Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Closing Arguments in Chauvin Murder Trial; Prosecution Gives Rebuttal to Defense's Closing Argument. Aired 4:30-5p ET

Aired April 19, 2021 - 16:30   ET

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

[16:30:02]

JERRY BLACKWELL, MINNESOTA SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: You have seen what the face of fear and worry look like that day at that time.

That's what fear and worry look 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's fear.

Now, you were told some stories about the bystanders and the suggestion that they were an unruly crowd. You have gotten to meet them now. You have gotten to meet two-thirds of the ones who were there at that time.

I described them earlier of a bouquet of humanity. I call them that because they came in different ages, different genders, different races. And they all came together focused on the one thing, which was they saw that a human being they did not know was suffering, and they wanted to try to intervene to stop the suffering.

And, in that sense, they were not only symbols of the love and care you want to encourage, 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, in tears.

You felt the anguish even a year after the fact. They felt torn between their love for the sanctity of life itself that had them wanting to intervene to try to save Mr. Floyd's life, and, on the other hand, their respect for the authority that the badge represents, for the city, for the state. They were torn between.

Now, the ultimate proof of this is, if those bystanders did not respect this badge, they could very easily have taken the law into their own hands and simply have removed Mr. Chauvin. Then we wouldn't have to have any discussions about how reasonable it was for him to stay on a man's neck who wasn't even breathing.

We wouldn't have to have any of these kinds of discussions at all. But none of them did that. None of them did that, because they respected 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 so that they could not be misrepresented. Instead, they waited for their day 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 didn't deserve to be called unruly, because they weren't. And you will hear time and again, oh, the crowd was getting louder. Oh, the crowd was getting more agitated. Earlier in the trial, you hear, oh, they were getting angrier and angrier.

As always, we can't see somehow what it is they're getting upset about, the fact that a defenseless, helpless man is literally losing his life one breath at a time right in front of them, and there's nothing that they can do.

If you love life, you get excited when you see life being taken, when that's your perception. That's what they were excited about. And if they all just simply one of the donut in watching this, you might wonder what's wrong with them. That's 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. And stories really are just excuses that get told.

ERIC NELSON, ATTORNEY FOR DEREK CHAUVIN: I'm going to object to that.

PETER CAHILL, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA, JUDGE: (OFF-MIKE) use of the word stories.

BLACKWELL: The fact of the matter is, ladies and gentlemen, that there can be no excuse for police abuse.

And I will be clear, ladies and gentlemen. I will tell you -- if I think there's a fact that has been altered, I will tell you what it is. And that's all I ever mean when I say story.

But there's no excuse, ladies and gentlemen, for police abuse. And you have heard any number of these. So, let me -- let me walk through some of them.

You have heard accounts that the traffic was distracting to Mr. Chauvin. Well, the fact was that you heard from the 911 dispatcher, Jenna Scurry, who was watching the scene. And she said that the officers remained in the same place in the same positions for so long on top of the body of Mr. Floyd that he thought the camera was broken and frozen.

They weren't distracted. They weren't looking around because they were concerned about being disturbed by the traffic or anything else.

[16:35:06]

They had an office, Officer Thao, whose job it was just to fend off and keep away distractions and could have called others if needed.

You have also heard about the paramedics taking -- took too long, the paramedic took longer to get there than was planned, should have been there within three minutes.

And your common sense will tell you that 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 doesn't have a pulse, that the paramedics took too long.

You heard about the paraganglioma, the paraganglioma, which was also referred to as an incidental moment, because that's how rare it is and insignificant it is. The hallmark of a paraganglioma, headaches. Mr. Floyd wasn't reporting headaches.

So, if you're going to talk about a paraganglioma, why don't you talk about the fact that you know the hallmark is headaches, and he didn't have them, if this is by getting at the truth, and as well performing an honest assessment, if that's what we're doing?

The fact of the matter is, the paragangliomas, there have been six cases in reported history, all of reported history, where somebody had a sudden death from a paraganglioma ever, period.

Carbon monoxide. Now, other than Mr. Nelson saying that the car was turned on at the time, nobody from that witness stand, from evidence in this case, said the police car was on. You did here it was a hybrid vehicle.

How are we talking about carbon monoxide where the car, there was no evidence from the stand that the car was even on, if we're going to talk about carbon monoxide, and give this a reasonable, honest assessment?

But even more to the point about carbon monoxide that you just can't 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 tailpipe of a car that is spewing out carbon monoxide, why isn't that an unreasonable use of force by an officer?

In your custody is in your care. It's not in your custody, I don't care. In your custody is in your care. What reasonable police officer would apprehend someone on the ground, subdue them, and put their face in front of a tailpipe of a car, and then think that's a defense?

Here, not particularly fair. There is no evidence the car was ever even on. And you learned all you need to know, which was, if he was suffering from carbon monoxide, as Dr. Tobin told you, you wouldn't be able to get a 98 percent oxygen saturation from the oxygen they gave him artificially.

You heard about the fentanyl overdose. And, with this one, you were just told, oh, earlier -- earlier that afternoon, he was asleep in the car. Ladies and gentlemen, that's not the hallmark of somebody who dies

from a fentanyl overdose. It isn't just that you took a nap and dozed off. If you are -- if you pass away from a fentanyl overdose, you cannot be awakened. You are in a coma. If people are shaking you, it is to no avail.

If we're doing an honest assessment of the facts, looking at the totality of the circumstances, if we're going to talk about fentanyl, death by fentanyl or an overdose, why isn't that said?

He does not fit the description of anyone who dies from a fentanyl overdose. And even Dr. Fowler conceded from the stand, in terms of what a fentanyl overdose looks like, it does not look like somebody who's saying: "I can't breathe. My neck hurts. My back hurts. Everything hurts."

"You can't win."

"I'm not trying to win."

That's not what happens when somebody is suffering or dying from a fentanyl overdose. They are completely 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 that are given. You heard that from the toxicologist from NMS, the laboratory that Hennepin County sends off the medical examiner pathology -- not pathology, but blood samples to, to test for tox. He told you it was a minuscule amount of meth that was in his blood.

And then we heard about the pills.

[16:40:01]

Now, on cross-examination on the pills, I brought out the fact that what they were saying was 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 he was chewing gum in the store, opened his mouth. You saw the same white substance in his mouth.

But here's the deal about the pills, if we're really going to give this an honest assessment of the evidence. Why are we talking about pills that are not in his system? We know what's in his bloodstream already. We know he struggles in opioid addiction. Why are we talking about pills that we know were not in George Floyd? Why?

You have to decide that for yourself, ladies and gentlemen? Why is that even being brought up, when we know what's in his bloodstream? What is the point? And you keep hearing drugs in the car, drugs in the car. And the drugs were one pill, one, one pill. It was not in George Floyd.

And then the suggestion that he was somehow taking it in handcuffs in the police car, which makes no sense. There was no evidence of George Floyd taking any pills in the police car at all. There was a pill found there only.

You heard references, in talking about Dr. Tobin and his 46 years of experience studying the way people breathe, but Mr. Chauvin is not a medical doctor. He doesn't have these years of experience and hours to pore over records.

He didn't need it, ladies and gentlemen, because you know who else is not a medical doctor? A 9-year-old girl who is also not a medical doctor. You didn't need to be a medical doctor to understand that, when somebody's saying, "I can't breathe," and not just saying it -- everything about them is showing that they can't breathe -- and, when that ends, they just are passed out, you don't need a Ph.D., you don't need an M.D. to understand how fundamental breathing is to life.

And when somebody's saying, "I cannot breathe," and they have passed out, and you're aware that they don't even have a pulse, even a 9- year-old little girl knows it. Get off of them. That's all you needed to know in that case.

You -- just a couple more of these, because I can't even do them all, because there were so many.

This concern that George Floyd would somehow come to again, he would come back around again, they will say, not with -- we didn't really mean superhuman strength, except maybe we really did mean superhuman strength, because he's going to have all this extra strength now and he's going to do dastardly things.

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. And not a single one of them testified about one instance ever where somebody who didn't even have a pulse somehow spontaneously came back to life, broke handcuffs, and rampaged the city.

It's the facts of this case, not some other thing. Mr. Floyd didn't even have a pulse. That didn't justify keeping your knee on his neck, when you should have been administering CPR, when you could have brought him back to life again, because you're afraid that he would come to with no pulse and rampage the city.

That's 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 arrhythmia in the end. That's misleading in a way, because, as you have heard from doctor after doctor, ultimately, everybody dies in the end of a fatal arrhythmia.

Everybody dies of cardiopulmonary arrest, the heart stops, and the lung stops, and then the last thing that happens is, whoop, you get an arrhythmia, and then that's it.

Now, is there any evidence that there was an arrhythmia as the primary cause of his death, unrelated to the subdual, restraint and neck compression the ground? Zero. There's zero evidence that he had a heart attack. Zero. In fact, his heart was in such a normal condition that Dr. Baker, doing the autopsy, didn't even have a need to photograph it intact, because it was so normal.

Now, Dr. Rich did not say anything akin to George Floyd having a normal heart. That's not what he said. What he said was that he had a strong heart. He had a strong heart.

And what he meant by that is that he sees patients all the time who may be in need of transplants, who have serious cardiac disease, and they can't even get a normal blood pressure. And he talked to you about how George Floyd, having lived with this for some time, explains how it is that his body and its -- the arteries that serve the heart were able to compensate in the case of Mr. Floyd such that he did not die of a fatal arrhythmia and there's no evidence that he died of any kind of heart abnormality.

[16:45:31]

Just two more of these, things I just want to clarify. There was a lot of discussion about the police conduct that situations can change rapidly from moment to moment, and on this, I don't want you at all to lose sight of the facts here, that for the 9 minutes and 29 seconds the problem was that there was nothing moving or changing no matter what, whether Mr. Floyd was calling out for his life, whether he was motionless with an anoxic seizure, whether he had no pulse.

There was no move. No split-second decision, no moment-to-moment. To the extent that you're hearing that as representative of this case, it is not representative of this case. It does not meet 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 couldn't 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. That's not accurate.

We will, in fact, and we own our burden of showing that he in fact acted unlawfully but not proving that he intended to act unlawfully. We need only to show that he intended to do what he did, which was to put the knee on the neck, the knee on the back and against his shoulder, that it wasn't an accident and that we will show, and we own that burden.

So, there really aren't 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. Floyd's neck did affect his ability to breathe, and I know that you were told when Mr. Nelson was just here that this was not a choke. It was not a chokehold and that Donald Williams had suggested or so testified.

If you remember that testimony, Donald Williams disagreed with him every time and said that that was in fact a chokehold. Even on the one side and he explained how that it works. And while Mr. Nelson quibbled with him, Donald Williams never gave that up in the testimony.

So, there aren't two sides of the story as to unreasonable use of force. And when Mr. Floyd is saying please, please, I can't breathe, 27 times in just a few minutes, you saw it when Mr. Chauvin did not let up and didn't get up, even when he passed out, not breathing anymore. He doesn't let up or get up. When he knows he didn't have a pulse, he doesn't let up or get up.

Even when the ambulance come, he doesn't let up and get up then. They have to come up and tap him pause he will let up and get off the body on Mr. George Floyd and they tried to resuscitate him in the ambulance and they never do. He never regains consciousness, he never breathes again, his heart never pumps again. And Mr. George Floyd was deceased.

So finally, ladies and gentlemen, I will sit down in a minute but I wanted to save until the end what I thought was the biggest shading of the truth or what I call story.

ERIC NELSON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I object to that, Your Honor.

CAHILL: You'll disregard the phrase shading the truth.

BLACKWELL: Well, here's what I thought was the largest departure from the evidence. I'll show it to you. You were told, for example, that Mr. Floyd died -- that Mr. Floyd died because his heart was too big.

[16:50:04]

You heard that testimony. And now having seen all the evidence, having heard all the evidence, you know the truth, and the truth of the matter is that the reason George Floyd is dead is because Mr. Chauvin's heart was too small.

CAHILL: If the jury could grab your instructions again. And turn to page 11.

Members of the jury, if you have any question about any part of the testimony or any legal question after you have retired for your deliberation, please address it is to me in writing and give it to the sheriff's deputy with the juror number of your foreperson on the note. It will take some time to answer any questions because I will have to consult with the lawyers and receive their input before answering your question.

I do not say this to discourage questions but only to advise you that it will take some time to provide you with an answer. As I told you, you will take with you into the jury room copies of the instructions that I'm reading to you. The lawyers and I have determined that these instructions contain all the laws that are necessary for you to know in order to decide the case.

I cannot give you a trial transcript. No such transcript exists. We count on the jury to rely on its collective memory. You have been allowed to take notes during the trial and you may take those notes with you into the jury room. You should not consider those notes binding or conclusive whether they

are your notes or notes 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 open notes or those of another juror. You should not give any greater weight to any particular piece of evidence solely because it's referred to in a note taken by a juror. Now we all have feelings, assumptions, perceptions, fears and stereotypes about others. Some biases we're aware of and others we may not be aware of which is why they are called implicit or unconscious bias.

No matter how unbiased we think we are, our brains are hard wired to make unconscious decisions. We look at others and filter what they say through the lens of our own personal experience and background. Because we all do this, we often see life and evaluate evidence in a way that tends to favor people who are like ourselves or who have had 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 you are 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 you're making the decision you are 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 backgrounds, for example, richer or poorer, more or less educated, older or younger or of a different gender, gender, race, religion or sexual orientation, would you still view them and the evidence the same way?

Three, listen to one another. You must carefully evaluate the evidence and resist and help each other resist any urge to reach a verdict influenced by bias for or against any party or witness. Each of you have different backgrounds and will be viewing this case in light of your own insights, assumptions and biases. Listening to different perspectives may help you better identify the possible effects these hidden biases may have on decision-making.

And, four, resist jumping to conclusions based on personal likes or it is likes, generalizations, gut feelings, prejudices, sympathies, stereotypes or unconscious biases. The law demands that you make a fair decision based solely on the evidence, your individual evaluations of that evidence and your reason and common sense and these instructions.

[16:55:00]

When you return to the jury room to discuss this case you must choose a jury person to be your foreperson, that person will lead your deliberations. In order for you to return a verdict, whether guilty or not guilty, each juror must agree with that verdict. Your verdict must be unanimous.

You should discuss this case with one another and deliberate with a view towards 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 have carefully considered their views.

You should not hesitate to re-examine your views and change your opinion if you become convinced they are erroneous, but you should not surrender your honest opinion simply because other jurors disagree or merely to reach a verdict.

A single verdict form for each count has been prepared for your use, and when you have finished your deliberations and have reached a verdict as to a count, the foreperson should mark the appropriate the choice in a form of an "X" and date and sign the verdict for them filling in the foreperson's juror number on the indicated line and then signing the foreperson's name on the second line.

Just so know the forms look like this. The there's very little to add, just an "X," juror number of the foreperson and the foreperson's signature. The order in which the guilty and not guilty choices appear on the verdict forms is strictly alphabet call and should not in any way be considered as indicating which choice is the correct choice.

The 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. At a time designated by the court, your verdict will be read out loud in the courtroom in your presence.

During your deliberations, you must not let bias, prejudice, passion, sympathy or public opinion influence your decision. You must in the considering any consequences or penalties that might follow from your verdict. You must not be biased in favor of or against any party or witness because of his or her ability, gender, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, national original or socioeconomic status.

Your verdict must be based solely 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 outcome of the case. The state of Minnesota have a right to demand and they do demand that you'll 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 evidence and the law require it. On the other hand, it is fair to find the defendant not guilty if you're not convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now, members of the jury, the says in your hands as judges of the facts. I'm certain that you realize that this case is important and serious and, therefore, deserves your careful consideration.

Deputy?

Do you swear that you'll keep these jurors together separate from all other persons and that you'll not allow anyone to communicate with them or overhear the deliberations, that you will not make any comment to them about the law or the facts in this case and that you'll not disclose to anyone except this court anything which you may learn from their deliberations?

DEPUTY: I do.

CAHILL: Thank you.

Members of the jury, you're going to go to the deputy now back to your usual room including the jurors 96 and 118. You, however, will be diverted to my office. You are the alternates and will not be a part of the deliberations, but I would like to talk to you a little bit so you can go with the remainder of the jury but follow the sheriff deputy instructions.

All rise for the jury.

Be seated. We're still on the record.

All right. A couple of things. I know the defense was in the process I think of making a -- expressing a concern or an objection to counsel's argument belittling the defense. Is that what I correctly perceived that objections?

NELSON: Yes, Your Honor. Yes.

CAHILL: I think we dealt with it sufficiently during the objections, during the rebuttal, so that there will be no additional instruction in that regard.

NELSON: I do believe it constitutes prosecutorial misconduct.