Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Defense Gives Closing Argument In Chauvin Murder Trial. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired April 19, 2021 - 12:30   ET

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

[12:30:00]

ADRIENNE BROADDUS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Later this week on Wednesday, Minneapolis public schools will return to remote learning, this just after reopening. Keep in mind the schools have been closed because of the pandemic.

But there's one thing some folks have texted me during the closing arguments there, saying the message was not only a message to the jury on why they should convict Chauvin, but they also felt that message that they heard this morning, the closing argument was part of healing. Listen in to what Saint Paul's Mayor had to say, Mayor Carter.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR MELVIN CARTER (D), SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA: At some point, this trial also becomes a trial of our criminal justice system, a trial of our court system. If this system is capable yet of valuing black and brown lives, we're going to see that and we fully expect that if the answer, again, is no, that people will be very frustrated. Our goal is to channel that frustration, that anger, that energy into ways that are constructed to help us build a better future for our children, and not in ways that are destructive.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROADDUS: And community leaders are already trying to channel that energy instead of yelling and protesting in the streets. They've been working behind doors, talking about how they can solve the problem moving forward. John?

JOHN KING, CNN HOST: Adrienne Broaddus, grateful you're on the ground for us in Minneapolis at this key moment. We will stay in touch in the days ahead. Adrienne, thank you very much.

Now, let's walk through as we wait for the closing arguments to resume again, Mr. Nelson, the defense attorney will speak any moment when court resumes. Let's walk through what we've learned so far, specifically what the jury has heard throughout this trial as we're at this key juncture.

If you walk through the case, the prosecution called 38 witnesses overall, 38 witnesses including eyewitnesses like Mr. McMillan, the Minneapolis police chief, medical experts, and George Floyd's brother, all part of its powerful presentation to the jury. The defense called seven witnesses, officers essentially trying to justify the use of force or in one case Officer Creighton's argument trying to raise the idea that George Floyd had trouble with the law before that was part of the defense case.

Two key people who did not testify, the defendant, Mr. Chauvin and former Officer Chauvin and Morries Hall, he was with Mr. Floyd in the car. He was the other passenger. He invoked his Fifth Amendment Right. He did not want to testify about the events of those days. The prosecution case that Officer Chauvin exceeded the use of force standards by the Minneapolis Police Department. That Floyd died from a lack of oxygen that was due to that restraint, specifically the knee on the neck. And they noted no medical aid was given to Mr. Floyd even though he repeatedly said he could not breathe and he was in distress. Some of the prosecution highlights.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD WILLIAMS, WITNESSED GEORGE FLOYD'S DEATH: I believe I witnessed a murder.

MATTHEW FRANK, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY: And so you felt the need to call the police?

WILLIAMS: Yes, I felt the need to call the police on the police.

STEVE SCHLEICHER, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY: Was this a trained Minneapolis Police Department defensive tactics technique?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is not.

DR. MARTIN TOBIN, PULMONOLOGY EXPERT: Mr. Floyd died from a low level of oxygen. The main forces that are going to lead to the shallow breath are going to be that he has turned prone on the street, that he has the handcuffs in place combined with the street, and then that he has a knee on his neck, and then that he has a knee on his back and on his side.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Now let's walk through some of the defense case. The defense trying to make the case that the crowd impacted Officer Chauvin had him nervous that there could be unrest at the scene. The defense also raised the possibility to Floyd die from a combination of factors, his previous health conditions, possible drug use, and that the use of force was not attractive for the public to watch but reasonable, that part of the case for Mr. Nelson.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OFFICER NICOLE MACKENZIE, MINNEAPOLIS POLICE: You'd have to make sure that your scene is safe before you're able to render aid.

OFFICER PETER CHANG, MINNEAPOLIS PARK POLICE: They were very aggressive, aggressive towards the officers, yes. I was concerned for the officer safety, too. So I just kept an eye on the officers and the car and individuals.

ERIC NELSON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Is it your opinion that Mr. Chauvin's knee in any way impacted the structures of Mr. Floyd's neck?

DR. DAVID FOWLER, FMR. CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER, MD DEPT. OF HEALTH: No, it did not. In my opinion, Mr. Floyd had a sudden cardiac arrhythmia or cardiac arrhythmia due to his atherosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: So when we come back, you'll hear the closing argument from the defense then there'll be an opportunity for the prosecution to rebut it. Then the deliberations will begin, Judge Cahill telling the jury last week, please do what you need to do.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUDGE PETER CAHILL, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT: It's up to the jury how long you deliberate, how long you need to come to unanimous decision on any count. And so because that's entirely up to you, whether it's an hour or a week, it's entirely within your province.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Well, as we watch all that play out, let's just go back and remind ourselves here. Officer Chauvin, former Officer Chauvin, secondary murder, unintentional murder carries a 40 year prison, third degree murder 25 years in prison, second degree manslaughter 10 years and or a fine of up to 20,000.

At this point is we wait for the trial to resume let me bring back into the conversation, our analysts here, Laura Coates and Chief Charles Ramsey. Laura, we're just through -- going through the highlights of the case here which in a matter of an hour or so will be the juries.

[12:35:10]

LAURA COATES, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: You know, we're going to have to hear from the defense first. And the defense has a very big opportunity here. They're going to try to buttress all the things they could not do in their actual case. But what's going to linger over their minds as the one of the last question that the prosecution asked, which was, what was the goal here? And reminding everyone this began with an alleged counterfeit $20 bill.

We heard from the Chief saying that a use of force of any kind really would not be warranted in those instances. We know that he comply, that he actually was unconscious. He did not have a pulse. And so what was the goal there? What was the goal of this particular former officer? Now the defense has some heavy lifting to do because they don't have the body of exhibits that the prosecution has. They're not going to have all of the key poignant testimony of bystanders of law enforcement officials who are going to say this was a reasonable use of force. All they have is use of force expert saying, he could have used more force against George Floyd, not sure how much more force than deadly force somebody could use.

And so right now, we're waiting for the defense to comp some way, shape or form, to have that word before the jury to have moment to say, look, this is a way for you to find reasonable doubt. I don't see where they planted any seeds that will germinate at this point, though.

KING: Chief, Laura makes a key point there in the sense that Officer Chauvin was not alone. There were three other offices there. Throughout the testimony and all the other Minneapolis police trainers, the chief included, saying once he was on the ground, there was no reason to continue a restraint. So the defense will speak next just trying to raise doubt that it's a tough job. Now, let's go back into the courtroom. I'm sorry.

NELSON: Members of the Court, Counsel, Mr. Chauvin, members of the jury, we want to take this opportunity first, to thank each and every one of you for your service, your diligence, and your attention to this matter. We all recognize the disruption that jury service places on your personal and professional lives, especially in the case of this magnitude and direction. And so on behalf of Mr. Chauvin, I want to thank each and every one of you for your attention and service to this jury.

I'm going to apologize if I get a little long winded because I get one bite at the apple here. The state has an opportunity to rebut my statement after this. There's so very much we need to cover. There's so very much we need to talk about. And it is all important.

Before I begin my review of the evidence in this case, I would like to address two very crucial points of law, and they were touched on by the state, the presumption of innocence and what proof beyond a reasonable doubt means. The presumption of innocence, the defendant is presumed innocent. That's the starting point. He's presumed innocent of these charges.

And this presumption remains with him throughout the course of the trial, the presentation of the evidence, throughout the course of your deliberations until and unless the state has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant does not have to prove his innocence. We talked about this in jury selection. We talked about the starting point. The defendant doesn't have to try to catch up. He starts at the presumption of innocence.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Here's the definition that the Judge just read you. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is such proof as ordinary prudent men and women would act upon in their most important affairs. A reasonable doubt is a doubt that is based upon reason and common sense. It does not mean a fanciful or capricious doubt, nor does it mean beyond all possibility of doubt.

The law recognizes three standards of proof. The preponderance of the evidence is the first and lowest standard. Clear and convincing evidence is the next standard. And the third standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And the way we lawyers sometimes illustrate what these three standards mean is through the scales of justice, right? The scales of justice equally balanced.

[12:40:04]

When you apply the standard of the preponderance of the evidence, it's also called the scintilla of evidence, a single grain of sand tips the scales in the favor of one party or the other. And this burden of proof is used in many civil cases, somebody if the state wants to take away your driver's license for an example. That is the burden of proof that the state has in that type of a case. They have to just ever so slightly convince the finder of fact that their evidence supports their action.

The next standard is clear and convincing evidence. And that's pretty self-explanatory, right? It is clear evidence. And it convinces you, the finder of fact, that the action is correct. This is the standard of proof that is used if the state wants to take away your children, clear and convincing evidence. It tips the scales more in one, the favor of one party over the other.

The highest standard in this country is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Essentially, what the state has to convince you is that there -- the evidence in this case completely eliminates any reasonable doubt or in other words, leaving only unreasonable doubt, capricious, fanciful, capricious doubt, capricious means unpredictable, fanciful space aliens flew in inhabited the body of Derek Chauvin and cause this death. That's fanciful.

Beyond the reasonable doubt, it is the highest standard in the law, it doesn't mean beyond all possibility of doubt, because I suppose space aliens may have been inhabiting his body but that's obviously fanciful and capricious. So this -- these two standards, the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, work in concert with each other.

You start with the proposition that Mr. Chauvin is innocent of these charges, the state has to advance substantial evidence to convince you that the only doubts that are remaining are unreasonable doubts.

As you analyze the evidence in this case, you would simply have to find that any defense that has been advanced is unreasonable. That's I mean, that's what this standard is all about. I want to take this opportunity also to talk to you about the importance of reading the entire instruction. Because I've seen, you know, and lawyers and I'm going to do it too, right? We pick and choose those things that help us make our case and help us argue our case.

That's our job as lawyers is to point out words and phrases within the instructions that that make a difference in the case, and to take that evidence and present it to you in such a way that it supports our proposition. That's what we do. That's why you are instructed that if your memories of the evidence is different, that if you're the Judge's law is what applies. But take the time to carefully read the entire instructions.

Throughout the course of this trial, you've seen us do this, right, little snippets, a second here, a second there, a screenshot here, a screenshot there. You need to review the entirety of the evidence in this case, during the course of your deliberations as well. And I can tell you that some of the videos that we've seen, they're much longer than what was presented in court. There's additional information and you're going to see some of that as we go through this case today.

[12:45:05]

So take the time and conduct an honest assessment of the facts of this case, compare it to the law, as the Judge instructs you, and the entirety of the law. That's why the instructions tell you consider the instructions as a whole.

I've told you that lawyers like to present evidence that favors them, right? But we have to be intellectually honest about the evidence. We have to present it in an honest and intellectually cohesive and coherent manner. And I have to address something that I think is important. And I think it is a prime example of what I am asking you, and what is your obligation to do, to look at the evidence in light of all of the other pieces of evidence, right?

So you heard during the testimony of Dr. Fowler, that one of the things that he considered is the possibility that carbon monoxide was present, and could have contributed to an environment that created an oxygen deprivation. You heard that testimony. In rebuttal to that testimony, the state brought Dr. Tobin back in and he told you, we can completely disregard that we know as a fact, we know conclusively that Mr. Floyd did not have carbon monoxide, because his oxygen was saturated to 98 percent. And you just heard the state say, just like I am right here, right?

So it stands -- I could get up in front of you and I could argue to you, we know this wasn't asphyxiation because George Floyd had a 98 percent oxygen level. How could he have been asphyxiated at the hospital with a 98 percent oxygen level? But that's not intellectually honest. It doesn't stack up against the rest of the evidence, because of what we know, right?

We heard the testimony of Seth Bravender and Derek Smith, the paramedics. We heard the testimony of Dr. Langenfeld. They came in and they said they began resuscitative efforts. They introduced oxygen and oxygen supply. We -- they're manually breathing for him. They're reoxygenating his blood. So when you look at that piece of evidence, when you look at a piece of evidence like that, you have to compare it against all of the other evidence.

Because you can't come in and say George Floyd, on one hand, George Floyd died of asphyxiation, but he has a 98 percent oxygen level, right? His blood is oxygenated. Then it is stands to reason the opposite is true as well. You can't come in and say, I can conclusively prove that Mr. Floyd didn't have carbon monoxide in his blood, because he had this high oxygen saturation.

You test one statement against the evidence of other people and you compare it. That is what you as jurors are obligated to do. And what I am asking you to do, compare the evidence against itself, test it, challenge it, compare it to the law, read the instructions in their entirety. Start from the point of the presumption of innocence, and see how far the state can get. I submit to you that the state has failed to meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Mr. Chauvin has been charged as the state indicated with these three charges. And the Judge had instructed to. Count one is second degree murder while committing a felony. It's also called the felony murder rule in Minnesota. Kind of the textbook example is I run into a liquor store I pull a gun I'm intending to rob the liquor store. My gun goes off, I shouldn't kill the teller. I didn't intend to go in and murder that person. But my -- the death of that teller occurred while I was committing a felony. That's the felony murder rule.

[12:50:08]

He's been charged with murder in the third degree for performing an intentional act that was eminently dangerous, right? You've seen the instructions. You've heard them. And manslaughter in the second degree. Again, the law has all of the words that defines the words you need and the instructions should be considered in their entirety.

Whenever I meet with a client, I tried to explain what the elements are. And this is the analogy that I use. I say that a criminal case is kind of like baking chocolate chip cookies, you have to have the necessary ingredients, you've got to have flour and sugar and butter and chocolate chips, and whatever else goes into those chocolate chip cookies.

If you have all of the ingredients, you can make chocolate chip cookies. But if you're missing any one single ingredient, you can't make chocolate chip cookies. It's a simple kind of analogy. But the criminal law works the same way. We say the -- we called the ingredients, the elements. The state has the burden of proving each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt, not just some global proposition that they've proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. They have to prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

And if you determine that they have done so you convict. But if they are missing any one single element, any one single element, it is a not guilty verdict. And you saw the spreadsheet that the state put up, right? The elements are a little different in each of these cases. And some of these elements will take less of your consideration. You will have to look at the evidence and you will have to for example, determine its cup foods in the city of Minneapolis is Minneapolis in the county of Hennepin is Hennepin County in the state of Minnesota. Did this happen on May 25th, 2020, right?

It's going to take less of your consideration. But nevertheless, you have to do that if you go through that process. Two of the elements that I want to focus on during the course of my discussion here today, two of these elements are common throughout or two of these issues are common and applied to all three counts. And so I want to focus my remarks today on those two issues.

The first, were Mr. Chauvin's actions an authorized use of force by a police officer, right? Because in the instructions, it specifically tells you, no crime is committed if it was an authorized use of force, period, end of discussion. The second is an element that is and does appear in all three counts. That is the cause of death. What caused Mr. Floyd's death? And we're going to talk about that second.

So, let's start with the concept of reasonable force. As the instructions read in their entirety, 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 and 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. 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, intention or motivations.

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

[12:55:10]

So if you remember from my opening statements in how I talked about reason and common sense, right, the reasonable police officer standard. I want to just briefly add one thing here is the standard is not what should the officer have done in these circumstances. It's not what could the officer have done differently in these circumstances. The standard is what were the facts that were known to this officer at the precise moment he used force and considering all of the totality of circumstances and facts known to the officer, would a reasonable police officer what would a reasonable police officer have done.

You have heard from numerous experts, police use of force experts, the Training Department from the Minneapolis Police Department. You've heard from police officers, street police officers, Sergeant Edwards, Sergeant Pluger, right? So you've heard from these people, and they have given you their opinions at various stages as to the reasonableness of the use of force.

But one of the things that the state or excuse me, one of the things that all of these police officers effectively agreed to, is that when you look at the question of what would a reasonable police officer do, knowing the facts of the case, there are things that a police officer is entitled to take into consideration above and beyond the facts, right, their training, the training that they receive, their experience as a police officer, the department's policies on the use of force.

And all of these things kind of lead into the question of, most critically, what are the facts that were known to the police officer, the reasonable police officer at the precise moment the force was used. So you can start at a very high level, right? What were the reasonable police officer's knowledge of the area be? Is this a high crime location? Is it a low crime area? Those are things, those are facts that a police officer would know.

What are the specifics of the location of arrest, right? Am I going into a dense, densely populated urban environment? Or am I in a kind of a secluded backyard, right? Officer is calculating these pieces of information and assessing the risk, assessing the threats.

Officers are entitled to kind of take into consideration things that you and I don't think about, their tactical advantages, their tactical disadvantages. They can take into consideration the scene security, keeping the scene secure, and security of the scene, right? Those are two different concepts.

So kind of, again, focusing back into what facts were known at the precise moment force is used. You can then take into consideration kind of this midrange level of information. A reasonable officer wants to keep his fellow officers safe. A reasonable police officer takes into consideration the safety of civilians. The reasonable place -- the police officer, reasonable police officer takes into account the safety of the person that they are arresting. They take into account what resources do I have, based upon how close am I to a hospital? What's the expected time if I call EMS?

Because a police -- reasonable police officer at times, they got to put the person in their squad car sometimes and take them because they're farther away. Calling for help, bringing help in would take longer than it would simply to take the person directly. And then you look at the direct knowledge that a reasonable police officer would have at the precise moment force was used. That includes information that they gather from dispatch, their direct observations of the scene, the subjects and the current surroundings.

[12:59:58]

They have to take into consideration whether they suspect -- the suspect, was under the influence of a controlled substance.