We dont have matt. You probably just saw there that eric nelson, the defense attorney for Derek Chauvin just wrapped up arguments. The judge just said he had some discussions were going to listen to what the judge is saying to the lawyers. You believe that the counsel made a misstatement of law when he indicated and argumented that the defendant had to intend to apply unlawful force. He had to intend that the force he was applying to be unlawful. Thats not a correct statement. The law is dorn 887 northwest second 8, 26. The state need not show that the defendant meant to or knew that it would violate the law that is what mr. Nelson argued before the jury. So were requesting the court give a curative instruction to the jury as follows. That it is not necessarily for the state to prove the defendant intended to act unlawfully. Only that the defendant applied force to another that the application of force was unlawful and that this application of force resulted in bodily harm. I believe thats a correct statement of the law. This is contrary to what the court instructed in the first set of instructions. Your honor, i believe the courts instruction was that the intentional infliction of bodily harm that the defendant applied unlawful force to another person without that persons consent and this act resulted in bodily harm. Did not instruct that the defendant need to intend that his force be unlawful. Merely that he intended to apply the force, which was unlawful. Deny the request for curative instructions. Will reread statements of judge and attorneys which starts at the bottom of page 2 and goes on to page 3, which states that if an attorneys argument contains any statement of the law, the difference from the law i give you disregard the attorneys statement. Turn it over to mr. Blackwell who will answer this exact issue in his rebuttal. We do ask the courts guidance on another issue mr. Nelson argued that mr. Chauvin was following his training. Theres no testimony from mr. Chauvin. He didnt argue that they could infer that. He argued that they thought that. Placing that in context puts us in a difficult position. We cant comment on his failure to testify. But that statement is directly at odds with the evidence and the record. Response . Read the quote, steve . That mr. Chauvin thought he was following his training. What was the context . In your use of force discussion, you talked about his training. You indicated that mr. Chauvin thought he was following his training. I dont recall saying it, your honor. Even if he did, it was drowned out by a reasonable officer. I think its a reasonable inference to draw from the evidence that exists. Even a statement to mr. Mcmillan essentially was an indirect way of saying he was following his training. Its a reasonable inference for council to argue to respond to that by saying theres no evidence would in fact be commenting on his right to remain silent. So the bind the state is always in. But as far as the other issues, you can talk about requoting what the elements are on assault in the third degree. Also anything else that you think was a misstatement of law. I will lead them the statement of judges and attorneys if you want. You want me to reread that for yes, your honor. I dont want to force it on you but i would remind that that any statement should be disrecorded. And ask that you reread the instruction on cause situation. The state is required to prove Beyond A Reasonable Doubt that the other issues that he spoke about had no effect, no causal connection. That is not the law. Im not going to single out that instruction and reinstruct on that. Im just going to read him the general law. If it differs, mr. Blackwell will point out in great detail how mr. Nelson misstated that. All right. Bring the jury back. So were watching the pictures, images from the trial. Thats the judge, peter cahill, who has been in a back and forth with the lawyers after eric nelson, the lawyer for Derek Chauvin had made his Closing Statement, his closing case to the jury. The jury was sent away while the judge had a little back and forth with the lawyers. In which he was he was saying one of the things that mr. Nelson said in his Closing Statement was not correct. It dealt with the issue of the use of the intent of the suspect of the accused, that is, Derek Chauvin. He didnt have to show the state didnt have to show that he had intent to use unlawful force but he used force, that he used force that was unlawful. That was quiet important. They said theyre going to instruct the jury to be clear on that after mr. Nelsons statement. Were waiting for the jury to come back in where i think what happens next is that the rebuttal from the prosecution takes place and then we get the judges lets listen to the judge. To argue their clients cause. However, the arguments or the remarks from an attorney are not evidence. If the attorneys or i have made or should make any statement as to what the evidence is that differs from your recollection of the evidence, you should disregard that statement and rely solely on your own memory. If an attorneys argument contains any statement of the law that differs from the law i give you, disregard the attorneys statement. Mr. Blackwell . Thank you, your honor. Good afternoon, Ladies And Gentlemen. Last lawyer i think talking to you was closing. I wont be too long. I want to Start Talking to you about when i called the 46th witness. You have heard from 45 witnesses on the stand. But theres a 46th witness. This witness was testifying to you before you got here to the courtroom. They testified over everybody elses temporary on the stand. The only witness that talks to you back in deliberation. That witness is common sense. Common sense. It will continue talking with you all the while. While youve heard hours and hours and hours of discussions here in the closing, ultimately really isnt that complicated. What it is you have to decide with respect to the excessive use of force and the issue of causation. The fact that its so simple a child could understand it. The 9yearold girl said, get off of him. Thats how simple it was. Get off of him. Common sense. Why is it necessary to continue applying debtly restraint to a man that is defenseless, who is handcuffed, who is not resisting, who is not breathing, who doesnt have a pulse. To do that for another three plus minutes before the ambulance shows up and to 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 out in it was. It was homicide. Mr. Nelson spent quite a bit of time saying to form an honest assessment. Look at all the evidence. Reasonable office. Reasonable officer is not magic words that you apply to mr. Chauvin. It becomes a reasonable officer because you applied those words. Reasonable is as reasonable does. Here what you saw is not reasonable and you didnt get the whole truth. Notice how when you had the discussion of reasonable officer, mr. Chauvin, the 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 on top him even when the emts showed up. How is that when a reasonable officer does . If you look at the totality of the circumstances, which you heard so much about, what does that tell you exactly where he was coming from . If were talking about reasonable officer. Now we heard a number of other things that in looking at the totality and the assessment, you didnt get the whole story. You got bits and pieces and parts. Its completely not true or the facts have been altered in order to make a point. When you deliberate, what youre going to reach is a verdict. That means the truth. Youre not going to reach a story. Youll be getting at the truth. Why are we engaged in telling stories . Why is that . You just heard a number of them. Ill give you a few examples of the stories. You were just talked to about how safe the prone position is. You heard this in the trial. The prone position is heres canadian studies. After everything you heard, you know not a single one of those studies ever examined anybody that had a knee on the neck. You know that. You also know that about the socalled prone studies, none of them actually measured what was the oxygen reserve. That is how is the oxygen being affected by putting somebody in the prone position and any amount of weight on them . Never measured. You know that, too. Youre being told about the studies that the prone position is safe. You heard about Excited Delirium. Theres not a single witness that sat in that share and gave you testimony and told you that they thought that mr. George flied suffered from Excited Delirium. Not one. One of the criteria nor Excited Delirium is the person impervious to pain. They dont feel pain. Theyre not saying my neck hurts. My knee hurts. Everything hurts. Theyre not grimaces because their wrist hurts for Excited Delirium. Thats a fact. If thats a fact, why are we talking about it . Why isnt that said if youre going to be hearing about Excited Delirium . Then we turn to dr. Baker. Theres a discussion of homicide. Were told that homicide was a medical term. Thats not what dr. Baker said. He said it means killed at the hands hoff another. At the hands of another is what homicide means. At the hands of another. He was pretty clear in discussing the cause of death. He said it was cardio Pulmonary Arrest, complicating Law Enforcement subject duel, restraint and Neck Compression. He did explain what complicated means. He said it means in the environment of. So it reads as though its cardio Pulmonary Arrest in the environment of Law Enforcement subject duel, restraint and Neck Compression. What you were just told and attributed to dr. Baker, somehow he meant this was an unexpected result of the Law Enforcement subject duel restrain and neck restraint and Neck Compression. Dr. Baker didnt come in to talk to us about use of force by Police Officers. Its not what he said. There were words that were put into his mouth. You check and see that wasnt it. Youve heard now for the umpteens time in this trial, what is the evidence on autopsy for asphyxia . You heard it from witness after witness. Even pulled out giant textbooks, that the defenses own expert said these are reliable authorities on it. 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 in the body tissues. Ladies and gentlemen, that is a fact. Now, if this is supposed to be about performing an honest assessment, looking at the totality of the evidence, how is that not mentioned to you . How is it not mentioned to you . I cant even stop there. Because you were also told about the law that applies to this. You were first told by judge cahill, no question that was accurate. 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. He talks about fentanyl, heart failure, hypertension. He said that we have to show Beyond A Reasonable Doubt that none of these other factors played a role. Thats not the law. You dont have to believe it. Read it yourself. Youll have the instructions there and see if mr. Blackwell isnt telling you the truth. What we need to show is that the defendants actions were a substantial causal factor in his death. Doesnt have to be the only causal factor, doesnt have to be the biggest factor. Just one of them in the cause of death. The instruction will say the fact that other causes contribute to the death does not relieve the defendant of criminal liability. Dr. Baker was clear. Those other factors are not direct causes of the death, the direct cause was cardio Pulmonary Arrest that was in the environment of the police subdual and restraint. After mr. Nelson was finished, he said all i did is ask him about what he had written in the certificate on the case. Cause of death, cardio pulmonary death. 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 analyze them and you your honor once you analyze them and against the facts and evidence that you heard, youll see what i mean. Take, for example, the notion that mr. Floyd dying of cardio Pulmonary Arrest, dying from low oxygen was 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 subdual and restraint. Thats common sense. So if we treat each day that mr. Floyd, born october 14th, 1973 and made it a dot on the page, we looked over his lifetime, youll see here, if we look over ten years, 20, 30, 40 years, up to may 25 of 22, that means that mr. Floyd would have lived up to that date, 17,026 days. Now only one of these dots corresponds to may 25. All the rest of these dots represent days that mr. Floyd was leaving, breathing, he had a being. He was living and had a being with every single disorder that mr. Nelson has chronicled. Each and every day. You know, with his struggles with opioid addiction, with his high blood pressure, et cetera. Every single day except the one day. As we know, there was a tenminute segment, nine minutes and 29 seconds that he didnt survive. So one days time, theres 144 of those, ten minute segment. One of them was the reason that mr. Floyd failed to survive. What happened in that space you know what happened, Ladies And Gentlemen. That is where there was deadly force applied by mr. Chauvin. We know it was deadly force. We heard from officer zimmerman on the stand who told us it was deadly force. He said its deadly force because its a force capable of killing a person which makes it deadly force. Ladies and gentlemen, once you see what mr. Floyd was subjected to with this deadly force in the prone position, theres certain consequences for the risks that come with the prone position and the use of this kind of deadly force and that primary risk is it affects your breathing. You heard that from witness after witness after witness. It affects your breathing. Makes it harder to breathe. You put the subject in the prone Recovery Position as soon as possible. Because you dont want to affect the breathing, flow of oxygen. Do you have evidence of low oxygen here . Theres evidence of low oxygen, Ladies And Gentlemen, that is medically unavailable medically. Take, for example, the fact that mr. Floyd had a seizure. That is hes already unconscious. Not breathing. The body is having a twitching reflex. That anoxic seizure represents low oxygen to the brain. And thats what causes the anoxic seizure. He suffered from pea. You remember we talked about pea is a pulseless electrical activity, pea. The common cause of pea is low oxygen. You cant fake it. You cant make that up. Theres evidence of low oxygen and it would have been what preceded what would have proceeded from the use of this very kind of deadly force. And 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 further from the truth. What you heard from doctor after doctor, whether its the e. R. Physician, dr. Rich, the cardiologist, dr. Tobin, dr. Smock, so many doctors that you heard and dr. Baker also. Dr. Thomas this is what they all converge. They recognize first and foremost that there was a use of force by mr. Chauvin that set off a number of things for mr. Floyd that culminated in his death. He died of cardio Pulmonary Arrest. That means the heart stop and hes no longer breathing. Dr. Baker will tell you that stress to which mr. Floyd was subjected in the subject duel and the restraint by mr. Chauvin and others was enough in of and by itself to explain mr. Floyds demise. When asked the question, what about his Oxygen Levels . Did he have insufficient oxygen . Thats not something that i can calculate as a forensic pathologist said dr. Baker. Thats not something that i can calculate as a forensic pathologist. Dr. Thomas said the same thing. But these doctors said they would defer to pulmonologists in every days, which is what we have with dr. Tobin who did the calculations. Who can tell you how much oxygen was in mr. Floyds body. Not only that, he can tell you that when hes put in to the prone position that his oxygen would have decreased by 24 . When weight was put on mr. Floyds back, the oxygen diminished 43 . He can tell you that with the weight on his back, the throat would have narrowed. He was able to tell you medically, scientifically, not only could mr. Floyd have survived this Oxygen Reserves 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 that dr. Fowler said that he would defer to someone else to create because he cant do it. Thats exactly what dr. Tobin did. So, Ladies And Gentlemen, were required to show you that his conduct was a substantial cause, a substantial factor in mr. Floyds death. Did he die automatically and exclusively from the low oxygen . We have cardio Pulmonary Arrest. Did the Heart Stop First . Ultimately they stopped because we have cardio Pulmonary Arrest all stemming back to the Neck Compression from mr. Chauvin. They all agree that that was the precipitating point. From there, the stresses, the strains of mr. Floyds body, the low oxygen culminated in his ultimate demise. His passing away. So i want to address several other points under the heading of what i think are stories that youve heard versus i think the truths here. You know, when the case started, i think you were all asked and talked 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 of truth. It suggests that everything is reduced to a story. If it is a story, that means there could be two sides and never be a truth or reality except that were about here is getting to the truth. And not simply stories. Now, its most certainly right, for example, for a Police Officer to take seriously this Over Arching Mission of the Police Department embracing the sanctity of life and protection of the public as the highest values. But it is equally wrong, equally wrong to take this badge, which is a symbol of a commitment to a higher calling to serve the people, the use this badge as a license to abuse the public, to mistreat the public, to not follow proper procedures, to not render aid when you should have administered aid. Thats wrong. The only two sides to that would be the w and the g for that being wrong. Now, you have heard statements to the effect that mr. Chauvin being concerned about the bystanders and about others. If youre looking at the totality of the evidence, you have to bear in mind that at all relevant times here, there were five Police Officers right there. Four right there on the scene. Officer chang was there. You didnt hear any evidence about any call for backup at all. Now, there was a concern here that mr. Chauvin was concerned and i wont say much more about Body Language that has been discussed. Youll decide whether that was the face of one that was afraid at the time. Because he had all of the power at this point. He had the bullets, guns, the mays that he threatened the bystanders with, he had the badge, he had all of it. There were three High School Juniors there and a second grader that was going to the store to get candy. A High School Senior that was taking her cousin to the store. A First Responder on the scene. There was Donald Williams that wanted nothing more to intervene to try to save mr. Floyds life. Mr. Charles mcmillan, a 61yearold man that if i gave him a name, i would call him the mayor of the neighborhood. He likes to see whats going on and look out for things. He was there to try to also intervene, to save mr. Floyds life. So this wasnt the face of fear or concern or worry. Youve seen what it looked like at that time. Thats what fear and worry looked like. When 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 turn, that he could be shot to death over an investigation around a fake 20 bill. That is fear. Now, you told some stories about the bystanders. And the suggestion that they were an unruly crowd. Youve got to meet them now. Youve gotten to meet 2 3s of the ones that were there at that time. I described them as a bouquet of humanity. I call them that because they came at different genders, different races and came together and focused on the one thing, which was they saw that a human being they didnt know was suffering and they wanted to intervene to stop the suffering. And in that sense, they were not only symbols of the love and care and courage, 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 then. You saw them on the stand, almost to the last one. You felt the anguish 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 the respect nor the badge, the city, the state. They were torn between it. Now, the ultimate proof of this is if those bystanders did not respect this badge, they could easily have taken the law into their own hands and simply have removed mr. Chauvin. We wont have to have any discussions about how reasonable it was for him to be on the mans neck or any of these discussions at all. None of them did that. None of them did 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 memorialize what they were seeing so that it could not be forgotten and could not be misrepresented. Instead, they waited for they da to come in and talk with you. 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. You will hear time and again oh, the crowd was getting louder. The crowd was getting more agitated. We cant see what it is theyre getting upset around. The fact that a defenseless, helpless man is literally losing his life one breath at a time in front of them and theres nothing that they can do. If you love life, you get excited when you see life being taken. Thats your perception. Thats what they were excited about. And they all just wanted a doughnut in watching this, you might wonder what is wrong with them . Thats why they were upset. So you felt their pain, you felt their sense of helplessness. What you heard about them was a story, Ladies And Gentlemen. A story is really just an excuse that gets told. Im going to object to that. Disregard the word stories. The fact is, theres no excuse for police abuse. And ill be clear, ladies and gentleman, if theres a fact that is altered, ill tell you what it is. Theres no excuse for police abuse. And youve heard it with any number of these. So let me walk through some of them. Youve heard accounts that the traffic was distracting to mr. Chauvin. The fact was that you heard from the 911 dispatcher, jenna scurry that was watching the scene. She said the officers remained in the same place, in the same positions for so long on the top of mr. Floyd that that thought the camera was distracted. They had an officer there, officers tow whose job it was to fend away distractions and call others if needed. You also heard about the paramedics taking too long. The paramedics took longer to get there than was planned. Should have been there within three minutes. Your common sense will tell you the mere fact that the paramedics took longer than mr. Chauvin may have thought is certainly not a reason to either use Excessive Force or to abuse or to be indifferent to the fact that somebody is no longer breathing and doesnt have a pulse. The paramedics took too long. You heard about the paraganglioma. It was referred to an incidental law. Thats how rare it is and insignificant it is. The hallmark of a paraganglioma, headaches. Mr. Floyd wasnt reporting headaches. If youre going to talk about a paraganglioma, talk about the fact that you know theyre headaches and he didnt have them. So its performing an honest assessment if thats what were doing. The fact of the matter is, the paragangliomas, theres been six cases in reported history, all of reported history, where somebody had a sudden death from a paraganglioma ever, period. But even more than Carbon Monoxide, 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 a tail pipe of a car, spewing out Carbon Monoxide, why isnt that an unreasonable use of force by the officer . In your custody, in your case. Its not in your custody and i dont care. In your custody, in your care. What reasonable Police Officer would an prehad he beened apprehend somebody in front of a tail pipe and think its a defense . Theres no evidence the car was ever even on. You learned all you need to know, which was if he was suffering from Carbon Monoxide as dr. Tobin told you, you wouldnt be able to get a 98 Oxygen Saturation from the oxygen that they gave him artificially. You heard about the fentanyl overdose. With this one, you were just told, oh, earlier that afternoon, he was asleep in the car. Ladies and gentlemen, that is not the hallmark of somebody that dies from a fentanyl overdose. Its not just that you took a nap and dozed off. If you pass away from a fentanyl overdose, you cannot be a wakened. Youre in a coma. If people are shaking you, its to no avail. If were doing an honest assessment of the facts, looking at the totality of the circumstances, if were going to talk about fentanyl, thats a fentanyl overdose, why isnt that said . He doesnt fit the description of anyone dieing from a fentanyl overdose. It doesnt look like someone saying i cant breathe, my neck hurts, everything hurts. You know, you cant win. Im not trying to win. Thats not what happens when someone is suffering or dieing from a fentanyl overdose. Theyre nonresponsive and not reactive at all. Methamphetamine. Ladies and gentlemen, what meth . There was so little of it that it was below the therapeutic levels given. You heard that from the toxicologist from mms, the laboratory that Hennepin County sends off the medical examiner and pathology not pathology but Blood Samples to test for tox. He told you. It was minuscule amount of meth in his blood. And then we heard about the pills. Now, on cross examination, on the pills, i brought out the fact that what they were saying is a pill that he was taking in the car was just as likely chewing gum and showed you just before he was in the car chewing gum in the store, opening his mouth with a white substance in his mouth. Heres the deal about the pills. If were going to give this an honest assessment of the evidence, why dont we talk about pills that are not in his system . We know what is in his blood stream already. We know he struggles from the opioid addiction. We are we talking about pills that we know that were not in george floyd . Why . You have to decide that for yourself, Ladies And Gentlemen. Why is that being brought up when we know what is in his blood stream . What is the point in you keep Hearing Drugs in the car. Drugs in is the car. The drugs were one pill. One pill. It was not in george floyd. The suggestion that he was somehow taking it in the handcuffs in the police call, which makes no sense. There was no evidence of george floyd taking any in the police call. There was a pill found there only. You heard references and talking about dr. Tobin and his 46 years of experience studying the way people breathe. But, you know, mr. Chauvin is not a medical doctor. He doesnt have the years of experience and hours to pour over records. He didnt need it, Ladies And Gentlemen. Hes not a medical doctor. A 9yearold girl was not a medical doctor. He didnt need to be a medical doctor to understand that when somebody is saying i cant breathe and not just saying it, everything about them is showing that they cant breathe and when that ends, they are just passed out. You dont need a phd, you dont need an m. D. Too understand how fundamental breathing is to life. When somebody has passed out and they dont have a pulse, even a 9yearold little girl knows it. Get off of them. Thats all you needed to know in that case. Just a couple more of these. I cant even do them all because theres so many. This concern that george floyd was somehow come to again, he would come back around again. Theyll say we didnt really mean super Human Strength except we did mean super Human Strength. Has all the strength now. Now we 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. Not a single one of them testified about one incident ever where somebody that didnt have a pulse somehow spontaneously came back to life, broke handcuffs and rampaged a city. The fact of this case, not some other things, mr. Floyd didnt have a pulse. They didnt justify keeping your knee on his neck when he should have been administering cpr and you could have brought him back to life. You were afraid he would come to with no pulse and rampage 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 Arrythmia in the end. That is misleading in a way. As you heard from doctor after doctor, everybody dies in the end of a Fatal Arrythmia. Everybody dies of cardio Pulmonary Arrest. The heart stops, the lung stops. The last thing is, you get an arrhythmia and thats it. Is there any evidence that there was an arrhythmia as the primary cause of his death, unrelated to the subduel and neck restraint . Zero evidence he had a heart attack. He was heart was in such normal condition that dr. Baker in the autopsy didnt have a need to photograph it intact. Because it was normal. Now, dr. Rich did not say anything akin to george floyd having a normal heart. Thats not what he said. What he said was that he had a strong heart. He had a strong heart. What he meant by that is that he sees patients all the time that may be in need of transplants, that have serious Cardiac Disease and they cant get a normal blood pressure. He talked to you about how george floyd hasnt lived with this for some time, explains how it is that his body his arteries that serve the heart were able to compensate in the case of mr. Floyd and such that he did not die hoff a Fatal Arrhythmia and no evidence that he died omni kind of heart abnormality. Just two more things that i want to clarify. There was a lot of discussion about the police conduct, the situations can change rapidly from moment to moment. And i dont want you 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. Reported history, whether he was motionless, with anoxic seizure or he had no pulse. Theres no split second decision, no moment to moment. To the extent you hear that as representative of this case, its not representative of this case. It does not meet the facts of this case at all. So the fact of the matter is, Ladies And Gentlemen, the use of unreasonable force, the unreasonable use of force is an assault. Here it was an assault and 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 we have the burden of showing that he acted unlawfully and not proving that he intented to act unlawfully. We need to only show to prove that he did what he did, which is to put the knee on the neck, the knee on the back and against the shoulder. It wasnt an accident. And that we will show. We own that burden. So there really arent two sides to the story about whether this use of force was unreasonable. It was not authorized by the minneapolis Police Department. The pressure on mr. Floyds neck did affect his ability to breathe. I know that you were told that mr. Nelson was just here, that this was not a choke. Its not a choke hold. And that Donna Williams suggested or so testified. We remember that testimony. Donna williams disagreed every time. It wasnt a choke hold. He explained how that worked. And williams never gave that up in his testimony. So there arent two sides of the story with unreasonable force. Mr. Floyd is saying, please, please, i cant breathe, 27 times in a few minutes, you saw it. Mr. Chauvin didnt let up. Even when he passed out, not breathing anymore, he doesnt let up or get up. He knows he doesnt have a pulse, he doesnt let up or get up. Even when an ambulance comes, he doesnt let up or get up even then. They have to tap him before he will let up and get up off of the body of mr. George floyd. They try to resuscitate him in the ambulance and they never do it. He never regains consciousness. He never breathes again. His heart never pumps again. Mr. George floyd was deceased. So finally, Ladies And Gentlemen, i will sit down in a minute, but i wanted to save till the end what i thought was the biggest shading of the truth or what i call story. Im going to object to that, your honor. Disregard shading the truth. Heres what i thought was the largest departure from hear the evidence. Ill show it to you. You were told, for example, that mr. Floyd died that mr. Flied died because his heart was too big. You heard that testimony. And now having seen all the evidence, having heard the evidence, you know the truth. The truth of the matter is that the reasonable george floyd is dead is because mr. Chauvins heart was too small. Turn to page 11. Is. Members of the jury, if you have any questions about any part of the testimony or any legal question after you retired for your deliberation, address it to me in writing and give it to the sheriffs deputy and the jury number of the foreperson on the note. It will take some time 0 answer questions because i have to consult with the lawyers and receive their input before answering the question. I do not say this to discourage questions but only to advise you it will take some time to provide you with an answer. As i told you, youll take with you copies of the instructions im reading to you. The lawyers and i have determined that the instructions contain all the laws that are necessary for you to know in order to decide the case. I can not give you a trial transcript. No such transcript exists. We count on the jury to rely on the collective memory. You have been allowed to take notes during the trial and you may take the notes with you in the jerusalem. You should not consider the notes binding or conclusive, whether they are your notes or those of another juror. The notes should be used as an aid to your memory and not as a substitute for it. It is your recollection of the evidence that should control. You should disregard anything contrary to your recollection that may appear from your own notes or those of another juror. You should not give any greater weight to a particular piece of evidence soly because it is referred to in a note taken by a juror. We all have feelerings and stereotypes about others. Some biases were aware of and others were not fully aware of, which is why theyre called implicit or unconscious biases. No matter how unbiassed we think we are, our brains are wired to make unconscious decisions. We look at others and think of them through our own personal experience and background. Because we all do this, we evaluate evidence that tends to people that are like ourself our have Life Experiences like our own. We can also have biases about people like ourselves. One common example is the Automatic Association of male with career and female with family. Bias can affect our thoughts, how we remember what we see and hear, whom we believe or disbelieve and how we make important decisions. As jurors, youre being asked to make an important decision in this case. You must, one, take the time you need to reflect carefully and thoughtfully about the evidence. Two, think about why youre making the decision youre making and examine it for bias. Reconsider your First Impressions of the people and the evidence in this case. If the people involved in this case were from different background, for example, richer or poorer, more or less educated, older or younger or of a different gender, Gender Identity Race or sexual orientation, would you view them and the evidence the same way . Three, reason to one another. You have to evaluate the evidence and help each other resist an urge by bias for or against any party or witness. Each of you have different background and will be viewing this case in light of your insights, assumptions and biases. Listening to different perspectives may help you better identify the possible effects these hidden biases have on decision making. Four, resist jumping to conclusions based on personal likes or dislikeses, generalizations, gut feelings, prejudices, sympathies, stereotypes or unconscious biases. Is the law demands that you make a fair decision based soly on the evidence, your individual evaluations of that evidence, your reason and common sense and these instructions. When you return to the jury room to discuss this case, you have to select a foreperson. That person will lead your deliberations. In order to return a verdict, guilty or not guilty, each jury has to agree with the verdict. The verdict must be unanimous. You should discuss it and deliberate with a view toward reaching agreement. If you can do so without violating your individual judgment, you should decide the case for yourself but only after you have discussed the case with your fellow jurors and carefully discussed their views. You should not hesitate to reexamine your views and change your opinion if youre convinced theyre erroneous. You should not surrender your honest opinion because other jurors disagree. A single verdict form for each count has been prepared for your use. When you finish your deliberations and reached a verdict to specific count, the foreperson should mark with an x and date and sign the form filling the juror number on the indicated line and signing the forepersons name on the second line. The forms look like this. So theres very little to add. Just an x, your juror number of the foreperson and the forepersons signature. The order in which the guilty and not guilty choices appear on the Verdict Forms is strictly alphabetical and should not in any way be considered as indicating which choice is the correct choice. When all the Verdict Forms are completed, the forms should be placed in the provided envelope, sealed and given to the deputy who will convey the verdicts to the court. Your verdict will be read out loud in your presence in the courtroom. During your deliberations, you must not let bias, prejudice, passion, sympathy or Public Opinion influence your decision. You must not consider consequences or penalties that might follow from your verdict. You must not be biassed in favor of or against any party or witness because of his or her disability, gender, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, National Origin or socioeconomic status. Your verdict must be based on the evidence presented and the law that i give you. Your like or dislike of any witness, attorney or party should not have an effect on the outcome of the case. The state of minnesota and the defendant have a right to demand and they do demand that you consider and weigh the evidence, apply the law and reach a just verdict regardless of what the consequences might be. You must be absolutely fair. Remember that it is fair to find the defendant guilty if the law and the evidence require it. On the other hand, its fair to find the defendant not guilty if youre not convinced of his guilt Beyond A Reasonable Doubt. Now, members of the jury, the case is in your hands. Im certain that you realize this case is important, serious and therefore deserves your careful consideration. You heard judge peter cahill giving the instructions to those jurors, sending them to the jury room to begin their deliberations and ultimately to verdict if they can do that, thats what will happen. Lets go to matt finn. Matt finn has been following the trial from minneapolis and joins us now. We heard the judges instructions, the jury will go away to the jury room, it is now 4 00 just about central time, what is the expectation . They will go to the jury room and deliberate for now, i guess one never knows, but it is unlikely that they will come back tonight. Is there any expectation that they would remain overnight, sequestered and then deliver determination tomorrow . Yes, an extremely long day for the jury, a full day of opposing argument, each side speaking for hours, not even going to lunch until 2 00 p. M. In the afternoon and now we stand by and wait, the judge said that if a verdict were to come down in the evening hours considering all of the unrest in the city he would not announce a verdict until the following morning, and one of the final lines in the instructions was at the state had to prove the case Beyond A Reasonable Doubt. The defense arguing throughout the day that the state has not done that, putting the experts and conflicting testimony. Also the prosecution perhaps trying to make an impactful statement to the jury, the very last line of the trial the prosecution said that you were told george floyd died because he had too big of a heart, the truth is derek chopins heart was too small. Thank you very much indeed, that does it for your world with neil cavuto. Neil will be back tomorrow. Meanwhile starts right now. Dana hello, i am dana perino along with juan williams, katie pavlich, jesse watters, and pete it is 5 00 in New York City and this is the five. So that was the judge giving the jury final instructions before they begin deliberations in the dereks open trial. We are also awaiting a News Conference for minnesotas governor and other officials giving a safety update a head of. American cities are on edge and thousands of National Guard troops are deployed in the minneapolis area, businesses there are boarding up their windows in the courthouse is surrounded by concrete barriers