrive if a crime happens within his knowledge, oops, there is the other one, or his immediate presence. thanks. i appreciate it. so here is what you have to know. that you haven't yet heard from the state. there are no magic words that are required. the court will tell you there is nothing special you have to say to be effectuating a citizens arrest. there is nothing special you can't say while effectuating a citizens arrest. if it happens within your knowledge or immediate presence, then you can effectuate a citizens arrest and criminal trespass, the court will tell you, going on someone's property without the authority and for an unlawful purpose is a crime, the misdemeanor offense of citizens arrest. and again, what you haven't heard from the state and got some misdirection about, there is no requirement, judge will tell you, for a posting of a no trespassing sign. there is no requirement that any officer execute this trespass warning. it's your place and people should stay off it. we don't need to be telling people ahead of time and giving them warnings if you don't want to. and he'll also charge you that as private citizen can effectuate an arrest, detaining someone for the goal of holding them for the police if he has reasonable grounds of suspicion to believe that a suspect is fleeing or attempting to flee from a felony, burglary is a felony. entering a dwelling place without authority, with the intent to commit a theft in there. not an actual theft, but the reason, the mindset for going into a place that is not yours. so how do you know that if there wasn't actually a theft. judge will tell you, the law will allow you to infer an intent to steal if there is an unlawful entry, meaning crossing into a place that is not yours, a place where valuables are stored and you heard testimony that plenty of values were stored at 220 satilla drive. there is no other apparent motive for