Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Closing Arguments Begin In Derek Chauvin Trial. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired April 19, 2021 - 10:00   ET

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

JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Then the defense attorney, and then someone from the prosecution team will conclude their remarks.

[10:00:05]

The jury will then receive instructions from the judge, that is, what should they consider, what are the parameters of their deliberation? Will we expect to hear those live to see explains to them what the process will be?

The jury will then be sequestered for the duration of their deliberation. They will have access to all of the evidence here. They're actually providing electronically through laptops. They'll be able to call up the exhibits, the images, the notes, everything that was used as exhibits in this case. They will be able to process.

And then, finally, the judge instructed them that although they're going to be in hotels in the evening, they can contact their family but they're not to discuss the actual specifics of this case.

Let's talk about the charges that this former officer is facing. He's been charged with second-degree unintentional murder. That carries up to 40 years in prison. He is also charged with third-degree murder, which carries up to 25 years in prison. And then that last charge, second-degree manslaughter, up to ten years in prison. Of course, the jury can convict him of all of those, of none of those. We are still waiting to hear what the actual verdict will be. There is no timeframe either. They can deliberate as long as they need in order to come to some kind of conclusion here.

Of course, this is all happening as this city is in a state of variable (ph) lockdown here. Downtown Minneapolis, you see buildings surrounded by fences. There are members of the National Guard out here, all five of the city's police precincts are now surrounded by razor wire. Authorities telling us they're going to be (INAUDIBLE) out of an abundance of caution.

What they don't want, in the governor's words, is a repeat of what they saw last year. After the death of George Floyd, there were many violent protests here. Authorities were slammed for being caught flatfooted, for not doing enough, do add resources on hand. The governor is saying they're not going to have a repeat. They're going to have a number of resources out here just in case as the world watches to see what this verdict will be. Jim and Poppy?

POPPY HARLOW, CNN HOST: Coming from a governor who himself served in the National Guard for almost 25 years. And that fact, Josh, that they called in law enforcement from Ohio, from Nebraska, to help as well. Josh Campbell, thank you very much.

Let's bring in Laura Coates, former federal prosecutor, also a Minnesota native, that is very relevant here, Laura, and Charles Ramsey, former police commissioner in D.C. as well as Philadelphia.

Laura, let's begin with you. You were a former federal prosecutor. How you would close this case out if you were making the closing arguments today or the rebuttal?

LAURA COATES, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: You use the star witness, the nine-minute and 29-second video to drive the point home of what everyone saw happen, that not the officer that owed a duty of care to George Floyd, not only did he substantially cause the death of George Floyd by refusing to take his knee off the neck, and I do mean refusing to do so, even in spite of all of the begging from bystanders and even an EMT for him to remove his knee from his neck, still he persisted.

You bring home the point by the idea of law enforcement officials who say this was not abiding by training. This was the opposite of training. And there was a duty of care owed even if you yourself did not believe you were the cause of his physical duress. You still had a duty to perform CPR, to take his pulse, to try to get him assistance. He didn't do any of those things.

And you drive home the point here that once George Floyd was in the custody of police, the duty of care even expanded even more. All of these things they chose not to do. You have to walk them through element by element here, Poppy, so there is no stone left unturned and no onus put on the jurors to connect the dots from the witness testimony to the specific elements according to statutory language. That is the heavy lifting of the prosecution at this stage.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: Charles Ramsey, what did we learn about policing in America in this trial? I don't want to expand too far beyond it because there are very specific conditions and facts here. But there are lessons, what lessons?

CHARLES RAMSEY, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, sure this are lessons and systemic change needs to occur, reform needs to occur. There is no question about that. I mean we've had a string of these incidents and the majority of people in policing do the job and do it well, do it properly every single day.

But one Derek Chauvin in our ranks is one too many. And so we have to face it and we have to deal with it and really come up with ways in which we can rid our ranks not only of those folks but not bring any more onboard and make sure that we start to kind of rebuild or even build some kind of relationship with many of our communities, because, right now, the relationship just is nowhere, I mean, zero when you look at what is taking place. And we have to start and make it happen the correct way.

HARLOW: Laura, the jury will be charged, and then they will go and they will deliberate for as long as they need. And they can bring questions to the judge that we will see on camera, right? The judge will answer those on camera, which is important. We'll know what the jury is asking, but that bar of substantial causal factor.

[10:05:00]

How does the jury deliberate on what is substantial or what is not? Is it completely subjective, up to them?

COATES: It's not entirely subjective, although the jurors are going to be the people to ultimately to determine the facts and the credibility in this case and interpret the law. However, remember, substantial causal factor does not mean they have to have a percentage allocated here and if it's over 90/10 or if it's 80/20 or 70/30, it's not about being the sole cause of death, it doesn't have to be the sole cause of death.

But if it contributed to the death in a substantial way, if it was a reason that not George Floyd would have died some day but why he died in this particular moment. Remember, that was a theme for the prosecution's case here. The idea of saying, look, the underlying health conditions, the idea of perhaps heart disease, the idea of drug addiction, those things may have caught up with George Floyd in the long run.

But what happened on May 25th, what caught up to George Floyd in that moment for nine minutes and 29 seconds, was the knee and conduct of Derek Chauvin. They have to continuously bring this point home. There is no need to have the technicalities of percentages but they will have to damage it (ph).

They've already proven that the substantial causal factor of his death, and it was not undermined by the defense, was Derek Chauvin, the defendant in this case.

SCIUTTO: Laura Coates, you have said that you can learn some clues by the questions and a number of questions that jury asks after they begin their deliberations. Can you, in your experience, also divine anything based on how long they deliberate? And, again, this is with the caveat that these are 12 human beings and, you know, there are whole host of things that don't indicate. But in your experience, does a longer deliberation indicate anything versus a shorter one?

COATES: It can. If you have a question that asks for certain evidence, that's your clue about what they're hung up, you start to see evidence questions about carbon monoxide poisoning, the prosecution has a problem. But if you're seeing questions generally about how to interpret aspects of the law and different elements, terms like depraved heart, what was the underlying felony assault, those sorts of things, then it's opportunity for the prosecution to be able to expand upon it in a good way.

However, sometimes what happens is people are under the impression that juries go back there and they immediately say, all right, talk here, who thinks he's guilty, who's think he's not, okay, good, done deal and the go back out. No, they're told to go through the different elements. Has the prosecution carried its burden on each of the elements for each of the three charges?

So they could be going through methodically to make sure that they, in fact, can substantiate their verdict on each of the elements and that the prosecution has done their job. But the idea of just having a hands up right now and what is happening, what is everyone think, can we go back home, not what happens in a jury deliberation room.

HARLOW: Charles Ramsey, someone who had lead multiple police forces, I wonder what you think of this coming over the weekend from Minnesota's lieutenant governor, Peggy Flanagan. She wrote -- okay.

Let's listen into the courtroom in Minneapolis. Judge Cahill has just entered and this is all about to begin again. We're waiting for closing arguments.

JUDGE PETER CAHILL, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA: I'm going to give you some instructions on the law. You have a copy on your seat. You may -- in fact, I would encourage that you follow along as I read them to you. There will be a point where I'll ask you to put the remaining instructions on your chair so that you can listen to the closing arguments of counsel.

So, members of the jury, I instruct you as follows, it is your duty to decide the questions of fact in this case. It is my duty to give you the rules of law that you must apply in arriving at your verdict. You have now heard the evidence and soon you'll hear the arguments of counsel. At this time, I will instruct you in the law applicable to this case. You must follow and apply the rules of law as I give them to you, even if you believe the law is or should be different.

You have each been given a copy of these instructions to follow along as I read and you may take your copy with you when you retire to the jury room. Nevertheless, you should listen carefully and attentively as I read them to you now. Please note that the titles of the individual sections of the instructions are not a part of the instructions but merely places headings to assist you in finding a topic.

Deciding questions of fact is your exclusive responsibility. In doing so, you must consider all the evidence you have heard and seen in this trial and you must disregard anything that you may have heard or seen elsewhere about this case. I have not, by these instructions nor by any ruling or expression during the trial, intended to indicate my opinion regarding the facts or the outcome of this case. If I have said or done anything that would seem to indicate such an opinion, you are to disregard it.

You must consider these instructions as a whole and regard each instruction in light of all the others. The order in which the instructions are given is of no significance.

[10:10:01] You are free to consider the issues in any order you wish.

The defendant is presumed innocent of the charges made. This presumption remains with the defendant unless and until he has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant -- the fact that the defendant has been brought before the court by the ordinary processes of the law and is on trial should not be considered by you, in any way, suggesting guilt. The burden of proving guilt is on the state. The defendant does not have to prove his innocence.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is such proof as ordinarily prudent men and women would act upon in their most important affairs. Your reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense. It does not mean a fanciful or capricious doubt, nor does it mean beyond all possibility of doubt.

A fact may be proven by either direct or circumstantial evidence or by both. The law does not prefer one form of evidence over the other. The fact is proven by direct evidence when, for example, it is proven by witnesses who testify as to what they saw, heard or experienced, or by physical evidence of the fact itself. A fact is proven by circumstantial evidence when its existence is reasonably inferred from other facts proven in the case.

For example, if a person watches deer crossing a snow-covered field, the person has direct evidence of deer walking in the field because the person sees it. If the person does not see deer but sees deer tracks in the snow, the deer tracks are circumstantial evidence that deer walked in the field because that factual conclusion can reasonably be inferred from the tracks found in the snow.

Now, attorneys are officers in the court. It is their duty to make objections they deem proper and to argue their client's cause. However, the arguments other remarks of an attorney are not evidence. If the attorneys or I have made or should make any statement as to what the evidence is that differs from your recollection of the evidence, you should disregard the statement and rely solely on your own memory. If an attorney's argument contains any statement of the law that differs from the law I give you, disregard the attorney's statement.

The state has brought three charges or counts against the defendant. Each count charges a separate and distinct offense. You must consider the evidence applicable to each count as though it were the only accusation before you for consideration.

And you must state your findings as to each count in a separate verdict on influence by the fact that your verdict as to any other count or counts is in favor of or against the defendant. The defendant may be found guilty or not guilty of any or all of the offenses charged depending on the evidence and the weight you give it under the court's instructions.

I'm about to instruct you on the law that you're to apply to the charges and the defense. But before doing so, I am going to define a few words and phrases that appear more than once in the elements of the charges and the defense that follow. The words and phrases being defined are bold and in written copy of the instructions you'll be receiving. You should use these definitions for these words and phrases in your deliberations.

Attempted means that the defendant did an act a substantial step toward and more than mere preparation for causing the result and that the defendant did that act with intent to cause that result.

There are several forms of bodily harm relevant to some of the charges or the defense. Bodily harm means physical pain or injury, illness any impairment of a person's physical condition. Substantial bodily harm means bodily harm that involves a temporary but substantial disfigurement that causes a temporary but substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or that causes a fracture of any bodily member.

Great bodily harm means bodily injury that creates a high probability of death, that causes serious permanent disfigurement or that causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily harm.

To cause death, causing death or caused the death means that the defendant's act or acts were substantial causal factor in causing the death of George Floyd. The defendant is criminally liable for all the consequences of his actions that occur in the ordinary and natural course of events, including those consequences brought about by one or more intervening causes if such intervening causes were the natural result of the defendant's acts.

The fact that other causes contribute to the death does not relieve the defendant of criminal liability. However, the defendant is not criminally liable if a superseding cause caused the death.

[10:15:00]

A superseding cause is a cause that comes after the defendant's acts, alters the natural sequence of events and is the sole result that would not otherwise have occurred. To know, to have knowledge, or knew requires only that defendant believes that the specified facts exist.

Intentionally or intentional means the defendant either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the results specified or believes that the act performed, if successful, will cause the result. In addition, the defendant must have knowledge of those facts that are necessary to make his conduct criminal and are set forth after the word, intentionally or intentional.

With intent to or intended means that the defendant either had a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified or believes that the act performed, if successful, will cause that result. It is not necessary that defendant have the intent in advance. The necessary intent can develop during the commission of the act.

Police officer means an employee of a law enforcement agency, was licensed by the Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training charged with the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of the general criminal laws of the state of Minnesota and who has the full power of arrest.

A law enforcement agency is a unit of state or local government that is authorized by law to grant full powers of arrest and to charge a person with the duties of preventing and detecting crime and enforcing the general criminal laws of the state of Minnesota. The Minneapolis Police Department is a law enforcement agency for these purposes.

The definition of any word or phrase with a specific legal meaning that appears only once in the elements or the defenses will be defined where it appears later in these instructions.

The defendant is charged in count one with murder in the second-degree in connection with the death of George Floyd. Under Minnesota law, a person causing the death of another without intent to cause the death of any person while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense is guilty of the crime of murder in the second-degree. The defendant is charged with committing this crime or intentionally aiding in the commission of this crime.

The elements of the crime of murder in the second-degree while committing a felony are. First element, the death of George Floyd must be proven, second element, the defendant caused the death of George Floyd, third element, the defendant at the time of causing the death of George Floyd was committing or attempting to commit the felony offense of assault in the third-degree. It is not necessary for the state to prove the defendant had an intent to kill George Floyd but it must prove that the defendant committed or attempted to commit the underlying felony of assault in the third degree.

There are two elements assault and third-degree. First, the defendant assaulted George Floyd. Assault is intentional infliction of bodily harm upon another or the intent to inflict bodily harm upon another. The intentional infliction of bodily harm requires proof that defendant intentionally applied unlawful force to a person without that person's consent and that this act resulted in bodily harm.

Second, defendant inflicted substantial bodily harm on George Floyd. It is not necessary for the state to prove that the defendant intended to inflict substantial bodily harm or knew that his actions would inflict substantial bodily harm. Only that the defendant intended to commit the assault and that George Floyd sustained substantial bodily harm as a result of the assault.

Fourth element, the defendant's act took place on or about May 25th, 2020 in Hennepin County. If you find each of these elements have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is guilty of this charge.

If you find that any of the elements have not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is not guilty of this charge. Unless you find the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is liable for this crime committed by another person or persons according to the instructions below that is on page eight under the heading, liability from crimes of another.

The defendant is charged in count two with murder in the third-degree in connection with the death of George Floyd. Under Minnesota law, a person causing the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind without regard for human life but without intent to cause the death of any person is guilty of murder in the third-degree. The defendant is charged with committing this crime or intentionally aiding the commission of this crime.

The elements of the crime of murder in the third-degree are, first element, the death of George Floyd must be proven. Second element, the defendant caused the death of George Floyd. Third element, the defendant caused the death of George Floyd by an intentional act that was eminently dangerous to other persons.

[10:20:04]

A person commits an act eminently dangerous to others when the act is highly likely to cause death.

Fourth element, defendant acted with a mental state consisting of reckless disregard for human life. The defendant's act may not have been specifically intended to cause death and may not have been specifically directed at the particular person whose death occurred, but must have been committed with a conscious indifference to the loss of life that the eminently dangerous act could cause.

Fifth element, the defendant's act took place on or about May 25th, 2020 in Hennepin County. If you find that each of these elements has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is guilty of this charge.

If you find that any of these elements has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is not guilty of this charge, unless you find the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is liable for this crime committed by another person or persons according to the instructions that are listed on page eight under the heading liability for crimes of another.

The defendant is charged in count with manslaughter in the second- degree in connection with the death of George Floyd. Under Minnesota law, whoever by culpable negligence whereby he creates an unreasonable risk and consciously takes the chance of causing death or great bodily harm to another person, causes the death of another is guilty of murder of manslaughter in the second-degree. The defendant is charged with committing this crime or intensely aiding the commission of this crime.

The elements of manslaughter in the second-degree are, first element, the death of George Floyd must be proven. Second element, the defendant caused the death of George Floyd by culpable negligence, whereby the defendant created an unreasonable risk and consciously took a chance of causing death or great bodily harm.

Culpable negligence is intentional conduct of the defendant may not have intended to be harmful but that an ordinary and reasonably prudent person would recognize as involving a strong probability of injury to others. Third element, the defendant's act took place on our about May 25th, 2020 in Hennepin County.

If you find each of the elements is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is guilty of this charge. If you find that any of these elements has not been proven beyond ant reasonable doubt, the defendant is not guilty of this charge. Unless you find state proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is liable for this crime committed by another person or persons according to the following instruction on liability for crimes of another.

The following instructions applied to all three of the charges I've just given you. The defendant is guilty of a crime committed by another person or persons only if the defendant has played an intentional role in aiding the commission of that crime and made no reasonable effort to prevent the crime before it was committed. Intentional role includes intentionally aiding, advising, hiring, counseling, conspiring with, or procuring another to commit the crime.

The defendant's presence or actions constitute intentionally aiding only if at first the defendant knew another person or persons were going to commit or were committing a crime. Second, the defendant intended that his presence or actions aid the commission of that crime. If the defendant intentionally aided another person or persons in committing a crime or intentionally advised, hired, counseled, conspired with or otherwise procured the other person or persons to commit it.

The defendant is also guilty of any other crime the other person or persons commit while trying to commit the intended crime if that other crime was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant, as a probable consequence of trying to commit the intended crime.

The defendant is guilty of the crime under this theory of intentionally aiding in the commission of a crime by another person or persons only if the other person or persons commit the crime. The defendant is not guilty for aiding, advising, hiring, counseling, conspiring, or otherwise procuring the commission of one of the charged crimes unless that crime is actually committed.

The defendant -- or the state, rather, the state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally aided another person in committing the charged crime.

No crime is committed if a police officer's actions were justified by the police officer's use of reasonable force in the line of duty in effecting a lawful arrest or preventing an escape from custody. The kind and degree of force a police officer may lawfully use in executing his duties is limited by what a reasonable police officer in the same situation would believe to be necessary. Any use of force beyond that is not reasonable.

To determine if the actions of the police officer were reasonable, you must look at those facts, which a reasonable officer in the same situation would have known at the precise moment the officer acted with force.

[10:25:03] You must decide whether the officer's actions were objectively reasonable in light of the totality of the facts and circumstances confronting the officer and without regard to the officer's own subjective state of mind, intentions or motivations.

The defendant is not guilty of a crime if he used force as authorized by law. To prove guilt, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's use of force was not authorized by law.

You are the sole judges of whether a witness is to be believed and of weight to be given a witness' testimony. There are no hard and fast rules to guide you in this respect. In determining believability and weight of testimony, you may take into consideration the witness' interest or lack of interest in the outcome of the --

HARLOW: Okay. So what just happened is that it looks like the feed, the live audio and video feed from the Minneapolis courtroom just froze. Obviously, we're waiting to get it back.

But, Jim, he was instructing the jury, lengthy instruction there's, even before the closing arguments begin here in what should be just a few minutes.

SCIUTTO: That's right. You get a sense of what is before the jury here. For instance, he brought up this concept of a superseding cause. In other words, when they judge what caused Floyd's death, by the way, as Laura Coates and others noted, it doesn't have to be one thing. In other words, the knee on the neck can be a substantial cause, not the only cause. But he does describe this concept of a superseding cause.

Laura Coates, you were watching the judge's instructions there. What struck you about that? What challenge does it present to the jury?

COATES: Well, first of all, if you're the prosecution, you are thrilled that jury instructions are not following you, because now you have the last word in front of the jury if you rebutt the defense. That's a huge advantage for prosecutors to have the last word.

The idea here though, superseding vent, remember, Derek Chauvin's kneeling and his failure to render aid need not have been the sole cause of death. It had to substantially factor into it. So if there was something else, like an alien space ship came down and suddenly they were able to intercept this entire event, then, no, Derek Chauvin would probably not be guilty. However, that did not happen.

The idea of a superseding event means something that no one could predict, that was not a natural consequence of an unreasonable use of force, they could not be liable. For example, the carbon monoxide theory here, this is where this will factor in. Remember, carbon monoxide poisoning obviously deadly.

But if by the use of a restraint that kept him in a prone handcuffed position with his head facing an exhaust pipe if, that was a natural result of that restraint on unreasonable force, then that is not a superseding event. That is the natural cause and reaction to what already happened, so every aspect of this which actually very clear for (ph).

HARLOW: The jury, Charles Ramsey, is sequestered now. All right, it's back. Let's listen in.

CAHILL: -- on the physical well-being of George Floyd. This evidence is not to be used as evidence of the character of George Floyd.

During the testimony of some witnesses, the parties introduced demonstrative exhibits in the form of charts, summaries and animated videos. This information was presented to assist you as an aid in your understanding of the witness' testimony and to help explain the facts disclosed by the records, other documents, testimony and other evidence that was received during the trial.

If any chart, summary or animated video is not consistent with the facts or figures shown by evidence in the case as you find them, you should disregard the chart or summary or animated video and determine the facts from the underlying evidence.

Earlier during these instructions, I defined certain words and phrases, and you are to use those definitions in your deliberations. If I have not defined a word or phrase, you shall apply the common ordinary meaning of that word or phrase.

During this trial, I ruled on objections to certain testimony and exhibits. You must not concern yourself with the reasons for the rulings since they are controlled by the rules of evidence. By admitting into evidence testimony and exhibits as to which objection was made, I did not intend to indicate the weight to be given such testimony and evidence.

You are not to speculate as to possible answers to questions I did not require to be answered. You are to disregard all evidence and statements of attorneys that I have ordered stricken or have told you to disregard.

With that, I ask you to put your instructions under your chair as we listen to the closing arguments of counsel.

Is the state ready to proceed with closing?

STEVE SCHLEICHER, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY: Yes, your honor.

CAHILL: Mr. Schleicher, You may proceed.

SCHLEICHLER: Thank you.

[10:30:00]