Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Defamation Ruling Adds To Drumbeat Of Bad News For FOX Network; Prosecution Resumes Cross-Examination Of Former Police Officer Kim Potter. Aired 2:30-3p ET
Aired December 17, 2021 - 14:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[14:30:00]
OLIVER DARCY, CNN SENIOR MEDIA REPORTER: I think this has been a terrible week for FOX.
You know, first, they started, you lost Chris Wallace. So FOX is right-wing network. They lean hard on the conspiratorial programing.
But they say, we have Chris Wallace. He's a well-respected journalist. And they could point to him as a sign of credibility. They can't do that anymore.
And then, fast forward a couple of days, they had the text messages, which were embarrassing for the network that were released in the January 6th hearing.
And then smaller stuff as well. They had an anti-Semitic cartoon they have had to take down for instance.
So just a very bad week for FOX News.
ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: Well, we're happy Chris Wallace is joining us. So that is a good thing.
Oliver, nice to see you. Thank you.
DARCY: Thanks.
HILL: Former police Officer, Kim Potter, on trial for fatally shooting Daunte Wright during a traffic stop, set to get back on the stand in her own defense in just a few minutes. We'll be live for you at the courthouse in Minneapolis. Stay with us.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(CRYING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
REGINA CHU, HENNEPIN COUNTY JUDGE: OK, please be seated.
Counsel, you may continue. ERIN ELDRIDGE, HENNEPIN COUNTY ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Thank you,
Your Honor.
Miss Potter, before we left for the break, we were walking through what happened on April 11th.
For a large part of the interaction at the site of the car with Mr. Wright, you were standing behind Officer Luckey, right?
KIMBERLY POTTER, FORMER BROOKLYN CENTER POLICE OFFICER CHARGED WITH MANSLAUGHTER: I was next to him at some point.
ELDRIDGE: OK. And you testified on direction that, after you saw a scared look in Sergeant Johnson's face, that is why you decided to use the taser? This was your testimony?
POTTER: Yes.
ELDRIDGE: But you also told Dr. Miller that you don't know why you decided to use the taser, right?
POTTER: I haven't seen his report.
ELDRIDGE: Would it refresh your recollection to see his report?
POTTER: Yes, please.
ELDRIDGE: May I approach, Your Honor?
CHU: You may.
[14:35:03]
ELDRIDGE: Did you have a chance to look at that, Miss Potter?
POTTER: Yes.
ELDRIDGE: And did you see the portion where it explains, when asked by this examiner why she decided to draw her taser, Officer Potter states, "I don't have an answer, my brain said grab the taser."
Do you recall that?
POTTER: I don't recall it but it is in his paperwork.
ELDRIDGE: So, on April 11th, you reached out and drew your weapon, right?
POTTER: Yes.
ELDRIDGE: And you said, "taser, taser, taser," so Officer Luckey and Sergeant Johnson would disengage, right?
POTTER: Yes.
ELDRIDGE: And they did disengage, didn't they? They let go of Daunte Wright and stepped back.
POTTER: According to the video.
ELDRIDGE: And after you so the Daunte Wright, you said, "shit, I just shot him. I grabbed the wrong (EXPLETIVE DELETED) gun and I shot him and I'm going to go to prison and I killed a boy."
You said all of those things, right?
POTTER: I don't remember.
ELDRIDGE: If that was in the video, that is what you said, right?
POTTER: Yes.
ELDRIDGE: And you said that there are a lot of things that you don't remember, and that on direct you testified that your memory came back when you saw her husband that day.
But didn't you tell Dr. Miller that you remember seeing the gun in your right hand? You said that, right?
POTTER: I don't remember my interview with him. I was distraught. I wasn't in a good place.
ELDRIDGE: After you shot Daunte Wright, you didn't behave like someone who had just saved Sergeant Johnson's life, did you?
POTTER: I was very distraught. I'd just shot somebody. I've never done that.
ELDRIDGE: You never asked Sergeant Johnson if he was OK, right?
POTTER: I don't remember the conversations.
ELDRIDGE: And you didn't check in on him at all, right?
POTTER: I don't know.
ELDRIDGE: Well you saw the video, when Sergeant Johnson said to you the line, that guy was trying to take off with me, you didn't bite, right? You didn't respond to that at all, did you?
POTTER: The video, I was crying, I was in shock.
ELDRIDGE: And he was trying to make you feel better, wasn't he?
(CROSSTALK)
EARL GRAY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Objection --
(CROSSTALK)
CHU: The objection is sustained.
ELDRIDGE: Well, he didn't remember saying it, right? You heard that testimony?
POTTER: Yes.
ELDRIDGE: And you don't remember him saying that, right?
POTTER: No.
ELDRIDGE: And you didn't say anything like, thank god I shot that guy and saved your life. You didn't say anything like that?
GRAY: Objection, argumentative.
CHU: The objection is overruled.
ELDRIDGE: You didn't say that, right?
POTTER: No.
ELDRIDGE: And you didn't ask Sergeant Johnson anything except to call Chuck, right?
POTTER: I don't remember what I asked him.
ELDRIDGE: That would be on the video, right?
POTTER: Yes.
ELDRIDGE: You would agree that, as a police officer, you have the duty to render aid and communicate information to other officers, right?
POTTER: Yes.
ELDRIDGE: And as part of your job, to assist those who are hurt or injured, true?
POTTER: Yes.
ELDRIDGE: And to communicate to other officers what you know about a particular scene, right?
POTTER: Yes.
ELDRIDGE: Give them whatever information you can to help them do their jobs to help render assistance, things like that? Right?
POTTER: Yes.
ELDRIDGE: But you didn't do any of those things on April 11th, did you?
POTTER: No.
ELDRIDGE: You stopped doing your job completely. You didn't communicate over the radio, right?
POTTER: No. ELDRIDGE: You didn't make sure any officers knew what you had just
done, right?
POTTER: No.
ELDRIDGE: You didn't run down the street and try to save Daunte Wright's life, did you?
POTTER: No.
ELDRIDGE: You didn't check on the other car that had been hit, did you?
POTTER: No.
ELDRIDGE: That all happened just down the road from you?
POTTER: Yes.
ELDRIDGE: And you were focus on what you had done, because you had just killed somebody?
POTTER: I'm sorry it happened.
(CRYING)
[14:40:04]
POTTER: I'm so sorry.
ELDRIDGE: Miss Potter, from your reaction today, and from your reaction on your video, you didn't plan to use deadly force that day, did you?
POTTER: No.
ELDRIDGE: You didn't want to use deadly force, did you?
GRAY: Objection, relevance.
(CROSSTALK)
CHU: The -- the objection is overruled.
POTTER: No. No.
ELDRIDGE: Because you knew that deadly force was unreasonable and unwarranted in these circumstances.
POTTER: Because I didn't want to hurt anybody.
ELDRIDGE: You didn't want to hurt anybody?
POTTER: No.
ELDRIDGE: And that is why you said I'm going to go to prison. POTTER: I don't --
(CROSSTALK)
GRAY: Asked three times now, Your Honor. Repetition.
CHU: All right. The objection is sustained.
ELDRIDGE: Miss Potter, you know the difference between left and right, don't you?
GRAY: Objection. She's asked that before. It's argumentative.
ELDRIDGE: It is not asked.
CHU: The objection is sustained. Argumentative.
ELDRIDGE: Nothing further, Your Honor.
CHU: Miss Potter, do you need a break?
ELDRIDGE: No.
CHU: OK.
(CROSSTALK)
GRAY: Just going to ask you a few questions. Do you remember your visit by Zoom with Dr. Miller? A little bit, at least?
POTTER: We had a Zoom interview, yes.
GRAY: OK. And that was Miller in Florida, correct, as far as we know?
POTTER: Yes.
GRAY: And you and me were in my office, correct.
POTTER: Yes.
GRAY: And that is the first time that you had ever seen any of the video, correct?
POTTER: Yes.
GRAY: And were you able to watch it?
POTTER: No.
GRAY: And you did tell Mr. Miller that, when Wright pulled away and got back into the driver's seat of the car, which was still running, Potter -- that is you -- could observe Johnson and Luckey struggling over the console. And it appeared that Johnson was trying to prevent Wright from putting the car in drive.
ELDRIDGE: Objection, leading. CHU: The objection is overruled.
GRAY: If you don't remember that, because it was a while ago, I could show it to you to refresh your memory.
POTTER: I don't remember.
GRAY: May I approach, Your Honor?
CHU: You may.
GRAY: Read to yourself, Miss Potter, the last sentence of the second to the last paragraph.
Does that refresh your memory as to what you told him?
POTTER: Yes.
GRAY: And did you tell him that?
POTTER: (INAUDIBLE)
GRAY: Pardon me. I didn't hear you.
POTTER: If it is in there, I must have. That day is so blurry.
GRAY: Did you also tell him that you yelled "taser, taser, taser" so your partners would disengage from Wright?
POTTER: Yes.
GRAY: And just a few more questions here.
Would it be routine thinking, back when you were a law enforcement officer for 26 years, would it be routine for you to unsnap your holster on the way to a car.
POTTER: No.
GRAY: And why not?
POTTER: I'm only 5'3". If I were to get into a fight I could lose my gun.
GRAY: Did you ever in your career shoot your gun at anybody?
[14:45:06]
POTTER: No.
GRAY: Did you ever shoot your gun in real life during your career?
POTTER: No.
GRAY: And did you ever shoot your taser during your career?
POTTER: It was never deployed.
GRAY: Is that what it means?
POTTER: Yes.
GRAY: And that would be real life. That would be -- when you have to use those weapons that would mean it is an emergency situation, would it not?
POTTER: (INAUDIBLE)
GRAY: And what it means to you --
(CROSSTALK)
ELDRIDGE: Objection.
CHU: Sustained.
GRAY: Sorry. Thank you, Judge.
What would that mean if you had to shoot your weapon?
POTTER: That I might kill somebody.
GRAY: When you three law enforcement officers -- and excuse me, by the way, as far as reporting this shooting, would it be Sergeant Johnson, your boss. would be the one that would be required to do that?
ELDRIDGE: Objection, leading.
CHU: Rephrase it.
(CROSSTALK)
GRAY: Who would be required, according to policy, to report the shooting? Would it be the shooter or the other person who was in charge there?
POTTER: On that scene, it would have been Sergeant Johnson.
GRAY: Because he was your supervisor, correct?
POTTER: Yes.
GRAY: And now I have a couple more questions.
If you stopped a vehicle in Brooklyn Center and you learned there was a bench warrant for a weapons violation, you learned there was a temporary restraining order a female has lodged against the person that said he was in the car, that gave his -- but he did really -- did Mr. Wright ever give a valid identification for himself?
POTTER: No.
GRAY: And the other officer -- now you've got no valid information. You have a gross misdemeanor and a temporary restraining order. You have marijuana smelled by your partner. You got no license, no insurance.
Would you let that car go? If you went up to it and were attempting to handcuff the individual and the car and he jumped back in, would you have thought you should let him go, ride down the street?
POTTER: No.
GRAY: Talk about the restraining order. If you learned there was a temporary restraining order, is it protocol, is it policy to, as soon as you learn that, jump out of the passenger side, run up to the car and ask the lady what her name was?
Has that ever been heard of in police practice that you've hear heard of?
POTTER: No.
GRAY: Thank you, ma'am.
That is all I have.
CHU: Is there any recross?
ELDRIDGE: Yes, Your Honor.
Miss Potter. you were asked about some statements that you made to Dr. Miller on redirect. Right?
POTTER: Yes.
ELDRIDGE: You also told Dr. Miller that you resigned on April 12th to protect your police family, right?
GRAY: Objection, recross-examination and --
(CROSSTALK)
ELDRIDGE: Your Honor, these statements are at issue.
CHU: I'm going to overrule the objection.
You may answer that.
ELDRIDGE: You told him that, right?
POTTER: Can you repeat the question?
ELDRIDGE: You told Dr. Miller that you resigned on April 12th to protect your police family, right?
POTTER: If it is in the report, yes. I haven't seen the report except today.
ELDRIDGE: Well, if it is in the report that you also said that they're they are very important people to you, would that be accurate?
POTTER: Yes.
ELDRIDGE: You have a very close relationship with the police officers, other individuals you work with or used to work with at Brooklyn Center, right?
[14:50:04]
POTTER: Some of them.
ELDRIDGE: Sergeant Johnson is a good friend of yours?
GRAY: Your Honor, I object. This is outside the scope.
CHU: The objection is sustained, beyond the scope.
ELDRIDGE: You also told Dr. Miller that you don't make mistakes, right? You told him that?
POTTER: If it's in the report, yes.
ELDRIDGE: And you told him that you don't want to hurt or injure anybody? Right?
POTTER: Right.
ELDRIDGE: But you mentioned to Dr. Miller your relationship with the individuals that you work with, right?
POTTER: Yes.
ELDRIDGE: And that was very important to you, right?
POTTER: Yes.
ELDRIDGE: You advocated for their interests in a lot of settings, didn't you, for the people that you worked with?
POTTER: I advocate for everybody.
ELDRIDGE: You had a very close relationship with them? You've referred to Sergeant Johnson as a rock star, haven't you?
POTTER: I don't know when I would have done that.
ELDRIDGE: Nothing further, Your Honor.
CHU: Go ahead, Mr. Gray.
GRAY: In all of your years there, as experience in all of the patrols that you've conducted, did you have to rely on your partners for assistance anytime you did a stop or an investigation of any nature?
POTTER: Yes.
GRAY: And that would be the family of the police department at Brooklyn Center, correct?
POTTER: Yes.
GRAY: And they were your second family, weren't they?
POTTER: Yes.
GRAY: As far as complaints, in the 26 years that you were a police officer, did you ever have one citizen complaint?
ELDRIDGE: Objection, Your Honor, to the scope.
CHU: The objection is sustained, beyond the scope.
GRAY: I have no further questions.
CHU: Any further cross?
ELDRIDGE: No, Your Honor.
CHU: You may step down.
POTTER: Thank you.
GRAY: Defense rests.
ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: So you've just been watching testimony from Kim Potter who, of course, is accused of killing Daunte Wright during a traffic stop in April.
Joining me now, CNN senior legal analyst, Elie Honig, and Alexis Hoag, professor at Brooklyn Law School.
It's good to have both of you with us as we're watching this trial.
You know, full disclosure, Elie, I was texting you some questions earlier as we were waiting this.
I think the main question most people have whenever they see a defendant take the stand is, was that the right move? Based on what we saw, a very emotional Kim Potter. Was this smart?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: I don't think so, Erica. I think overall that went quite poorly for Kim Potter.
On one hand, she did manage to humanize herself, to portray herself as not just a police officer but a mother and a wife and a real human being.
And they managed to get through this idea that she does not have some sort of bad record. She's not a loose cannon, she had no complaints about her. She never discharged her weapon.
However, on cross examination, a couple of big problems. The prosecution really slowed down the case, the actual incident, and I think showed the jury that Kim Potter made a series of mistakes, one on top of the other.
Really, when you add them all up, I think the argument from the prosecution is inexcusable, negligent and reckless. And that's what they need to show here.
Also, the other thing that was really important on cross examination, the prosecutor exposed a big discrepancy in Kim Potter's statement.
She showed Kim Potter, you testified to this jury that the reason you tried to tase Daunte Wright is because you saw this scared look in your partner, officer's eyes.
However, it turns out Kim Potter said something very differently to the doctor back then. She said I don't know why I reached for my taser.
That's a big discrepancy. And that really hurts her credibility. And that's going stick with the jury.
HILL: It's interesting, as we watched in this prosecution, we were watching most of the cross examination, she was very specific, too, in talking about, you were focused on what you had done, even in those moments after.
That statement about, I saw the fear in the officer's eyes. That's why I reached for my taser. But then the prosecutor went through, well, what did you actually do in those moments afterwards?
ALEXIS HOAG, PROFESSOR, BROOKLYN LAW SCHOOL: Exactly. As Elie pointed out, on direct, she said, I've never seen fear like that in my partner's eyes.
And in Dr. Miller's statement shortly after the event, we see that there was not actually imminent fear of life. And that's the kind of force -- or the fear, rather, that's required for the use of lethal force.
It's either she believes that an imminent threat to her own life or to bystanders, including her colleague, Officer Johnson. And we didn't have that here.
[14:55:06]
The other thing I want to stress is this idea about fear, about the imminence of fear. We cannot divorce that from the fact this is a young black motorist.
And not just with law enforcement but society at large, there's a presumption of criminality and dangerousness when people encounter black people.
And we can't not think about that in this case. And so that's something that is playing on the minds of everyone in the courtroom, including jurors.
And I also want to underscore the fact that, even though we have Officer Potter displaying great emotion during his testimony. She can be sorry, she can feel bad, she cannot mean to kill someone.
But specific intent is not required here, only recklessness and negligence. Because we have here charged first- and second-degree manslaughter.
HILL: As we look at this, I think you make sufficient a great point about her saying, I saw the fear, this fear of young black men.
The reality, too, is she's a police officer with decades of experience. That also has to figure in, right?
When you're looking at the actions and the decisions that were made, do you think that was drilled down on enough?
HOAG: It was. And that's the risk she has with opening herself up to cross examination.
Is that we saw the prosecution here really focus in on the fact that she has 26 years of experience, almost two decades of experience using a taser.
We know that she holds -- she carries her taser on her non-dominant side, which is her left side and the gun on the right side.
A gun, a .9-millimeter weighs over two pounds, a taser weighs less than one pound. With that kind of two decades worth of experience, that's not something that an experienced officer makes mistake on.
HILL: Elie, this is a lot of what we heard, too, not just on the difference in size and placements, the certifications, what this looked like through the years.
So much of this, it was interesting, looking at notes from our pool reporters, the pool report is that the jury really perked up when she began to testify about her recollection on the day of the shooting.
Is there anything that we can read into that?
HONIG: Yes, Erica, that's really the heart of the case. It's not so much about her prior 26 years. It's about those crucial moments.
And I think the prosecution did a good job of slowing it down. Saying, you had all this training. You reached for the wrong side. You grabbed an object, which is very different, in ways Professor Hoag just laid out, from a gun.
And another thing that can happen sometimes, I think we just saw it. Sometimes in trial practice. the witness himself or herself can be your best exhibit, your best demonstration.
Kim Potter kept on breaking down during her own testimony, during the cross examination. She just could not keep herself together.
And what that I think that conveys to the jury is sort of the essence of the prosecutor's case, which is panic. This is a person who got in a stressful situation then during the
traffic stop, now on the stand, and just freezes up and can't control herself and can't conduct herself appropriately.
If I'm arguing this case to the jury, I'm saying, you saw it, ladies and gentlemen. On the stand, you saw a person who's not equipped to deal with a stressful situation.
And that's the negligence and recklessness that's charged here.
HILL: This is another case where we talk so much lately in these cases that we are all following that we are all watching about the importance of video evidence, in this case audio evidence as well, as we hear her in those moments afterwards.
How important has the evidence been specifically in this case in terms of slowing things down, as both you and Elie have pointed out, and painting that sort of minute-by-minute or really second-by-second picture?
HOAG: They're critical. And we have body cam footage I think from all three of the officers and it's been displayed and enter into evidence.
We're seeing different perspectives. We're seeing actually the hands of Officer Potter, and she's reaching clearly holding onto the wrong weapon.
And when you see visual displays of evidence like that, it's often much more impactful on a jury than the verbal recitation, the recollection
We see already that her memory is not really tight on what happened. She says, you know, everything sort of went blank. It didn't return to me until my husband came back and visited me afterwards.
And so this sort of video evidence is critical.
HILL: Elie, you said you were surprised. I'm paraphrasing there because I don't remember exactly your reaction. Basically, you were surprised they put her on the stand. She was perhaps not a great witness.
What do you think the calculus is? Is it perhaps the defense attorney knows she's going to be emotional and there's a hope that that makes a connection in some way with the jury?
HONIG: Yes, I think that's essentially the calculus here.
Anytime a defendant takes the stand in his or her own defense, that will become the pivotal moment in the trial. And I think that's the case here.
And I think the hope was let's humanize her. Let's let the jury see her as a mom, as a spouse, as a human being. It's much, much harder to convict a human being who you've seen and heard than just the defendant. [14:59:56]
That said, I think all the other factors really sort of backfired on them. And I don't know how sympathetic she became. When you cry every time you're asked any significant question of substance, I think it gets old with the jury.
And again, I think it shows a sort of lack of control, a lack of precision.
