in less than half an hour. let's get the very latest on matt finn in minneapolis on how this is playing out. matt? >> behind us is where the courtroom where the trial played out. you can see the razor while here as we've been reporting. the security has been intense in minneapolis. the past day or two, we've noticed it growing. there's national guard all over the city and including places like retail areas and high foot traffic areas. for a couple of blocks around the courthouse, really has been a ghost town. corporate buildings boarded up, stores boarded up. intense security, preparing for the verdict that is now here. operation safety act, which was combining local and federal authorities along with neighboring police departments, they'll give us an update. the jury is made of seven women, five men. the ages between 20 and 60 years old. 44 witnesses in 14 days of trial. the prosecution and closing arguments yesterday arguing and making its final pitch to the jury, derek chauvin murdered george floyd by puts his knee over his neck. the defense arguing that he was following his police training and george floyd died from other contributing factors including drugs and heart disease. the defense trying to paint derek chauvin as a reasonable office that followed reasonable training. the prosecution, the final line of the trial to the jury was you were told george floyd's heart was too big. the truth is, derek chauvin's is too small. neil? >> neil: much has been made of the fact that no member of the jury wanted a call for clarification or had questions. do we know that to be the case. generally if that is the case that that could signal that they were comfortable with the material that they had. >> yeah. our understanding with a lot of staff here, there were no questions from the jury. maybe we'll learn there were. we were not made aware of any questions, there was a long day of closing arguments yet. the jury decided after that long day to begin deliberations last night. they began a few hours until 8:00 p.m. so the initial impression is that this was a jury that was motivated, that was working perhaps together efficiently and our understanding is they began deliberations an hour earlier than expected. here we are now a couple hours later and there's a verdict. we'll bring that to you, neil. >> neil: thank you, matt. up now, in closing arguments, prosecutors told jurors that "you can believe your eyes. it's what you felt in your gut." going on to say, this wasn't policing, it was murder. the defense for its part urged jurors to carefully consider the evidence. the defense hoping to move one juror to their thinking. thereby invalidating all of this. but of course, there's no way of knowing. we'll know in 27 minutes. let's go to andy mccarthy, fox news contributor. andy, this was along the lines some thought it might be. sort of a guilty or not, very little gray area on this. the charges from second degree murder, third degree murder, second degree plan slaughter. maybe you can explained the difference. >> sure, neil. i think that one of the -- explaining the differences can explain why you would get a quick decision. second degree murder, third degree murder, the victim died in the course of another crime that you didn't intend to commit. that crime here is assault. so what began as a lawful police detention evolved over that nine minutes and 29 seconds in to a criminal assault. that's the second degree count. the third degree murder count is what is known as depraved indifference homicide. that is that chauvin acted in a manner that was so indifferent and reckless and depraved as far as human life was concerned that that was the cause of death. if you resolve that count against chauvin, seems like the other two are lay-ups. if they found him guilty on that, follows that you'd convict him on the other. the third is manslaughter, which is negligent homicide, where they don't have to find that chauvin intended to do anything wrong but his actions create a grave risk of potential death or profound harm to human life that that was the causative agent for killing george floyd. so those are the three counts. as i said, if you found him on the depraved on the human indifference, the other two follow. >> neil: the potential on sentencing on this, if it were the manslaughter charge, it does have the stipulation that takes it up to ten years. rarely is it that long. in an event like that it could be a fraction. could you explain that? >> yeah, sure. most counts have a minimum of zero. then there's the maximum set by statute for manslaughter here. ten years for the depraved indifference. the unintentional homicide by committing an assault, it's 40 years. so that is what -- the top of that is the height of what the judge can sentence him too. if they have a stipulation where the prosecutor notifies the course that they will seek an enhanced sentence, they have to prove certain individual elements about each individual charge. if they can tick those boxes, the sentence gets higher. they can't -- for a ten-year count, you can go up to ten, can't go over ten. here obviously they have -- if he gets convicted as i anticipate he will, looks like they'll have plenty of sentencing range. >> neil: so in your gut being exonerated on all of these charges to you seems unlikely? >> i don't think -- seems to me, neil, that the manslaughter was a pretty easy reach for the prosecutors. so because you didn't have to prove intent there. so i really thought that the only logical quick verdict here would be a guilty verdict. not guilty verdict you would think have taken them more time. if i was were the appellate later for chauvin and he gets convicted in terms of the issue he's been raising about whether he could get a fair trial and all of the explosive rhetoric that's gone on outside the courtroom, in terms of the colorability of that claim, the quicker the verdict, the better for the appellate claim because they will be able to make a strong argument that the jury was powerfully influenced by these enstrain use things going on outside the courtroom. >> neil: yeah, eric nelson the defense lawyer mentioned that maxine waterscomments, that it -- even the judge agreed it might make the trial one that could be overturned. your thoughts on that. just curious. >> here's the difference. i think if the jury was out four days and they asked a lot of questions and you could therefore make a record that they were making a discriminating appraisal of the evidence and got to the end, you could make a good argument that they tuned out the noise and focused on the evidence and the judge's instructions. whereas they have been out less than a day. so far as we know there were no notes and you know, you have this explosive atmosphere where the lawyer is saying he can't get a fair trial and he's been saying he can't get a fair trial since the beginning, a quick verdict lends more support to that. that doesn't mean they'll win on appeal but a quick verdict lends more support to that argument than if the jury had, you know, made a record strongly that they were making a discriminating appraisal of the evidence. >> neil: you can stick around, andy. thanks for clarifying the charges and where they stand and what we could be hearing in about 20 minutes. we have a verdict that will be read at the trial of derek chauvin, the former minneapolis police officer charged with the murder of george floyd. so we're waiting for that verdict. three different potential charges, second degree murder, third degree murder and second degree manslaughter. we delineated the differences between them and the potential jail time that former officer could be facing if found guilty on any one of them. let's go to mike tobin on minneapolis and how things are looking as people move in on the courthouse. mike? >> we're at the courthouse here to see if the demonstrators show up. we have seen cameras but not demonstrators. that being said, the personnel that provide security, what they're getting is where that communications are going out over social media, through different channels, telling the activists to get down here to the courthouse. if you start trying to forecast will there be destruction downtown minneapolis, the only thing i can go with on is a historical model of the jason van dyke case. he was convicted for killing a man in chicago. a case that had police involved fatal shooting of a black man. it had elements of the city covering it up because the video was sat on with a pay-out to the family. looking at that particular case, nobody busted up the town. the demonstrations were more violent, more vandalism involved prior to a verdict. if you're trying to forecast the future, there's plenty of passion. particularly following the shooting of duante wright. i expect after the verdict is read, the bodies will show up here. in terms of what happens, the answer depends on the verdict. we know the verdict is in after 10 1/2 hours of deliberations and it's unanimous. we don't see a lot of people right now but we're watching it. >> neil: you know, mike, there's a couple of thousand, up to 3,000 guardsmen helping police for any possible event later tonight. do you see them around? what do you see? >> certainly do. heard people talk about a war zone. feels a lot like the green zone. the guards on every street corner. they move them around from time to time. there's a need for personnel out here that they're bringing in law enforcement from outside of the state. some of the demonstrators from brooklyn center have been from out of state and have been from out of town. a source tells me they're picking up people from chicago, wisconsin, florida. what is absent right now is intelligence that some of these people are being brought in by organized groups. you do have a lot of communication, you have people coming in from out of state. what we're hearing from law enforcement services is there's no organized group bringing people in from out of state. you have a lot of people showing up, coming on their own dime and under their own power because you have so many communications, so much interest and so much passion in the following of these police-involved shootings, neil. >> neil: all right, mike. thanks for that update. just to let you know, we were waiting for the verdict to be announced in 15, 17 minutes or so. we should stress as well that the president has weighed in on this matter. he called the family of george floyd, smoke to george floyd's brother after the jury was sequesters to offer his prayers he said. they're calling for peace and tranquillity no matter what the verdict is. this came from the president. he said i'm praying the verdict is the right verdict. lawrence jones, fox news analyst, what did you make of the president's involvement on this and weighing in on this. he said he was doing it as the jury was already sequestered. your thoughts. >> it's problematic on several fronts. considering the judge just came out and said listen, respect the co-equal branch. don't get involved. calling the family is one thing. going out there and publicly and making a statement no mat or how you feel about it interrupts the process and gives the defense more ammo for an objection and appeal that they're going to make eventually. know matter how this goes, they're going to make an appeal unless he's found totally innocent or all counts. i didn't see that happening. i think it's hard in these moments because you have to check yourself, your emotions as a human being. trust me, as i said earlier on tv, it's hard for me being an analyst as my experience as a private investigator and being a tv guy covering politics of the day, sticking to the facts of the case and not feeling what i felt when i saw the video itself. so if i can do it, the president of the united states can do it as well. >> neil: you know, lawrence, we talked about maxine waters' comments, whether it stirred the pot. we know judge cahill said they were not helpful remarks. saying i'll give you that congresswoman waters may have given you something, speaking to the defense attorney, on appeal and the trial being overturned. it would depend on which of these charges come through with guilty verdicts. we don't know at this point. that involvement has raised a whole host of concerns about the ultimate outcome no matter what we find out, right? >> right. it muddied the waters. i don't think that alone will give the defense a mistrial. most of my time, i've never been on the prosecution side as an investigator. i don't think it's enough to give them a mistrial. i'm sure that they will present that case. but what it did, it complicated things. i think it's important to go back to why this is become so problematic. early on, the judge issued a gag order not only to the defense but he issued a gag order to the prosecution and elected officials in general. he said i don't want you doing any talking at all. because it could prejudice the jury. he later rescinded that gag order after the media started to bring up a lawsuit because they said it wasn't being transparent. they couldn't do their job. the defense made the argument that there were certain prejudice toward them. the prosecution as well as elected officials had already talking publicly. he wanted a fair shot. so he got rid of it. this is a judge that has tried his hardest to keep this as a fair trial. he even said from the beginning that his gag order did not work to begin with because once he implemented, people started to leak from both sides and he was afraid that it may hurt the jury pool. so again, you know, the comments of maxine waters, the reason why she was there, many activists say is because of a lot of the local officials weren't talking. the reason why they weren't talking, the judge told them not to talk because it was hurt the process. so i think it's problematic that you have a california congresswoman that doesn't have to deal with the repercussions of a city in flames. she gets to go back to california or d.c. it's the black and brown businesses that will have to deal with the anxiety of their businesses being burned down and mending the community back together after a tragic case. lawrence jones, if you can hang around. i want to bring in andy mccarthy. i was wondering why the injureders were not sequesters since the beginning? what was the thinking behind that? >> well, neil, jury service is very hard. you don't want to take people away from their families for weeks if you can avoid it. the general rule in the road of -- in most states is that they're sequestered once deliberations start. but not at the start of a trial. they have to be sensitive to the idea of who will want to be on jury service if you think that they're not only going to make you come to court every day but they're going to keep you there for however long. so they try to walk the line between protecting the process and not making jury service too arduous. i think the big mistake that got made here and judge cahill tried an excellent case, but i think in the wake of the brooklyn center shooting last week, he should have sequestered the jury there and then because thigh were at the very tail end of the evidence, he didn't need the give everybody off. they could have gone in deliberations and sequestered from the news. instead he let them go home and marinate in this is terrible atmosphere in minnesota or minneapolis over the weekend. that was a mistake. >> neil: easy to play monday morning quarterback but sets the stage for what the judgers would be exposed to, including maxine waters comments and even the president's comments, even though they were sequestered by that time. it allowed the judge to say i wish elected officials would stop talking about the case especially in a matter that is disrespectful to the rule of law. whether something like this -- depends on what the ultimate verdict is -- allows the defense to argue -- they wanted the case thrown out if memory serves me right, to come back to that be if the verdict is not to their liking. >> neil, this is as strong a case for prejudicial publicity. the thing with maxine water's statements and president biden's statements is they're not one-off, they're not in isolation. they come in a context. here we have a situation where the defendant for good reason argued that he could not get a fair trial in hennepin county given the atmosphere there. while the jury was being selected, the city of minneapolis, which owed chauvin a fair trial, it's their obligation to give him the fair trial, they picked that time while the jury was -- while the judge was in the middle of selecting the jury to announce publicly that they made a $27 million settlement with the floyd family. then you have going forward what we just discussed now, what happened in brooklyn center and the defense lawyer said judge, if we don't sequester them, the amount of publicity that they'll be exposed to and the amount of unrest in the streets that they're going to be exposed too, under circumstances where one of the jurors was from brooklyn center and a number of the jurors had ties to the area and then you lop on top of that the kind of explosive statements played by congresswoman waters and the president piling on today, that makes a very strong record. as i said to you a few minutes ago, it becomes all the stronger if it looks like without even taking a full day and without even sending a note to the court the jury convicted on all three counts if that's what happens. >> neil: don't go far, andy. i want to bring in leo terrell into this a fox news contributor and more. but leo , the short time, the no question part what does that tell you? >> i'll tell you, neil, the no questions from the jurors tell you that they came to a quick conclusion and the defendant is in trouble. normally if there's some questions, some type of disagreement, you'll ask questions for additional evidence. so that is not a good sign for the defendant. the fact that what probably happened, neil, is that they probably after they selected the foreperson, they took an initial vote. probably there was no disagreement. they weighed it and went through the three charges. that explains 22, 23 hours from the day of the closing arguments to where we are right now. i only the only option for the defendant is a series of appeals. >> neil: so let me ask you this. all the defense had to do is plant reasonable doubt in the mind of at least one of these jurors. is it your gut with all of these dynamics at play and the short nature of this, they started last night, started at 8:30 and here they have a verdict. is it your sense that that was an uphill climb? >> let me think about that. yes. i'll tell you why. you can justify a certain amount of force. when george floyd had no pulse and no resistance, went from necessary force to excessive force. i guarantee you, if you talked to those 12 jurors, they will tell you they could not probably understand why chauvin had his knee on floyd's neck when he wasn't resistant, don't forget he was handcuffed as well. >> neil: if you think about it as well, leo, this was -- there was video of this from lots of people, not just the official police video but so many other sources from so many other angles playing it again and again and again. only heightened the condemnation of this event whether fairly or not to the former officer. i'm wondering how technologies played in to this and the damning nature of it. >> two things. the video was outrageous. the whole world saw it. but the rodney king case, the first trial, the video that went worldwide before social media. those officers were not found guilty the first trial. the first trial. i think what you saw there in the george floyd video unlike the rodney king case, you saw no resistance. you saw a man handcuffed on the ground. i'll submit to you, those 3 1/2, 4 minutes in which he was not resisting could not be justified or explained. the jury could not accept any explanation from the defense. george floyd resisted initially. there was a period of time that george floyd did not resist and i would submit to you that, neil, that if george floyd was not under the knee of derek chauvin, he would be alive today. >> so what are we to learn from this? 0 obviously -- there's 3,000 national guard troops to help police in case anything happens. is it your sense that a manslaughter charge would trigger still a very significant protest today? >> neil, if you look at maxine waters, she wants a charge that does not exist to be placed upon this officer. first degree murder. what i'm hoping for is that if there's a second degree murder, there's peace in this country. unfortunately this case is politicized by the president, maxine waters. so i would submit to you that nothing will please them at all. because there's politics in place here. the judge tried to make it clear that we're a nation of laws and the court of public opinion should be kept separate. but there's a political impact of this case. i'm hoping for a second degree murder -- let me rephrase. if there's a second degree murder charge or conviction, hopefully there should be peace, justification. there should be that the system worked. it's not a racist system. but i don't know. because again, there's people unfortunately that profit from chaos. >> neil: all right that second degree murder charge is based on the idea that chauvin did this, right? he committed an assault which caused unintentionally or not floyd's death? that is a big one that could land in him in jail the rest of his life, up to 40 years. how likely is that? >> very unlikely. the court will take a considerate -- that's the maximum. the second degree is 40 years. the third degree is 25 years. the man slaughter is ten years. the question is what is the appropriate sentence. >> sandra: there's a report being down. there's aggravated and mitigating circumstances. i don't think he will get the 40-year maximum sentence. if he's convicted of second degree. >> neil: the argument, leo, that you know, the prosecutors made was believe your eyes. believe these videos. believe all of these angles from all of these folks who recorded this horrific event. you can believe your eyes. you can believe your gut. that was essentially their entire argument. what did you make of that? >> i think that was a very good and powerful argument. of course, neil, we have a history in this country where it's difficult, very difficult to convict a police officer. why? because police officers have an inherent positive feeling among americans. they protect us. it's hard to find a police officer that might be a criminal in certain acts. there's 97 in my opinion -- i did civil rights cases for several years. 98% of officers are great. 1 or 2 are rotten to the core. it's hard to get the 2% out of the system. there was a filibuster by democrats. so there's this -- there's a video that is very important. this was a case against derek chauvin, not minnesota police department. so they did a great job protecting law enforcement from this particular bad apple. that's why the jury had no problem going after this bad alp and respecting the integrity of law enforcements. >> neil: thanks, leo. don't wander far. >> i'm going to wander can i get a sandwich? >> neil: you can do that. grab it fast. leo terrell with us right now, this is the time at which we were told a verdict would be read beginning around now in court between 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. the jury has reached a verdict in the former minneapolis police officer, derek chauvin. he charged in the murder of george floyd. mark eiglarsh is here with us, criminal defense attorney. mark, much has been made as i raised with other guests the relatively quick nature of this. others have argued not too quick. the jurors have been captivated for two weeks. maybe they had their questions and unknowns addressed during that time. this is a direct issue. how do you see the period of time from the meeting a few hours yesterday to coming in at 8:30 this morning and reaching a decision by now? >> i don't consider it a quick verdict. the minute prosecutors his play, they watched for 9 minutes and 29 seconds. they're human like us. they got the same feeling that we did when we watched that video. the presumption of innocence went out the window. at that point, it didn't matter what was said. they knew that that behavior was not reasonable. it could not be justified. at that point, the rest of the defense did. some of it may be true. yeahs there were other causes. the substantial cause of death is the knee on the neck for the prolonged period of time. they knew it. >> neil: the prosecution was very effective at playing that for its full duration, to share its impact. to say nothing of other videos from other angles from scores of other folks that kind of told this story again and again and again. what did you think of that? >> i thought the prosecutor did a very effective job, all of them, in proving that we have the crime on video. all of that other stuff showed floyd resisting, showed him engaging in bizarre behavior. when he's in the care, custody and control of chauvin and chauvin would not remove his knee, that was a crime. by the way, the prosecution touched on one point i would have hammered more. he touched on ego. chauvin's ego was not his amigo. when they yelled get off of him, chauvin's ego said i'm not going anywhere. that's what played a role in his actions. >> neil: when you look at this, mark and the information you have, the defense tried to show prior instances of floyd where he was arrested, out of it, heavily intoxicated or on drugs, to show a pattern of behavior that was problematic and would test his medical condition. do you think that registered in any way? >> no. it was effective. when you're a defense lawyer, you have to do everything you can an enlarged heart, narrow arteries, his drug use. all of that is relevant. good job defense for bringing that up. that said, the jury said i think -- again, we're investigating for the verdict. i think they said okay, those might have been factors but all we have to find is that the actions of chauvin were a substantial cause. that, i think, is what they decided. >> neil: maxine's waters on this prompted the judge prompted the judge to say that they might reverse or mitigate or eliminate this trial decision. to overturn it so to speak. what did you think of that? >> i think those are very fair comments for the defense lawyer to make. had a tough time relying on the evidence that the judgers are expected to rely on. the external forces are problematic and extraordinary. i have a case in south florida where the former president commented about my client that didn't know all the evidence. that interferes with the process. now, they have every right, first amendment affords them wide latitude to spew whatever words they want. but they need to know they're intentionally or possibility indirectly interfering with the judger function, which is solely to decide the case based upon the evidence exclusively. >> neil: so you do me a favor, mark. is it your sense now that the people gathering in the courtroom, what is going on in there as we await this decision? who has to be there, has to be seated, you know, in that room before we can proceed? >> you have to have the defendant presence, lots of security. they always bring in the security. you definitely need the prosecutors. i can assure you that that is the most challenging moment for a litigator. you work for years hahn this case. you're -- the butterflies are there. they're very anxious. this will have an effect on everybody's life. >> neil: we can see the crowd here. for the judge, what is his role today in the -- when we hear this verdict, what -- obviously he doesn't make a decision immediately on sentencing or could he? >> no, he will not make a decision on sentencing today. the prosecutors indicated they're seeking an enhanced penalty. that will happen at a different time, different date. the focus is mitigation. the defense needs time to develop that. the judge's function is to ensure that the verdict was unanimously decided by the jurors and that whatever they decide reflects the group as a whole and not just one or two people on the jury. >> neil: thanks, mark. criminal defense attorney. i appreciate your expertise. want to bring in jonathan turley. awaiting the verdict in this trial. the various charges from second degree murder, third degree murder, second degree manslaughter. does the judge have wide discretion on actual sentencing? where is he granted the most flexibility? >> well, there is a range here. it's really the upper range that is the focus of the defense. those murder charges means that he is likely going to spend the rest of his life in jail. manslaughter gives him the chance of getting out and having a life. it's that simple. the upper end of the murder range where you would likely find a sentence in this case is effectively his life sentence. let's not kid ourselves. people age faster in prison. the type of sentence on a murder charge is an effective life sentence. we can't assume that there's a conviction here, but the fact is i can tell you as a criminal defense attorney, i would loathe to get a call this early. i think this is an early call. i disagree with the earlier attorney. i did not expect a decision this quickly because you have three didn't charges, a great deal of evidence has been produced in this case. there's some really sort of interstitial of what is the burdens and standards. what we're looking for, did the jury decide this is really the big ticket item. this is murder, second degree murder. once you make that decision, the night is over. or did they go in and say none of us, a few of us believe this is a true murder case. but we all seem to be gathering around manslaughter. i personally view this more as a manslaughter case. we'll see that obviously when the verdict comes out. for the defense, as a defense attorney, really fighting a video tape of this impact and this mode of weight is very difficult. you know, people are visual. we'll have a visual species. you can't unsee something this traumatic. so mr. nelson did a very good job. the question that always hunts a defense attorney is should you have just put him hahn the stand. and i think that the defense here was really pursuing a hung jury strategy. that they were hoping to maybe get an acquittal on one or both murder charges and then a hung jury on manslaughter. having a fast turn around like this means you may have undershot by a long degree. >> neil: all right. we just won't know. we'll know soon. we're about ten minutes in the half hour in which the verdict was to be announced. we don't know what is going on in the court. outside the court, crowds have been building and quite dramatically. mike tobin is out there. what are you seeing? >> a big crowd formed on the south side of the courthouse. as you mentioned, they built up rapidly as the word started getting out. now talking to people here in the crowd as far as what will satisfy them with a verdict. i'm getting a lot of answers. people say they want justice. some people say it's in jesus' hands. some people say that they will only be satisfied if they get three guilty verdicts on the three different criminal counts here. some say they wanted a compromise. two out of three ain't bad to coin a term. so much gasoline has been thrown on the fire. some people want to talk about the duante wright case. it's all blended together with this idea that there's this callous indifference to black lives at the hands of the police. that's what we see out here. a tremendous amount of passion. also gasoline thrown on the fire in terms of the political leaders that came out here and you heard the judge say that he was a little upset that the legislative branch was crossing over into the judicial branch and making their comments here. wished the legislator in this case, the executive branch would be quiet about it. saw the president chimed in saying the evidence is overwhelming and should only be a guilty verdict. if the crowd hears that and backed up by the leader of the free world and they get a different verdict, there's going to be a conflict. right now you have passion, anticipation and any minute now we'll hear what the jury has decided, neil. >> neil: you know, mike, you told me earlier, the guardsmen are there. right now it looks like i think you mentioned before that they're there, people can see them there, but they're not in anyone's face. do you know how this -- obviously the verdict will go a long way to decide how they emerge and what they do. if it were down to the manslaughter charge, that might ignite some fury there. do you know what they're prepared for? >> well, what you know that the police forces are prepared for, the operation safety net as it were, what they're prepared for is to respond as much manpower that they can muster. so much that they have reached out to police forces outside of the state and brought in agencies like the ohio highway patrol to come in here and bolster the manpower that is summented by the national guard. so they're anticipating that this could be trouble. the rarity here in minneapolis is to go in a restaurant that is not boarded up. so the retail establishments are bracing for it that being said when you talk about business owners out here, none of them want to have this impact. none of them want to have their stores looted and in some cases looted again. but they're sympathetic by and large of those with whom i spoke to the passion of this crowd. there's not really anyone that can look at the videotape that we have seen and who has not been horrified by it. so what you have is the overwhelming piece of evidence that was key, really central in this trial. if the verdict doesn't agree with what the the people have seen on the videotape, you can anticipate there's a negative reaction and probably manifest itself and certainly passionate people in street and certainly destruction. that's what law enforcement is bracing for. >> neil: thanks, mike. they're laying out the scene here where moments from now we're expected to be read the verdict in the jury on the trial of derek chauvin. of course, he's accused of killing george floyd, an unarmed black man kneeling on his neck for the better part of nine plus minutes. one of the 1 of the first things the prosecution did was play the tape for the better part of he met part of that nine plus minutes. that was terrible and very effective. we should say that the jurors themselves had to consider a variety of potential punishments here at the event, they found him guilty of anything including a number of charges from third-degree murder, second degree manslaughter, second-degree murder, carrying potential jail times come in the case of manslaughter up to ten years, the far more significant of development of second-degree murder, up to 40 years. those extreme jail times to pass but that depends that he is found guilty on any one of those, people have read into the fact that the jury was sequestered for such a short time briefly yesterday, a few hours into the evening and coming in at 8:30 this morning, making a decision that was announced a little bit more than an hour ago. right now back with lawrence jones. lawrence, that crowd is waiting for some closure here. they want to see severe punishment, but they want a guilty verdict. i just wonder a guilty verdict just of the manslaughter account will not be enough for them coming your thoughts? >> i don't know what will be enough. you know, it's interesting because this is probably the first time in one of these major cases where i've been in the studio and not out there reporting where the people are and it is the same thing that happens every single time. people are emotional, they are reactive, many times the family somewhere in their home, and they reemerge want the verdict has been read. these are difficult situations, it is very hard, i will never forget when i was in ferguson when shots started to ring out, the national guard and the police, they essentially burn down the city that night. none of us know what the jury is going to say today. but it is very telling that there was no questions asked and the fact is that, i think the most compelling part of the case is not just the 9 minutes and 29 seconds, which they said almost 17 times just in their closing argument, over seven times. it was the fact that they talked about when the pulse was there, the additional 2 minutes that he still was on the neck it, that is going to be very hard to get out of the minds of the jury and i can't help but, most of my time was only with the defense, i can't help but question the strategy. the defense attorney elson said yesterday, if he is talking then he is breathing but it begs thed stopped talking, then you i do have known that he was no longer breathing. when they checked the pulse and there was no pulse you had to have known that he wasn't breathing. and that alone isn't going to be hard to square not only that, the fact that they said this was not an anti-police prosecution but it was a pro-police, remember going in already, the prosecution at a deficit, even at a video, how americans view the police. they talked about this was o lone wolf, that he was one of the bad ones. this was a pro-police prosecution and when it comes to the use of force, a numerous amount of experts all the way from the police chief who by the way had already sued the police department before for racism, they knew not to bring that up in the prosecution. then this guy essentially was on a power trip, in the closing statement, the citizens were surrounding the area is still called the police because they still had faith in the police. they wanted to make it very clear that they were a pro-police and that this guy was a lone wolf and that very telling to me. >> neil: you know, also telling us to think about lawrence was how chauvin was abandoned by a lot of his police officers and immediate superiors. not across-the-board but that they had seen that this was exceptionally brutal. they distinguish it from other actions that will be more acceptable. i'm just wondering, that had to have hurt the defense, making the argument that these were trumped up or excessive charges for them and that they deemed was not an excessive act. we don't know once we get the verdict, we will. that didn't seem to resonate. >> what they did, neil, what was hard, the majority of the defense relied on the policy and procedures that they tried and meant to say, the prosecution makes a very hard. another matter for, as the trial, on the outside, this is one of the times when you have police unions who normally stick with the blue line a across the country, this is not us, the video was too horrific. so you saw although there were some people that offended him, by and large most police officers and union said no, this is not us, we condemn this because it was so egregious. it was hard to get experts, police experts on his side for this because it was a stain on the profession. they tried it too, it was their job as the defense, yes we know it's hard and that's why we think it is noble and what you did didn't honor the profession and that was a brilliant back-and-forth strategy. >> neil: thank you, my friend, very much pray for those of you tuning in at home, a verdict is in, we are told. again, all of this goes back to the derek chauvin case, the officer involved in the death of george floyd facing three murder charges right now, second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder, second-degree manslaughter, the jury to convict him of one, two, all three of these or none. trace gallagher, obviously the statement, get everything set inside the courtroom as we watch these crowds build outside the courtroom, what are you hearing? >> these always do, neil, you have to get the major players inside the courtroom. i just wanted to add a little context of the conversations you've been having, along with professor jonathan turley who is brilliant and he saying that derek chauvin could likely spend the rest of his life in prison. the research that we've done in the story we've done in recent days show that's probably not accurate because the 40 year sentence for the second-degree murder, the 25 year sentence for third-degree end of the 10-year sentence for manslaughter, if you look in the history of minneapolis and minnesota and the averages for even the second-degree murder for 40 years, most of those inmates, the suspects, the people who were convicted are only serving about 12 and a half years, same goes for the third-degree murder serving an average of about 12 and a half years and the prosecutors of said they will seek enhancements whether they . whether they get them we have no idea, it's kind of up to the judge but when you look at these possible sentences and the average time spent being 12, 12 and a half years, that's because derek chauvin does not have any type of criminal past and then you look at what people are actually serving and in the state of minnesota, people on average serve about two-thirds of their sentences so then it kind of boils down to the fact that you've got derek chauvin could literally be walking free, and eight, nine, ten years even if he's convicted of the most serious charge. it's also for neil to go back and ran for several months ago that derek chauvin was willing to plead guilty to third-degree murder, he was saying, look, i'm willing to plead guilty, he knew that would have entailed significant prison time but the attorney general then, bill barr said no because it was too early and there was this kind of prospect that maybe a third-degree murder sentence was too lenient because the climate in the country was at such a heated rate. so that's one of those things and you talk about what was important in the trial, what was the deal and the seconds really were everything, you look back, 8 minutes and 46 seconds became a symbol for george floyd, and then you have the prosecutor going on day one and show this video and the video actually kicks up to 9 minutes 29 seconds. those 43 seconds and that courtroom were everything and you knew what the defense was looking at that, looking at the clock that that was a significant difference in what people thought and the extra 43 seconds did not help derek chauvin one bit. they deliberated for ten and a half hours, you have different legal expert saying well, that's a short verdict, it's a long verdict, all the trials that we've covered here on fox news channel going back to o.j. simpson, scott peterson, michael jackson, timothy mcveigh, a quick verdict except in o.j. simpson is very bad news for the defendant and i think that a lot of defense attorneys that we've talked to over the last several days and weeks would concur with the fact that this does not appear to bode well for derek chauvin who by the way is 44 years old and if convicted on all of these things, unless the sentences run concurrent, it's one after the other, then you're talking about the fact that he could walk out in eight, nine, ten years. >> neil: amazing, i had forgotten about his willingness to go ahead and plead to the third-degree murder charge back in the beginning of all of this. thank you very much, mercedes is on the phone right now, what do you read into this, the quick nature of this, all of the other things you've been hearing, the verdict that we are supposed to hear any minute now. >> most defense attorneys will tell you that if you've got a quick turnaround when the jury is deliberating it is not good news for the defense. so a lot, you can see that from a lot of defense attorneys that have, having the same reaction, that this does not bode well. and traces exactly right, those 9 minutes and 29 seconds were absolutely devastating. and of the defense did all they could to try to get around that video, they kept saying, don't focus on those 9 minutes and 29 seconds, there are 150,000 pages of evidence, lots of investigators involved, a lot that took place before the 9 minutes and 29 seconds came to be but frankly it was the prosecutors said and it resonates with this jury, believe your eyes. see with your eyes, what you see is exactly what took place, the fact that derek chauvin murdered george floyd and it resonated, we will see what happens with the verdict but as a defense attorney i think most defense attorneys will tell you that this was a very quick turnaround and does not bode well. >> neil: mercedes, we only have about a minute but your thoughts on that video, the significance of that video? it wasn't just one video but played on countless devices, smartphones, dozens of which were played and replayed by virtually every angle and that courtroom, powerful for the prosecution. >> it's what we view, now in the advent of all these changes with our personal devices that can capture evidence in real time. this type of evidence is going to be with us, this is the type of evidence you have to overcome and it is extremely difficult to do so, you and i watch that video, we know it was absolutely devastating, it dominated the news, everyone i've spoken to, this is something that they watched, got wrenching and for the jury to sit there and see it again and certainly when the defense tried to explain certain parts of the video it did not, it wasn't helpful at all and you cap hearing, of course, george floyd asking, saying that he couldn't breathe over and over again, 27 times. >> neil: thank you, mercedes. it became an iconic metaphor that many in the black community of use to say, everyone has had their neck on african-americans. >> a fox news alert, welcome to "the five," i'm dana perino along with greg gutfeld, jesse watters, juan williams and judge jeanine pirro today. it is expected to be read at any moment, former minneapolis police officer derek chauvin faces one count of second-degree murder, one count of third-degree murder, and one count of second degree manslaughter. we are going to take you to the hour, let's go live outside the courthouse in minneapolis. hi, matt. >> hi, dana, jury selection in this trial began back in early march, the trial lasted 14 days so really a month and a half in the

Related Keywords

Florida , United States , Minnesota , Wisconsin , Hennepin , Illinois , Brooklyn Center , Chicago , Americans , Eric Nelson , George Floyd , Jesse Watters , Rodney King , Scott Peterson , Neil Cavuto , Neil , Derek Chauvin , Michael Jackson , Leo Terrell , Juan Williams , Jonathan Turley , Jeanine Pirro , Lawrence Jones , Mike Tobin , Andy Mccarthy ,