Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Jury to Resume Deliberations in Chauvin Trial; Former Vice President Walter Mondale Dies at 93; Medical Examiner: Capitol Officer Suffered Strokes, Died of Natural Causes. Aired 6-6:30a ET

Aired April 20, 2021 - 06:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, I'm Brianna Keilar alongside John Berman on this NEW DAY.

[05:58:12]

A nation awaits the verdict as a jury decides the fate of the former police officer who kneeled on George Floyd's neck. Plus, an unexpected twist in the trial as the provocative words of a Democratic Congresswoman become an issue in court.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: The cause of death is revealed for the Capitol officer who died after the insurrection. Will this impact some of the charges?

And Americans wiped down their mail and let it sit for three days, but a year later the CDC says that whole surface contagion thing? Never mind.

KEILAR: A very good morning to viewers here in the United States and around the world. It is Tuesday, April 20. And in just hours, deliberations will resume in the Derek Chauvin murder trial.

Twelve jurors now have the former police officer's fate in their hands in the death of George Floyd. One of the three charges they're examining, second-degree unintentional murder, a guilty verdict could mean decades behind bars.

BERMAN: Overnight, protesters on the streets demanding justice. State and local leaders pleading for calm. Two hundred and fifty members of the D.C. National Guard have now been called up as the nation's capital braces for possible unrest.

For more on the charges and the hard questions confronting the jury, let's bring in Laura Jarrett, anchor of CNN's "EARLY START." She's also an attorney who covered the Justice Department for years, so overachiever.

Laura, what did the judge tell the jury to consider when it comes to finding Chauvin guilty or not guilty?

LAURA JARRETT, CNN ANCHOR: All right. So John, the jury now has the marching orders. The problem is, as you're about to see, the rules of the road are dense, and they are not written in plain English. So let's start with the most important legal phrase in this entire

case, "substantial causal factor." What does that mean? Well, the jury has been told, in order to find Chauvin guilty, they must find his actions were, quote, "a substantial causal factor" in causing the death of George Floyd. It's a mouthful, but substantial causal factor doesn't mean the only factor here.

Remember, all that testimony the jury heard about drugs in Floyd's system, clogged arteries, those can all be contributing factors, and Chauvin can still be guilty if the knee on Floyd's neck was a substantial cause of his death.

Now at the same time, if the jury finds that Chauvin's actions as a police officer were a reasonable use of force, then there is no crime in this case at all. And we heard a lot about that throughout the entire trial.

KEILAR: Laura, can you take us through each of these charges against Chauvin. I think this is very important for us to revisit at this point and what the jury is deliberating on.

JARRETT: Yes. So for starters here, it's really important to see that none of the three charges require prosecutors prove that Chauvin actually intended to kill Floyd that day. He didn't have to set out that day with an intent to kill.

So let's start with the most serious charge here, second-degree murder. On this one, Chauvin would be guilty if the jury finds that both the knee on the neck caused Floyd's death and that that act meets Minnesota's definition of an assault in the third-degree.

So when you talk about an underlying felony in this case, that's what they're talking about, the assault.

Next, third-degree murder. This is the one that Chauvin is guilty if he caused Floyd's death through the actions that were, quote, "eminently dangerous to others." That means something that's highly likely to cause death.

And there are also some key state of mind requirements here for Chauvin. They describe in the instructions a depraved state of mind. What does that mean? Basically, someone who is indifferent to the loss of human life.

And finally here, second-degree manslaughter. Now, this sounds a lot like third-degree murder, right, but notice subtle differences here, both in terms of how risky the behavior was and, again, Chauvin's state of mind.

For this charge, Chauvin will be found guilty if he created, quote, "an unreasonable risk" and consciously took the chance of causing death or great bodily harm to Floyd.

Now, unreasonable risk in this context is lower than eminently dangerous for that third-degree charge I just described. And also notice here, the depravity isn't required here. The jury just has to find that an ordinary person would realize that their actions would cause serious injury.

So a lot for the jury to digest here. But remember: jury has to be unanimous on each of these three charges to find him guilty.

KEILAR: Very important to remember. Laura, thank you so much for taking us through that.

The prosecution in the Chauvin trial argued that he did not follow police department protocol and should be convicted of murder.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEVE SCHLEICHER, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY: You can believe your own eyes. This case is exactly what you thought when you saw it first, when you saw that video. It is exactly that. You can believe your eyes. It's exactly what you believed. It's exactly what you saw with your eyes. It's exactly what you knew. It's what you felt in your gut. It's what you now know in your heart. This wasn't policing. This was murder.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Did they meet the burden of proof on each charge beyond a reasonable doubt? That will be the question.

So let's bring in criminal defense attorney Sara Azari.

And Sara, let's start with the highest charge here, which is second- degree unintentional murder. Do you think the prosecution proved their case on this?

SARA AZARI, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, Brianna, first of all, it's great to be with you, and congratulations to both of you on the new NEW DAY.

Look, we have one universe of conduct but the shotgun approach of three alternative homicide counts. The distinction between them, as Laura explained, being intent.

And the use of force evidence that we heard and saw and the causation evidence support all three of these counts. I didn't think I would ever say this with conviction, but the prosecution has met its burden of proof beyond "beyond a reasonable doubt." The jurors may not agree with me. I'll get to that in a minute.

But here with the second-degree murder charge, this is the felony murder rule in Minnesota. So the evidence we heard, we heard from five Minnesota officers, Chauvin's boss, the officer who trained him, the police chief, which is rare to see in these cases, and a law professor, who all consistently testified that the use of force is not only excessive and unjustified but also against department protocol and against or contrary to Chauvin's own training.

So without the lawful use of force, you have an unlawful felony assault.

And then you get to the causation, that substantial causal factor. We heard from a cardiologist and a renowned pulmonologist, who both said that he died of hypoxia, not all this noise about the pills in his system, the tumor, the enlarged heart, the fugazi (ph), you know, carbon monoxide stuff that they have no supporting evidence; that really that -- that Chauvin's knee to his airway was what caused the lack of oxygen.

[06:05:16]

Then we get to third-degree murder. So I believe second-degree murder is met. We get to third-degree murder, which is this depraved heart murder. And the prosecution, I believe, has proven that Chauvin committed a reckless act that is eminently dangerous to Floyd, with a depraved heart -- that's a really ugly heart -- and disregard for his life.

All that evidence that we saw about his failure to render aid to Chauvin goes to this very issue. We heard from bystanders. We heard from off -- an off-duty firefighter.

We heard from medical experts. In fact, the defense's own expert, Dr. Fowler, on cross-examination, gave the prosecution the gift of, yes, Chauvin should have but failed to render aid to Floyd.

So, this count has also been met.

And let's not forget that Blackwell's last words to the jury were that Floyd did not die of his enlarged heart. He died of Chauvin's small heart. Boom, depraved heart right there.

Then we get to the second-degree manslaughter, which you know, on its face, it looks like a blind dog could convict Chauvin on this count, but it's a little murky, because a few months back, the judge, Judge Cahill, was not going to allow this count in because of the term "others" in the statute.

This is that Chauvin acted with culpable negligence, where he created an unreasonable risk to others, and cautiously took the chance of causing death or great bodily injury. And so this term "others" the judge thought was confusing.

It went to the appellate court. The judge got reversed, and it made its way into the case at trial. But much like the judge thought that this might be confusing, one or more jurors might think that this is -- "others" means other than Floyd, perhaps. So that is sort of a murky thing with that last count.

But the bottom line is that it takes one stray juror, even if unreasonable, to believe that there's doubt in this case and hold out, and then we have a hung jury and we have a mistrial, which is the best that the defense could ask for here.

BERMAN: Sara Azari, thank you so much for your analysis. We really appreciate it.

Let's talk about the defense. Derek Chauvin's defense argued that he acted reasonably -- They argued that a lot, repeatedly -- when he knelt on George Floyd for nine minutes and twenty-nine seconds, and that there is more to the story than the moments captured on the cell phone video.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIC NELSON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR DEREK CHAUVIN: Coronary heart disease, not relevant according to the state. Drugs acting to further constrict an already heart -- diseased heart, not relevant. And the failure of the state's experts to acknowledge any possibility, any possibility at all, that any of these other factors in any way contributed to Mr. Floyd's death defies medical science, and it defies common sense and reason.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: Let's bring in criminal defense attorney and civil rights attorney Mark O'Mara.

Mark, there was a lot from the defense. So much, in fact, that the judge ordered a break so the jurors could, you know, go to the bathroom and have some food if they had to. The question is too much from the defense there?

MARK O'MARA, CRIMINAL DEFENSE AND CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Well, it may have been. I mean, no matter what, no matter how good you think you are, it's an order of two hours -- over two hours of talking to any group, 12 people, they're going to tire.

And the problem with the defense is you really want to keep them focused on what you want them to be focused on. And let's face it, in this case there was a lot that the defense had to overcome.

So, talk about mistakes he made, then. First of all, remember, if -- if he gets an acquittal, then he's never made a mistake in this entire case, right? Because the only thing that he has to do is get the acquittal. It erases any problems that I may come up with or other people want to critique him about.

But unfortunately, when you have a jury who's had so much evidence and seen some of the common sense evidence that we all looked at for the two week -- first two weeks of the trial; when you listen to a prosecutor who did do what you need to do, make it simple; when you look at this, then the defense, when they sort of fill up all these alternatives -- could be the meth, it could be the fentanyl, it could be the heart, it could be the tumor, it could be the bystanders -- that's OK to throw in to suggest that a dynamic circumstance exists, but if you lose your credibility with the panel, if you're saying, I'm just going to throw it up on the wall, pick whatever you want, but please don't convict my client, then in effect, you may lose them.

And if you lose them with their own common sense, that it can't be one of -- one of a dozen different things, if you don't have a consistent theory, and you lose them, then the only people they have to go to as their guide is the prosecutor, because they have the judge, but they have the prosecutors. And the prosecutors laid out such a simple and, in effect, through

complex expert testimony, a simple procedure. Look at the video. He shouldn't have done it. Second-degree is the intent to commit the act without justification.

[06:10:13]

We went down the list and, unfortunately, the defense had a very high standard to disprove a very highly proved case by the state, had to stay, I think, a bit more focused on what they needed to accomplish.

KEILAR: Mark, the defense played quite a bit of body camera footage in their closing argument, enough that you might have done a double take and said, Wait, this is the defense?

O'MARA: Yes.

KEILAR: Was that a good move?

O'MARA: Well, in my opinion, Brianna, first of all, we who do this a lot are completely immune, like doctors with blood. We don't think about it. We don't think about the fact that we're showing a video of somebody who is in the throes of his last couple minutes of life.

So you have to be careful, because we're used it to, but those 12 people, even though they did see it a couple of dozen times, still in their gut, in their heart, are looking at that and thinking, OK, I'll look at the toe. I'll look at the fingers move, I'll look at the knee go up, I'll look at the jolt of the leg, but what I'm really seeing is the death of another human being in front of me.

And that you have to maintain that concern about, because you may score a point on the toe, but you're reminding these jurors that, for the 30th time, they're watching somebody die in front of them; and that could have more impact than where is the toe for a couple of seconds.

BERMAN: I was watching that, and I was thinking, look, the prosecution's best piece of evidence that the video, maybe the defense was trying to say, We're not scared of even their best evidence, but that's a huge risk to be taking in a closing argument, Mark.

I want to ask, because at the very end, we saw this exchange when the jury was gone about the recent remarks made by Congresswoman Maxine Waters. And the defense requested a mistrial. The judge denied it, but listen to what the judge said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUDGE PETER CAHILL, JUDGE IN DEREK CHAUVIN TRIAL: I'll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned. I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function. A Congresswoman's opinion really doesn't matter a whole lot. Anyway, so motion for mistrial is denied. (END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: Millions of people, I think, sat up in their chairs when they're watching that, Mark, when the judge said Congresswoman Waters may have given you grounds for appeal. Really?

O'MARA: Well, she might have. I mean, I had a high-profile case several years ago, and I complained twice when President Obama talked about that case. He said Trayvon looked like it could be his son, et cetera. And I really complained, because what I said in response was, you know, the president of the United States shouldn't say he likes McDonald's over Burger King. Stay out of the situation you're not supposed to be in.

And nobody except that judge, the prosecutors, the defense attorneys, and most importantly, that jury is supposed to have their noses in this case. And with such a high-profile case, to drag politics into it and the social concerns -- there's no denying that we have a very, very specific and focus on this trial. And it does highlight the way police treat black individuals.

But to have an elected official come in and say must be a conviction does exactly what the judge said it did. It really puts the entire case at risk, because we want our jurors so pristine, as best we can. We try not to sequester them for the three weeks of trial, the four weeks of trial, but we try and keep them away from those undue influences, because we know it has to only come from the evidence and argument in the courtroom.

And yet, you have somebody who just on regular TV, on CNN, trying to stay away from coverage of the trial, a juror sitting there, an elected official comes in and goes, Guilty, guilty, guilty, it is an undue influence. It is -- it's a lack of respect for the judicial system. It's great politics; it's not good law.

KEILAR: It's an important reminder. Mark, thank you for joining us as the jury continues deliberations.

A medical examiner determines the Capitol officer who dies after the insurrection died of natural causes. Does this impact the charges against rioters?

BERMAN: Plus, just in, a big move by hospitals across the country involving the coronavirus vaccine. And how the National Guard is preparing for the aftermath of the Chauvin verdict. This is CNN's NEW DAY.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:18:40]

BERMAN: This morning, we're remembering a decent American who made a huge contribution to the country. Former Vice President Walter Mondale who died Monday at the age of 93.

Fritz Mondale, as he was known, was a true son of Minnesota, serving first as the state's attorney general, then spending 12 years in the Senate before he was tapped by Jimmy Carter to be his running mate in 1976.

Carter honored Mondale in a statement, saying he transformed the office, which he really did, and called Mondale the best vice president in our country's history.

In 1984, Mondale won the Democratic nomination for president. He made history by naming a woman, Geraldine Ferraro, as his running mate.

KEILAR: In his final days, Mondale took calls from many friends and leaders, including President Biden. The president remembering Mondale as a dear friend and a political mentor.

CNN has obtained the moving farewell message that Mondale wrote to his staff. And it reads this: "Well, my time has come. I am eager to rejoin Joan and Eleanor. Before I Go I wanted to let you know how much you mean to me. Never has a public servant had a better group of people working at their side! Together we have accomplished so much, and I know you will keep up the good fight. Joe in the White House certainly helps. I always knew it would be OK if I arrived some place and was greeted by one of you! My best to all of you! Fritz."

BERMAN: Joan, his wife, Eleanor, his daughter, who passed away several years ago.

Mondale, so nice that he got to communicate, you were saying --

KEILAR: Yes.

[06:20:09]

BERMAN: -- with his staff and talk to people right up until the end. For a guy who was never considered a dynamic campaigner, he is part of so many, like, indelible political memories. You know, when he was running against Gary Hart, and Gary Hart was making gains on him, Mondale says, Where's the beef?

KEILAR: And everyone remembers that.

BERMAN: Everyone remembers that.

KEILAR: And here he has, you know, even to this day defined what the vice presidency can be for both parties, really.

BERMAN: Absolutely.

KEILAR: This morning, prosecutors are trying to determine their move in the case against two men who are charged with assaulting Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick.

Washington, D.C.'s chief medical examiner is ruling that Sicknick suffered two strokes and died of natural causes one day after he confronted rioters at the Capitol insurrection.

And Whitney Wild is with us now on this story. Whitney, how does this finding impact the charges against the two suspects now?

WHITNEY WILD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, right now, as far as the assault charges are concerned, it doesn't seem to have much of an impact. Our understanding from DOJ is that they are still moving forward with those assault charges.

Both men in that case have pleaded not guilty. They're charged with, basically, spraying Sicknick and two other officers with bear spray.

And the conversation that had been coming up, you know, viewers would remember, we've been talking a lot about the possibility that prosecutors were considering the bear spray may have, in some way, triggered some sort of, perhaps, an allergic reaction that may have contributed to Officer Sicknick's death.

Now the D.C. medical examiner dashing that theory, basically saying again, as you point out, two strokes. He did tell "The Washington Post" that he believed that all that transpired throughout the day, the day of that horrible riot, probably contributed to his situation.

However, we've tried to clarify that ourselves at the office of the medical examiner. We haven't yet been able to do that. But as far as trying to bring justice for the actual death, that seems entirely unlikely at this point.

BERMAN: So, Whitney, Washington, D.C., we've learned like so many cities in the country, preparing for the Chauvin trial verdict. What are you learning?

WILD: Well, the Army has approved the call-up of 250 members of the National Guard. They will be approved through May 9. So we'll have to wait and see if they're utilized, what possible protests will play out here in D.C.

But I think it does represent a little bit of a change in perspective now about how to handle these protests. Before we knew, at least for the rally on January 6, that they -- D.C. officials had only wanted them to do traffic control, basically, but here we don't yet know, I think, the details about what they envisioned for the National Guard. But what we know is that they're going to back up the Metropolitan Police Department again through possibly as long as May 9.

BERMAN: You would anticipate a clear line of communication this time between D.C. Metropolitan Police and the National Guard after what we've seen before.

WILD: Absolutely. Yes, there's not going to be another January 6 in this city.

BERMAN: Whitney Wild, terrific reporting. Great having you on NEW DAY. Thanks so much.

House Republicans now calling for Congresswoman Maxine Waters to be censured, sparking a debate about her comments that protesters may need to get, quote, "confrontational."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:27:20]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): It's harder to imagine anything more inappropriate than a member of Congress flying in from California to inform local leaders, not so subtly, that this defendant had better be found guilty or else there will be big trouble in the streets.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell sharply criticizing Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters over her call for protesters to get more confrontational if Derek Chauvin is not convicted.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is now calling on Congresswoman Waters to be censured.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi coming to her defense, telling CNN that she should not apologize, noting, "Maxine talked about confrontation in the manner of the civil rights movement. I myself think we should take our lead from the George Floyd family. They've handled this with great dignity and no ambiguity or lack of misinterpretation by the other side."

Joining us now is CNN political analyst Natasha Alford, who is VP of digital content and a senior correspondent for "TheGrio."

Natasha, I wonder if you see any sort of double standard here? If Maxine Waters was a Republican, would Democrats be rebuking her?

NATASHA ALFORD, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: So I think the question almost suggests that what she said in that moment is the same as, perhaps, Republicans who stood by and encouraged the Capitol surrection [SIC] -- or the insurrection; or they stood by and said nothing as, you know, Donald Trump was inciting violence, right?

I think what Congresswoman Waters is pointing to is this -- this cycle of trauma and violence that we're stuck in as a country. We continue to watch black people murdered by police, and we sort of do the same ritual and song and dance. There's protest. You know, there's a press conference. Maybe there's even a trial, but justice is not expected.

And so I think she's challenging people to not just do the same song and dance but to hold elected officials -- elected officials -- elected officials accountable; to get out in the streets; to -- to operate in the spirit of civil rights.

And so, I think there are people who know her that know what she meant, but of course, there are members of the GOP who will use this as an opportunity to, basically, you know, make her an example and to point her out. So yes, I do think that there's some hypocrisy here.

BERMAN: Look, the context clearly matters. Context always matters here. And whatever the political implications and political statement, I -- I would have to imagine even Maxine Waters was surprised to hear it come up in the courtroom, and have the judge in this case say, Well, you -- you know, Maxine Waters may have given the defense grounds for appeal. I -- I can't imagine that that would please her in any way.

ALFORD: Yes. I think a lot of folks' hearts.