Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Kimberly Potter Found Guilty On All Counts. Aired 2:30-3p ET
Aired December 23, 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]
ADRIENNE BROADDUS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Just moments ago, as you saw here on live TV, Judge Chu asked for the jury to be brought in.
Right now, defense attorney, Earl Gray, just put his arm around the back of Kimberly Potter.
She's waiting. She's wearing a cardigan. She appears to be breathing heavily as she waits to hear what this jury has decided.
POPPY HARLOW, CNN HOST: Adrienne, let's listen in.
JUDGE REGINA CHU, HENNEPIN COUNTY JUDGE: Will the deputy please retrieve the verdict forms and provide it to me for review?
Would Ms. Potter please rise?
I'm now going to read your verdicts as it will appear in the permanent court records of Hennepin County.
In the matter of state of Minnesota vs. Kimberly Potter, court file number 27 C.R.-217490, we, the jury, on the charge of manslaughter in the first degree while committing a misdemeanor on or about April 11, 2021, in Hennepin County, state of Minnesota, find the defendant guilty.
And the verdict was agreed to at the hour of 11:40 a.m. and signed by the jury person on 12/23/21.
The verdict on count two is, we, the jury, on the charge of manslaughter in the second degree, culpable negligence on or about April 11, 2021, in Hennepin County, state of Minnesota, find the defendant guilty.
And that verdict was agreed to at 10:30 a.m. on 12/21/21.
Members of the jury, is this your true and correct verdict, so say you one and so say you all?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Yes.
CHU: OK, you may be seated.
All right. I am now going to poll the jury.
Juror number two, is this your true and correct verdict?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: It is.
CHU: Juror number six, is this your true and correct verdict?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Yes, it is.
CHU: Juror number seven, is this your true and correct verdict?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Yes, it is.
CHU: Juror number 13, is this your true and correct verdict?
Excuse me. Juror 11?
And juror 17, is this your true and correct verdict?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Yes.
CHU: Juror number 19, is this your true and correct verdict?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Yes.
CHU: Juror number 21, is this your true and correct verdict?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Yes.
CHU: Juror number 22, is this your true and correct verdict?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Yes.
CHU: Juror number 26, is this your true and correct verdict?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Yes.
CHU: Juror number 40, is this your true and correct verdict?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Yes.
CHU: Juror number 48, is this your true and correct verdict?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Yes.
CHU: Juror number 55, is this your true and correct verdict?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Yes, it is.
CHU: Members of the jury, when you first came into the courtroom, I told you that jurors are the heroes of our judicial system. Well, the 12 of you are heroes in this case.
You might remember that there was a question on the questionnaire that asked whether you wanted to be on this jury. You were to check yes, no, or maybe.
A number of you checked "no" or "not sure" and a few of you checked all three.
But when I asked each of you if you would be willing to serve if the parties selected you as a juror, you all said, yes.
You said "yes" even though we are in a pandemic with Omicron spreading in our community.
You said "yes" even though you had concerns about serving, given the nature of the case.
You said "yes" even though you knew you would be sequestered during deliberations and away from your loved ones.
[14:35:01]
And you said "yes" even though there was a chance that this case could have lasted past Christmas.
You were willing to sacrifice much because you believed in our justice system.
And then you went into deliberations and each of you brought with you your common sense, individual perceptions, and life experiences, and you came to an agreement on the verdicts. You did your duty.
I'm so proud of you. You should be proud of yourselves.
Without civic-minded citizens like you, our system of justice could not function.
Thank you for your service. Thank you for your sacrifices.
I wish you all a wonderful holiday season and may the peace and beauty of the season be yours throughout the year.
At this time, I'd like you to go into your waiting courtroom, and I'll be in, in just a moment.
I'd like to thank you personally and to answer any questions that you have. OK?
OK, please be seated.
All right. Counsel, we have to pick a date, tentatively, for sentencing.
So, for in custody, we'll be taking Ms. Potter into custody and holding without bail.
So what is three weeks out? I think we probably want to do a tier four.
UNIDENTIFIED PROSECUTOR: So, we will be looking at January 13th or 14th. We can do 11:30 on either day for sentencing.
CHU: For sentencing.
UNIDENTIFIED DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Your Honor, PSI report?
CHU: Yes. I'm having a PSI report done.
UNIDENTIFIED PROSECUTOR: We are not available on the 13th. I believe we could do the 14th.
UNIDENTIFIED DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Your Honor, I'm in trial the week after that. And it does seem to be a little accelerated given the seriousness of the decision you're about to make. So, later in January would be our preference.
We also would like to talk about the bail issue before you decide it. Before you make a decision to take her in.
CHU: All right, I'll hear you out.
UNIDENTIFIED DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Go ahead.
CHU: You know, I think it would be easier for the court reporter if you went to the podium.
UNIDENTIFIED DEFENSE ATTORNEY: We both say a little bit, Judge.
CHU: Yes.
PAUL ENGH, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, there hasn't been a motion. I anticipate that you would file a motion but this argue window, they're going to file a motion to revoke her bail.
You know, we will be filing a motion for dispositional departure in the case. She is amenable to probation.
Her remorse and regret for the incident is overwhelming. She's not a danger to the public whatsoever. She has made all her court appearances, including all appearances in the court.
It is the Christmas holiday season. She is a devoted Catholic, no less.
And there's no point to incarcerate her at this point in time, because, A, you haven't decided what the sentence is going to be. B, the dispositional departure arguments are quite strong on this case. And, C, it's not necessary for the preservation of public safety.
So, for those reasons, she should not be incarcerated before sentencing. You can't certainly do it after sentencing.
But this is a rather unique case of someone who has law enforcement experience and was never in trouble in all her life and is 49, which is beyond the age of most defendants that you see.
Plus, she has deep roots in the community, and her family's here, and there's no evidence that she would flee.
[14:40:00]
So, we respectfully ask you to change your mind as to whether she needs to be incarcerated right now.
I know Mr. Gray has a couple of comments, too.
EARL GRAY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Your Honor, her bail right now is $100,000. She's got that posted. She's not going to run. She obviously is not going to commit any more crimes.
She's been convicted of an accident. She's been convicted of being reckless.
I just would like to be able to, with Paul, file a motion for dispositional departure in this case.
I think there are other facts that didn't come to light during the trial that are important also, about Kim Potter and about this case.
So, I respectfully request that you release her on her $100,000 bail. And that will make it easier to do the pre-sentence report. We'll get people sending letters on her behalf.
And I would ask for a sentencing sometime after -- if you release her, sometime -- I start a trial January 20th that should be over by February 20th, I hope. Sometime in late February.
And ask that she be -- my gosh, she's got a $100,000 bail out, Judge. But she's not going to commit another crime. She's not going anywhere.
Thank you.
CHU: Thank you.
Mr. Frank?
MATTHEW FRANK, LEAD PROSECUTOR & MINNESOTA ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Thank you, Your Honor.
We do request that the defendant be taken into custody. The convictions here are for manslaughter in the first degree, manslaughter in the second degree, based on the death of Daunte Wright, a young man.
In other words, it's a case that involves a death. They are very serious charges.
It is customary for defendants to be taken into custody upon a guilty verdict for those level of crimes, and we don't think this case should be any different.
Your Honor, we also have learned that the defendant is not living in the state. I don't know if that was known and provided for in the original conditions of release, but presents, obviously, an aggravating factor for allowing her to remain out of custody.
So, we are requesting that the state remand her into custody and withdraw any bail or commissions of release.
Your Honor, we do have the Blakely issue to resolve and we would be asking some direction from the court on whether we should submit written arguments or propose findings or how the court exactly wants to address that.
We could have those findings, of course, for the actual sentencing hearing, and we would request a PSI as well.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE)
CHU: Yes?
GRAY: Serious crime, I understand that, but both of those crimes, there's no intent, no criminal intent. It's reckless. And culpable negligence.
Many times, in my career, I have had defendants convicted of culpable negligence -- I don't think I've ever had a reckless one -- but it's an unintentional crime by somebody with a clear record.
And we have a strong basis for dispositional departure. I ask the court to release her on the bail.
CHU: OK. The presumptive sentences in this case are commits, and I am going to require that she be taken into custody and held without bail.
And I recognize your arguments, Mr. Engh and Mr. Gray, but I cannot treat this case any differently than any other case.
So, I think we should probably set briefing deadlines. I know that the defense would like to make a written motion for dispositional departure.
And the state has the argument concerning aggravating Blakely factors that we should be briefing.
How much time does the defense need to put in their motion for dispositional departure?
GRAY: Well, at least one month. You know, we're backed up -- both of us are backed up on trials right now. I start one on the 20th as well.
CHU: OK.
GRAY: So, at least one month from the end of January, preferable.
CHU: OK. Pick a date in January, and I'll give the state what they need to respond.
GRAY: January 31st.
FRANK: January 31st? That's a Monday? CHU: OK. And how long would the state like to respond to the motion --
the sentencing motion?
[14:45:06]
UNIDENTIFIED PROSECUTOR: Could we have two weeks, Your Honor?
CHU: You may.
And that date would be, Zac?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: February 14th.
CHU: OK.
And, Mr. Frank, I think that the aggravating factors, we did the Blakely on a unitary basis, so no further evidence would be required. Correct?
FRANK: That's correct, Your Honor.
CHU: So, could you submit your brief on the aggravating factors? How much time do you need on that?
FRANK: Two weeks, Your Honor.
CHU: OK.
And the defense would need --
UNIDENTIFIED DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Two weeks after that.
CHU: OK.
And, Mr. Kramer, could you tell them what the dates are?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why don't we do them all on the 31st then? Submission for the defense.
CHU: OK.
Do you want to do them simultaneously on the 31st?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's fine, Your Honor.
CHU: OK.
All right. So, you want sentencing pushed back to February? All right. Because both of you -- late February?
All right. Let's pick a date.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We could do any time in the morning on February 23rd.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I have a trial on the 20th, too. I mean, all these cases were backed up because of this one, so the week after that would be great.
CHU: OK. That will push us to the first week of March. How about 9:00 a.m. on March 1st?
CHU: OK.
FRANK: What day of the week is that?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's a Tuesday.
FRANK: Your Honor, the state's not going to be available that week.
CHU: OK.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. March 8th at 9:00 a.m.?
FRANK: I'm sorry?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: March 8th at 9:00 a.m.
FRANK: We all have a state trial that week in March. If we could move it up a week in February, it would be better. Please?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. So, the first week of March, Mr. Frank?
FRANK: I think the third week of February.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. Well, we could do it February 18th, 9:00 a.m.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's my -- that's a Tuesday?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's a Friday.
GRAY: What date, Paul?
ENGH: February 18th.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. OK.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: February 18th, Judge.
CHU: Thank you.
All right. Is there anything else we need to put on the record?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, Your Honor. Thank you.
CHU: All right.
OK, thank you, counsel.
UNIDENTIFIED DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Love you, Kim.
KIMBERLY POTTER, FORMER OFFICER CONVICTED IN SHOOTING DEATH OF DAUNTE WRIGHT: Love you.
HARLOW: What you have just seen in that state courthouse in Hennepin County, Minnesota, is the jury returning a unanimous verdict of guilty on both counts, both manslaughter in the first degree and manslaughter in the second degree. against former Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, police officer, Kim Potter.
And let's take a moment here to show you the victim in all of this and that is Daunte Wright, 20 years old. Was killed after he was pulled over by a police officer.
There he is with his then 2-year-old son, Daunte Wright Jr.
His life was taken that day by then-Officer Potter, and she has been found guilty on both counts.
Let me bring in our entire legal team here, who's been following this throughout, along with our correspondent, Adrienne Broaddus, and Josh Campbell.
Elliot Williams, let me begin with you.
You've got a 15-year maximum sentence for the first-degree manslaughter count, 10 years for the second-degree manslaughter count.
And we just -- our viewers might not know what Blakely factors are. They just heard a lot of talk about that. Those are aggregating factors.
The prosecution here is going to push for a sentence longer than what we might normally see in a case like this because of aggregating factors, similar to what we saw in the Derek Chauvin trial.
What is your take on the verdict?
[14:50:01]
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Right, well, in light of the fact that the defendant didn't have a criminal history or, you know, it was an accidental shooting and so on, I think they're going to have a hard time getting aggravating factors in here.
But they're there. Number one, one will certainly be that the individual abused a position of trust.
She was given a firearm and was a trained police officer. So that may be one.
Typically -- and we know that the statutory maximum for that first- degree manslaughter charge is 15 years. Typically, someone without a criminal history would get, I believe, in Minnesota around seven years, in the middle of that range.
But we'll see what the prosecutors come forward with and how amenable the judge is. But that's what Blakely factors are. They exist in virtually all
criminal trials, things that make the crime sort of, for lack of a better way to put it, worse on account of the circumstances of the crime or the circumstances of who the defendant is or was.
HARLOW: Yes, yes.
Adrienne Broaddus, we were waiting for this four days of jury deliberation.
And let's remind our viewers that there comes a point, Adrienne, where this jury felt as though it may not be able to reach a unanimous verdict.
They submitted a question to Judge Chu asking the judge, what do we do, they said, if the jury cannot reach consensus, what is the guidance around how long and what steps should be taken?
And the judge ordered them to do their best, to do their best, and follow their belief to come to a verdict that they believe is accurate and just. And they did.
BROADDUS: That was on Tuesday when members of the jury wanted to know what steps they should take and how long they should deliberate.
Judge Chu told them to deliberate with a view in mind toward reaching an agreement. And we saw that agreement just moments ago.
The former Brooklyn Center police officer, who dedicated 26 years of her life protecting and serving, was led away in handcuffs here at the Hennepin County courthouse by Hennepin County sheriffs after this jury of 12 found her guilty on both counts.
And this all started back in April over a traffic stop. You showed the picture. You talked about Daunte Wright.
That day, he was excited, his family tells me, because he just received a new car. It wasn't brand new, but it was passed down from someone else in his family.
He was going to get the car washed. And in his vehicle, he had one of these, a car freshener in the shape of a tree, hanging. And in the state of Minnesota, it's illegal to have anything obstruct your view.
And when Potter testified, she said, had she been working alone that day, she never would have pulled Daunte Wright over.
As the verdict was read, she stood silently. She did not cry, from what I saw from our vantage point, when the first count was read, the first-degree manslaughter. She looked down.
When the guilty verdict was read on the second count, she closed her eyes.
More reaction, notably, from her defense attorney, Earl Gray. After the jury was excused, he sat down. At one point, he buried his hands in his head.
So here we have it. After a week of waiting -- 25 hours this jury deliberated. They heard from multiple witnesses, 33 to be exact.
HARLOW: Yes.
BROADDUS: Eight called by the defense. They have decided the future of Kim Potter -- Poppy?
HARLOW: Adrienne, thank you. Stay with us. And thank you for your reporting, Adrienne, throughout this trial.
You know, Josh Campbell, it is rare for police officers to be charged. It's even more rare for police officers in this country to be convicted.
And let's remember, the first manslaughter charge was only brought in September. It was brought after outcry from Daunte Wright's family that the second-degree manslaughter charge wasn't enough.
JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: That's right. And what we've seen is similar to what happened in that same courthouse involving the trial of former officer, Derek Chauvin.
Which, by the way, this prosecution team was the same team that prosecuted him under the leadership of the attorney general there, Keith Ellison.
And we've seen this, which you don't often see, as you point out, where an officer who wore the badge is then prosecuted by the very state that that person once worked for.
But prosecutors here pointed out that this was an officer who violated her duty. From the beginning, prosecutors said this was a betrayal of her badge, of her oath, of her public trust. They found it warranted to file charges.
One thing that made this case so complex, so fascinating is that neither the prosecution, nor the defense, disputed the idea that this was, indeed, a mistake. She was prosecuted for murder.
HARLOW: Right.
CAMPBELL: Both sides saying it was a mistake. But the prosecution said it was a criminal mistake, that an officer of her seniority should have known the difference between her taser and her firearm.
[14:55:01]
You know, one that, you know, for all who have been watching this trial, that we thought from the beginning this was a bold move by the defense, is they seemed to want to put Daunte Wright on trial.
When you had Kim Potter's attorney saying that, had Wright complied, none of this would have happened. Of course, you see on the video he was resisting. But that's seen as a
bold move. The jury obviously not buying that, finding this officer actually accountable..
What we saw here with this unanimous verdict on charges of first- and second-degree manslaughter is the defining aspect of the U.S. justice system.
Where the court calls up ordinary citizens, has them listen to evidence and sit in judgment of a fellow citizen, the jury determining today that this former officer was guilty of her crimes.
HARLOW: Yes.
And you saw Judge Chu thank the jury for doing that, especially under the circumstances that they are under right now.
Page Pate, to you.
It was interesting to watch the defense attorneys take to the podium there and ask for the judge to allow bail to be revoked, to allow her essentially to go home until sentencing, which will be February 18th.
And I think it's notable and important that Judge Chu said no, and I cannot and I will not treat this case differently than any other.
PAGE PATE, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I agree, Poppy. I think it was important for the court to recognize that this defendant, now having been convicted, was just like any other defendant who has been convicted.
Even though she has a record of long service to the community, she's been convicted by the community, a very serious charge. I think with any other defendant that person would go into custody at this point.
But you have to understand the basis for asking. I know it was difficult. The defense lawyers just took a punch in the gut, I think, with this verdict. Obviously, they were expecting something different.
And then to have her yanked out of the courtroom, taken into custody away from her family, they were doing what they could to fight for her and give her those last few moments of freedom, but the judge ruled, I think, the correct way.
HARLOW: You know, Elliott, what has also changed -- I've been getting messages from viewers and others, who say it feels like something has changed, particularly in the state of Minnesota.
We saw the murder conviction on all counts of Derek Chauvin and now this.
The Brooklyn Center Police Department also changed additionally in September how it instructed its officers, instructing them to release people cited for low-level crimes and only take them into custody if required by law.
And that is obviously in response to why Daunte Wright was pulled over in the first place.
WILLIAMS: Right. Look, it's an interesting question. Because we talked earlier about negligence and mistakes and accidents and how the extent to which the criminal justice system excuses a mistake or accident.
You're also going to have fewer of them if you're pulling over fewer people for minor offenses, namely one being the air freshener issue.
There might be some public policy reason for stopping people who have air fresheners hanging down from their cars. But at the end of the day, it's not the kind of offense that ought to end in a homicide, regardless of how harmless it was.
As I said sort of earlier, this could have come out either way based on, number one, how people tend to credit the testimony of police officers and the grace extended often to police officers in the use of lethal force, whether accidental or intentional. But it didn't here.
There's a number of places in the evidence here, starting with her statement, like the repeated use of the word taser, suggests that she just either wasn't trained properly or something didn't soak in about which gun she had or what she was holding in her hand at that given point.
There's a lot of failures along the way.
It is good that the state of Minnesota has used this as a teachable moment. But at the end of the day, that's not going to bring Daunte Wright home to his family.
HARLOW: No.
WILLIAMS: This is an unspeakable tragedy.
HARLOW: Right.
WILLIAMS: And, yes, we can say mistakes happen, but some are far more consequential than others and ought to have criminal consequences.
HARLOW: And, right, it doesn't bring Daunte back to his mother, who we saw on the stand in tears, or to his son, mis two-year-old son who will never get to be with his father again.
I appreciate you all. Please stick around as we continue to follow this breaking news.
It is the top of the hour right here on CNN. I'm Poppy Harlow. I'm so glad you're with me this afternoon.
Breaking news, just moments ago, a guilty verdict on all counts, both counts in the manslaughter trial of the former Minnesota police officer, Kimberly Potter.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[14:59:41] CHU: -- court file number 27 C.R.-217490. We, the jury, on the charge of manslaughter in the first degree while committing a misdemeanor on or about April 11, 2021, in Hennepin County, state of Minnesota, find the defendant guilty.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARLOW: The former Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, police officer killed 20-year-old Daunte Wright during a traffic stop in April.
