Glad that youre here. This book is truly phenomenal. Ani can say that from somebody who was covering this story, covering this tragedy. And we all knew about the 9 minutes and 29 seconds, but this book really tells us the rest of the story of the tragic murder of george floyd. I want launch right into first what it was like for you to even contemplate writing this book, knowing how professionally, personally invested, really you are and the entire globe at this point. Well, honestly, i felt it was important to document what happened sadly these tragic incidents continue to happen. Weve had a number of, you know, officer involved deaths since george floyd was killed. And if were ever to make progress, weve got to not just, you know, pass good legislation, prosecute that deserve to be prosecuted, but weve also got to document happened i mean i benefited from reading about what happened with freddie gray and rodney those you know, to protect, you know, folks who took the time to write about how to handle those matters, helped me get ready for the george floyd case. I figured that i needed to make a document that could help future generations help manage this problem. And one day ended. And just to think about the decades apart from freddie gray to rodney king and frankly, so many cases in between, i remember, of course, im from your home state of minnesota and just proud of that. And im very of the work thats done there as well. And you were just thinking about there was a time when people did not associate with anything besides, which is a great thing or of course, the Minnesota Twins or any of our wonderful organizations that are out there. But the story of george floyd stopped really an entire world its tracks, even knowing that there had been so many cases before. One of the things you write about in this, its called break the wheel, ending the cycle of Police Violence was that the of this trial in particular was one of the judges most important and best decisions why . Well, because the world got to see it. You know, i honestly had my own misgivings about televising the trial. I thought to myself, well, are we going to lose witnesses . Because people are nervous about appearing on camera and what ended up happening is that the judge said, no, were going to televise the trial because we dont have enough room to meet the constitutional requirement of a public trial because of covid. So nobody, no audience cant be in the courtroom. Therefore, were going to televise it. That ended up being a good thing because in the aftermath so many people came to me and they told me, look, we were glad we saw it were glad we were able to bear witness to history, making sure that was a fair trial, that Derek Chauvin every everything the law allowed terms of what criminal defendants entitled to and yet he was convicted based on that evidence nothing political knowledge except for the agenda of a fair trial. So i thought it was a good thing and i ended up changing my mind and now i have publicly advocated for cameras in the courtroom because i think that it gives people greater confidence in our system. Its a really important given, especially the times we live in right now. We cant see it in a vacuum. People are doubting jury. Theyre doubting peoples ability to be objective and biased. I want to lean into further that, though, because it wasnt that this trial was publicized as this judge did not your book do any favors for the state . You guys werent given a heads up for the verdict you didnt have the normal number of preempt strikes. Youre able to strike a juror for whatever reason. In fact, he gave an equal amount to both prosecution and the defense, which normally does not happen. Well, you know, judge cahill was a defender for many years and he was prosecutor for many years. And i think that what he understood is that this case must be viewed as fair, no matter what the verdict is. So he i mean, he went out of his way to make sure that he was calling an even game. Right. And we there were a lot of decisions that i didnt think were the right ones. And im not saying that they werent the right ones. Im saying that as an advocate, a person involved the adversarial process. I was looking for a different outcome. But at the end of the day, i think he judged a fair case. And the fact is that he had to he make both sides do what they had to do to have a fair trial. So im happy with the that the case was judged as you know we have had appellate involvement in this case and the verdict was upheld recently. And now the defense is going to ask for a petition for review from the minnesota Supreme Court. But were confident. Go ahead, sir. But were confident because. You know, this case has been rigorously litigated every step. So we feel good. What really struck me in midst of this trial and with this book and is you have been so about knowledging that solutions, solving problems such that we face today in terms of officer involved shootings, involved deaths, the relationship in the community and Police Officers more broadly, it never can come down to one trial, one verdict or anything like that. So on the backdrop of sort of the court of public opinion, where this Derek Chauvin trial was really viewed as well as inside the you tackled issue and trying to figure out how break the wheel and you went really spoke by spoke in terms of the learning that did from this trial of what to do why do you think that its so to approach it from a not case by case but societal reform perspective because its going to take all of us. Yes, it will take prosecutors and Defense Attorneys in courtrooms. Thats a part of it. But its also the legislature. The legislature cant say, well, the court did its job, therefore were done. The United StatesCongress Still has not passed the George Floyd Justice in policing act. Thats too bad. They should take this matter up and focus on it. It could mean more trust in communities between police and community it could mean life or death for some people. And it could save careers. Law enforcement officers who dedicated to equal justice. But, you know, so far we havent seen them step up yet. But, you know, we have seen a lot of local departments pass rules on everything from chokeholds to no knock warrants. We have seen state legislatures move forward on things like qualified immunity and, you know, the setting up registries so that officers who do heinous or bad acts cant just go from department to department. Department with ever would never any accountability. There been a lot of local action but quite frankly i mean the federal action is lacking and needs it needs to happen. So i say its not just one case and one case is one element. One point. And weve got to get it right. But we cant expect to solve this social problem with one case, you know, as you know, you know, this is a matter that has been going on. Clearly since slavery ended. Right. And maybe even before, you know, there is a history of the the Watchman Group in charleston, south carolina, which many people compare to what developed and evolved into a modern Police Department. This has been a long standing problem for literally centuries. You know, in as i was writing this book, i read as many investigative studies as i could about tragic incidents. Police, you know, Excessive Force that erupted into civil unrest. And i started reading them in 19, 19, 1935, 1943, 1950, 45. The commission, the kerner, the christopher commission, all the way up to obama when he has the 21st Century Policing commission. And this has been a recurring serious problem for a time. Its time for all of us throw our shoulders in and make it put it into it. Given i mean, why do you think this has been such the perpetual problem . Is it because those who positions of power are either satisfied with the status quo or they benefit from it . Or is it just some sort of everyday human being . Benefit of the doubt that we want to believe that who are supposed to protect really in fact only have our best at heart. Its both. And i mean, one things for sure. Its not only those men and women who put on the badge and the uniform every day. The problem is bigger than that. It really is much bigger than that. It has to do with prosecutorial discretion and whether or not the prosecutor is going to take the case to a grand jury or it out whether the what theyre going to charge it to do with the way the victim a Police Brutality case is painted from the very. George floyd was right out right from the gate. You know the Minneapolis PoliceDepartment Said that george floyd died in a medical emergency. Never mentioned force. Then of course we saw you know the judges have a deep and very important role. We talked a little about judge cahill and that in the case he called, but he wasnt the only judge in this. We could go all the way back to the United StatesSupreme Court, which is the case, which is the that set up graham versus connor, which is the Legal Standard or Excessive Force cases. And let me tell you, graham first is kind of basically says, you know, if an officer acted unreasonably from the perspective of the officer without benefit of hand hindsight, then then you know the upper hand acted, then the officer could be liable for and be accountable in a criminal court. But if the after officer acted reasonably from, the perspective of a reasonable officer, even if officer was wrong, then that officer not be held accountable. And as much as that standard has made it difficult for victims to get relief, its better what was there before the standard under johnson versus glik was that it was malicious yet to prove maliciousness. Right now now youre getting into the into recess of somebodys mind and their motivation very difficult to prove. So you know, bottom line is, the Supreme Court laid out the standard and in courts all over the country have followed it. And you know so right on down to those to call the balls and strikes in the in the cases that are brought. So its the prosecutors its the judges its the media are all kind of coming together to, protect the status quo, in my view. Thats what thats what the wheel is. You know, those things together was key to kind of keep on rolling. But im saying that the wheel itself needs to be broken because the wheel is perpetual. A lot of things that are not good for society, such as a lack of trust. Members of Community Need to be able to trust their Police Officers. They to be able to believe that officer if i call, theyre going to come, theyre going to help where . In some communities because we have allowed impunity to prevail. People cant say that. And weve seen reductions in cooperation people not cooperating with or with with subpoenas, people not giving statements, people not coming forward with what they saw. And then, you know, trust issue is a real problem which creates unsafely it creates a lawless when you dont have that cooperation. But you also have to bend is pressure on municipal budgets. Laura so for example, over the last ten years we paid out 100 million in Police Misconduct cases in minneapolis. Thats an extraordinary amount to think. Think about all all the playgrounds werent built, all the potholes that werent filled, all the lighting that was wasnt done. Think about the opportunities that we because were paying to pay for misconduct, that is a big deal. And dont even Start Talking about new york, chicago, los angeles, other cities. When you could get into 150 million, 200 million. Its its an enormous amount of money that were paying out to pay for misconduct. And then, of course. Well, let me let me unpack one thing, because i i want to touch on each of the points you just raised. But i want to circle back for a moment to the standards from the Supreme Court, because i think that it cannot be given short shrift. The grand versus conner decision. And the idea of having officers essentially be the sole and the sole position actually judge the reasonableness of conduct can make many people many prosecutors rely into ever endeavor to even charge or go before a grand jury on issue of Police Misconduct for that very reason which is perhaps one of the most striking aspects of the work done in the Derek Chauvin trial, because the choice was made to ask the jury to make that determination and decide whether. It, in fact, could be under this grand versus conner and the reasonableness to standard in the boldness of that decision. It didnt seem that bold to most people. Attorney general ellison the idea of lets go ahead and test the particulars Supreme Court precedent but in fact it is one of the biggest muzzles for prosecco haters across the country in their charging. Why were why was the team in this case so confident to keep going. Well because we didnt think we had any other choice. You know, we had to put the case in front of the jury and let the chips where they did. I mean, ive come to the conclusion that not pursuing accountability, because we could lose was the wrong decision. As a prosecutor, i hope prosecutors who read the book think to themselves that. Its better to try the case and lose than to simply not ever charge it. Because you think you might lose. Right. I mean, but many think thats the standard that if i cannot. I wont even indict a case, theyll say at least i can go and guarantee beyond a reasonable doubt in the hands of really juries that never really guarantee that. Youre right. Yeah. You know, youve been there, so, you know, and i mean, but heres the thing. Prosecutors. You dont know what the jury is going to say until they said it. I know. I didnt know. You know, i never know. Juries have a tendency to think for themselves why they exist. And so if you believe that there is probable cause that that this defendant is guilty of this charge, and you believe you can put evidence front of a jury that could be that that would sustain that charge. Then you should do it, even if you dont get a slam dunk. Because, look, you could the elements of the charge and still think, well, you know maybe i wont win. My thought is give the jury a chance. The jury represents the people, the 12 folks who dont know the, defendant dont know. You dont know the dont know the judge. Now, let them stand in front of these facts, see what they say and well learn a lot more. Ill tell you, we had a Federal District court jury that the three defendants had to face because because chauvin pled guilty the federal case and they found guilty. I mean, a lot of people would have doubted that outcome. You know we prosecuted other officers. Let the jury decide it. Its the jurys decision. I think that we have, as prosecutors must have probable cause, must be able to sustain sustain the case to character, bind it, open for trial. But at that point, youre just selfcentered thing. And, you know, and quite honestly, i think theres a lot we ask ourselves as prosecutors, do we have so much social life, so much friendship and so much political relationship between police and prosecutors that we cant hold them accountable or that, you know, is that a question we need to at least entertain to get to the bottom of this . Perhaps its one of many in terms of what some can view as perhaps socially incestuous, to use a phrase on that. But at the same token, im trying to find jury in a case as wellknown as, the tragic murder of, george floyd, when the video obviously went viral. I mean, there is this conundrum that you talk about in this book, break the wheel between trying to cure a jury, but do so and still preserve the objective of that jury and to show the world that there are some thumb being put on the scale that took a great deal of effort with an eye towards ethics. The belief in our jury system. Tell me about what that process was like to even try to a jury that would be able do this. Well, it was open question from the start because of the very you identified everybody the video. But as you know the standard is not are you completely ignorant the facts of the case. The standard is can you be fair and, impartial. And so what we were looking for is jurors who would admit that they had a bias. And quite frankly, im very grateful to those jurors because of a juror said, look, i cant this is not the right case for me. Give me another one, because i already have mixed feelings about this. Then you know, that juror has done a service for the system because theyve allowed themselves to to go to another case where they can be fair and impartial in our case. You know, we had to pick it. Everybody saw it. Nobody didnt see it. But we we got enough people to say, i can suspend whatever i have set it aside and just make the decision based on what comes before me as a juror in this. And i and i am sure those jurors did their duty i am positive they asked to be asked a lot of questions. They were rigorous, easily interrogated. You know, i mean, there were a few times i said, is this is this a juror or, you know, because they were asked a lot of questions and what they came down to was, i can be fair. And some jurors, you know, i had you know, we had a very jury, as you know. Laura, you had six men, six women, six black folks or folks african descent and six people who who are white. And what we did is we we just asked him two questions. And, quite frankly it wasnt just race that we were concerned about. It was also do people have a pre any biases. It relates to chemical. Right. Do people any biases as relates to poverty . Do people have by you know, what do people know . Do they believe. We needed some who would not hold it against george floyd that he had struggled with opioids. Right. That was a big deal. That was another thing. We were worried about, you know, but at the end of the i think what we got is one of the most diverse juries ive ever seen in hennepin county. Hennepin county, as you know, is a predominantly white county. And jurors reflect that. And yet we had about as even a jury as you could get. And i had some people say, well, how did that happen . Well, its a statistical it happens, ri