Transcribe your podcast
[00:00:00]

Welcome to the Megyn Kelly Show your home for open, honest and provocative conversations. Hey, everyone, I'm Megan Kelly, welcome to the Megan Kelly Show. Today on the program, George Floyd and the trial of former officer Derek Shervin. It's underway. It's been really fascinating to watch and it is emotionally charged.

[00:00:28]

Be careful where you get your information on this case, because, you know, you won't be surprised to hear that the mainstream press is already treating this matter as something only certain things can be said. Like you can only talk about it in a certain way and you can't raise certain defenses. And that's just B.S. Shervin is not going to win Cop of the Year in anybody's estimation. The question here is whether he committed murder or manslaughter, and he very well may have done that.

[00:00:56]

And we're going to get into all of it. But he's entitled to the presumption of innocence, just like any other defendant is. And we have to be able to talk about the defense. And so we're going to we're going to do exactly that and we'll go over what we've learned so far. I'm excited today because we have two my very favorite lawyers and legal commentators rejoining me. These guys have been doing legal segments with me for 15 years now.

[00:01:21]

We've got Arthur Aidala and Mark Eglash, who used to come on, we call it Kellie's court and then just did the Kelly file with me forever. Anyway, they're great. They're super smart. They're both former prosecutors now, defense attorneys and logit. I mean, trial lawyers in the truest sense of the word involving, you know, representation in some of the biggest cases you've ever you've ever heard of. Arthur just got done representing Harvey Weinstein, which I definitely to give him a little jazzed about that would didn't go his way, which I'm happy about.

[00:01:50]

In any event, we're going to get into all of it with them. And then we're going to be joined by a guy named Michael Belski, who represented one of the Baltimore six, one of the six officers charged after the death of Freddie Gray. Remember who was placed under arrest after he had sort of an odd exchange with a cop on a bike and it turned into an arrest and he was placed in a van and then he was dead after the after taken to the police precinct in that van.

[00:02:15]

And he was the cops were accused of giving him, quote, a rough ride. Anyway, there was a witness in the van who said he heard Freddie Gray hurting himself on the other side, like ramming his head into the wall, yada, yada, yada. They got an acquittal for those officers were acquitted and exonerated.

[00:02:30]

And I'm going to ask him what to expect here, like what are the challenges and what similarities does he see between this case and his case and how he plays the odds of conviction? So we're going to get into all of that in just one second. But first, this. Mark, I glargine Arthur, I'm so excited to have the gang back together, guys. Yeah, right. And we're all happy.

[00:03:01]

Thank goodness. Thank goodness.

[00:03:03]

I mean, I wish it were a better occasion, but I'm actually really looking forward to getting your take on this case, because I will tell you that I, I, I never watched the video prior to today. Today, I saw the highlights and I understood the controversy, of course. But I'll be honest with you, I didn't have in my heart at the time to take it in. It was just I just thought it's going to be too painful.

[00:03:29]

And I watched it this morning for the first time, the whole thing, because I watched the prosecution's opening and I watched the defense opening. And it was horrible. And it was I had tears running down my face. And I understand, you know, I go into this with a law enforcement officer and my family and understanding how hard law enforcement is. And, you know, I defended the cops in the Freddie Gray case, and I was right on that.

[00:03:53]

Oh, my God, I just think, like when you look at that, all you can think is where is Derek Chauvin's humanity? Like, where is it? I know I left, you know, listening to the openings, thinking they have to put him on the stand. I realize it's in question. They have to put him on the stand because you have to prove to me that he's a human being before I can even consider any thing other than the most severe charge, which is second degree murder.

[00:04:22]

I need to see he's human and I need to hear him talk personally about why he did this, how on any level he thought it was OK. And I'm sure since a lot of the jurors had admitted in their questionnaires they had never seen the tape, either they're having a similar reaction or some of them would be. And this I'll start I'll start with you, Mark, is are you guys are both defense attorneys now, but you today are going to play the part of Chauvins defense attorney and to help us understand the strategy there, Mark.

[00:04:56]

So you tell me, because that's that's the biggest thing they're up against, just the tape. Forget charges, forget elements, forget the lead up to and what might have been you know, you look at the tape and you think I want to punish him. Yes, but but is it too early in this podcast to disagree with you on a significant point that you made? No, no, I disagree with you. I don't put them on the stand.

[00:05:20]

I don't put them near the stand because I understand the desire to humanize him. And that's going to be my job to tell an opening statement what kind of person he is. And through witnesses get in all the people he ever said, God bless you, too. I mean, any good act that I can possibly get out, I'll get out. But Megan Kelly there, he will be crucified on the witness stand. And any benefit that you will get through humanizing him is going to be significantly outweighed by the hours of agony that he will face during cross-examination.

[00:05:55]

You make this more about signs about how there's another cause of death that it wasn't him. And you try to argue that narrative, which I don't think will succeed. But again, that's what you do. You get the experts and you argue signs. I you you raise a good point. He'll get killed on cross-examination. But I guess I mean, it's easy for me to say is like a third party witness. But don't you want to hear him?

[00:06:18]

I want to hear him.

[00:06:20]

I want to hear him say he's sorry that he he was he regrets it that his heart was in the right place as a human. I want to hear him say it.

[00:06:28]

I'll say it for him in closing. I'll say it in places that they won't even allow me to say it in trial. I will say it. I will get that point across. He wishes he could take it back, but, you know, he had to do whatever I need to say. I will say I a good lawyer like Arthur and I'll let him speak. You'll get that out, but you don't put him on the stand. If I met you, you both may be right.

[00:06:49]

It's just it's just way too early to tell. It really is. If if Mark's idea plays out and listen, there are three different autopsy reports here, three different causes of death to some degree or another. If the science plays out so favorably to the defendant, then, yes, you keep him off the stand. But I will admit yesterday or when I watch the opening statement, that was the first time I saw the entire video and I had the same feeling, the same reaction that you did.

[00:07:19]

First of all, like, what are you doing? And it wasn't just the video, the visual part. It was the commentating by the bystanders of giving basically a play by play of what's happening. And I could see throwing a Hail Mary pass because that's what I think would be by putting the defendant on the stand, you would have to have him prepped for days and days and you'd have to have another person from your legal team cross-examine him as if they're the prosecutor in anticipation of all the questions that would be coming his way.

[00:07:52]

And I don't know what reasonable answer he could have after George Floyd is absolutely motionless. And the part the part that defied all reasonable doubt to me was when the female identified herself as an M.S. officer and said, let me just take his pulse. And that was not allowed in.

[00:08:14]

Allegedly, according to the prosecutor's opening statement, he shodan was reaching for his taser, the Taser, the EMS officer. Yeah. So I don't know I don't know what the answers would be that would come out of his mouth as to what what he would say. His biggest defense, in my opinion, is his size versus Floyd's size. There's a huge difference. But after the guy's not moving for four minutes, I don't know what his answer would be.

[00:08:40]

And he did. You could see him go for his mace when the woman came up. Now, I can understand trying to justify that as a police officer by saying you control the scene, you don't. How does he know she really is? He doesn't know what she's going to do. She could be a troublemaker. You know, a lot of the times, as you guys know, use of force looks terrible even when it's totally justified and the general population watching it will find it very disturbing when a cop knows it's OK.

[00:09:07]

And in legally, I'm not talking about this case, but, you know, and it may be OK. So I can see him saying, step back, lady. But why it took him so long to reach down and search for a pulse when he could see the guy was not responsive, that he he'd become quiet, he'd become limp. And then, you know, and even if you want to give him the benefit of the doubt there, the the ambulance arrives.

[00:09:33]

He still doesn't get off. Right. Right. The gurney is next to him. See what you want. Megan is something you cannot get. You want to hear what he has to say. And it makes sense. It will not make sense if he's human. He gets on that witness stand, which is why I don't put them on. And he says, I screwed up big time and there's no excuse. What essentially he's doing is he's sealing his fate.

[00:09:58]

He's saying that he caused the tragic demise. So I say you humanize him. I agree. But you do it by by the attorney working in things that are arguably objectionable, if not completely objectionable. But they hear it. They get to know who he is. They get to know his mindset. But there's nothing to be gained by putting him on the stand. I'll tell you, there's one exception, and that's if this client begs me to put him on the stand.

[00:10:26]

I say on the record, it's over my objection. But he wants to testify and then he does it. And then I'm like, look, he lost this case and he didn't follow my instructions. It would almost be a gift.

[00:10:37]

You know, before I watched the tape, I was actually talking to my family about this because I was reading my team gave me a transcript of all the back and forth that we hear on the tape. And it was kind of helpful to read it before I watched the whole thing. The whole nine. Twenty nine is the prosecutor kept saying, and he, of course, wants the jury to believe it's all about that nine twenty nine. And the defense wants you to believe it's about much more than that, about Floyd's reaction for his behavior beforehand and leading into the event, what the other officers had been through and what Chauvin knew and what he saw himself.

[00:11:05]

OK, but when I when I went through it and I you know, I sanitized it a bit for my family, obviously, you know, I had my kids watching it, but I wanted my kids to know what was going on. And my daughter, who's definitely my most sensitive child, she got tears in her eyes. And the part that broke her heart was when he was calling out for his mother. And these jurors, they're human.

[00:11:28]

He's he's a grown man.

[00:11:30]

You can tell he's suffering. He says I can't breathe 27 times. As the prosecutor pointed out repeatedly, he begged, please, please tell my kids I love them. And he's calling out for his mother. I just think like this is why the defense tried to plead. This is why they said, please, just will plead guilty to manslaughter. And it's also, frankly, why the prosecutor said no begging. The jury is going to hear evidence that the last time he was arrested a year ago, she called out for his mother as well.

[00:12:01]

So I do think that is going to a little bit just a little bit diminish the fact that he's calling out for his mother that that is one of the rulings that the judge has made that the jury will allow, will be allowed to hear about Floyd's twenty nineteen arrest that No. One, he resisted arrest. And number two, in the course of resisting arrest, he said, I can't breathe. And number three, he called out for his mother.

[00:12:23]

Now, I'm surprised the judge let that in only because the defendant did not know that at the time of the arrest it would be different if he knew it at the time of the arrest and say, this guy does. This is his act. This is his routine.

[00:12:36]

So I'm surprised that the judge that was a very good ruling for the defense that that that is allowed to come in. Because all of a sudden, Megan, I wonder what your daughter's reaction would be if you were like, well, you know, you got arrested like ten months before this. And he kind of did and said the exact same thing. He resisted. He said, I can't breathe. And he called out for his mom. Well, you diminishes the sincerity of it all.

[00:12:57]

You won't be surprised to learn. I I had seen that and I shared that with her. I actually did want to know what her reaction was going to be. If she knew he had done it before, I would say it gave her something to think about. I don't think it moved her because she's nine. All right. She's nine. But I do think it's a valid point that, you know, the defense point is going to be this is his routine.

[00:13:18]

And cops, whether Shogan knew that about George Floyd or not, see this all the time. You guys know this, right? Our markets, like all the time. The defense is rarely go into custody joyfully without protest, saying the handcuffs feel wonderful. I mean, I can't breathe has become a thing ever since Eric Garner. You hear cops now say every defendant says. And George Floyd, if you watch the fall, if you watch the police body cam tapes, which were not in the opening statement of the prosecutor yesterday, but I've seen them and they're available online.

[00:13:50]

George Fluorescing, I can't breathe repeatedly well before Derek. Chauvin even got to the scene, correct, and and all that is very relevant, and I thought about that, too. You know, if this had been a minute long, maybe they could have gotten away with it. Nine minutes, 29 seconds. If I can't breathe, it's just too long. But here's the question. Did you also tell your daughter of what opioids are, what fentanyl is, the facts and circumstances that got them into that situation?

[00:14:17]

And the reason I bring this up is not because I think that somehow negates the guilt of the defendant, but that is going to be a defense strategy. It's not about nine minutes and twenty nine seconds. There's fifty thousand pieces of evidence. It's coming in and you'll hear all about how he started the chain of events that led to his ultimate demise. What they're doing there is they are attempting, whether they want to admit it or not, to devalue his life.

[00:14:45]

That's what they're doing. Here's a drug addict, repeated history with law enforcement problems, and that's what they're doing.

[00:14:52]

I'm looking back now that the George Floyds May 20 19 arrest, which was literally one year prior to the incident with Shervin that led to his death, is coming into evidence. His behavior is coming in. But actually, Arthur, taking a closer look. The judge ruled his emotional behavior inadmissible. So you and I know and the the greater jury pool out there, in other words, our audience will know that he said, does he call for his mom?

[00:15:22]

But this jury is actually not going to hear that piece of it. So I'm going to hear that piece of pattern, I think. I think it's just behavioral events at the time that are coming in, but not the statements, not the emotional stuff. So but in any event, you know, there will probably be some testimony by some police expert from the defense saying it is very common for a defendant to say, I can't breathe. Ever since Eric Garner, we knew this even before George Floyd that cops will tell you everybody says it now because it's a way of getting the cops off of you, which is what all defendants want.

[00:15:54]

And when a cop does have to make a judgment call about whether it's true or it's not. Now, the problem for the defense in this case is, yeah, but your guy had your knee on his neck, your guy had your knee on his neck for nine minutes. So we had really good reason to believe that claim here. And and the commentators, everyone who's on the sidewalk, you guys saying, you know, you're a bum. He obviously can't breathe.

[00:16:18]

Look, he's got liquid coming out of his nose. He's bleeding from his nose. He's not moving. Why are you doing this? I mean, it's it wasn't it wasn't like an isolated scene where the cops are in some dark alley and there's no one around. I mean, they have people telling them that this guy is clearly in distress and is I know George Floyd is a big man, but there's four officers there.

[00:16:39]

They all have tasers, firearms and all kinds of weapons. It just it just that's the part for me. The video, the visual part of it was horrible, horrific. But the audio part really told the story. And there's a bunch of people there who are basically begging the cop to get off of him, not just George. Floyd was begging for his life. It's civilians who are begging the cop for George Floyd's life. Arthur, how about how about the nine one one operator leading off this trial?

[00:17:10]

You know, one of their own, essentially brilliant by the prosecutor. That might be brilliant.

[00:17:15]

It is fair for those who don't know that she called a supervisor because she was able to visually see what was going on and she had concerns. Now, the defense called the cops on the cops. She's the dispatcher. She called the cops on the cop. Wait, hold on.

[00:17:30]

Standby, standby on that, because we have a sound bite of that and I'll let you pick it up.

[00:17:34]

Mark, in the instant, something's not going right. Whether it be. They needed more assistance or if. There were there just something wasn't right, I don't know how to explain it, it was a gut instinct to tell me that. Now we can be concerned and what did you decide to do? I took that instinct and I called the circuit. And do you recall who the sergeant was that you talked to? It was Sergeant Pluton and. Why did you call us, Sergeant, this sergeant is the police officer supervisor.

[00:18:21]

You're not a police officer. No. You haven't gone through the use of force training. No. But in your experience, you felt something was wrong here that a sergeant needed to know about. Correct. If this was a form of use of force, I was calling to let them know. Go ahead, Mark. Well, well, first of all, very cool that you had that clip, so I didn't have to explain it there. There it is.

[00:18:45]

And boy, did she water it down. I thought something might have been off, like something just wasn't right. I mean, that's one way to say it. The other way is, oh, my God, I'm watching this cop abuse this man. And it was clear to me and the world. But the defense did the best they could. I don't think they overcame the power of the evidence. But what they argued was, well, you're not familiar with use of force, ma'am.

[00:19:07]

You're not trained in that regard. You don't know anything. And how to deal with people. No, no, no, no, no. And that's what the defense did.

[00:19:13]

Well, and I think, you know, as as kind of shocking as it is to have to call the police on the police, it doesn't in the end, I think I could handle that as a defense attorney. I think I could say it didn't look good. We understand it. And the defense attorney has made reference to this a couple of times saying, you know, use of force is allowed under the law. And it's never pretty. It's it's actually uncomfortable to watch usually.

[00:19:36]

But that doesn't really tell you anything. You can't go by. You know how it looks. The defense attorney, Eric Nilsson's, handled lots of police excessive force cases. He's going to know how to diffuse the look of in general a police arrest using force. Now, that doesn't that doesn't excuse or explain away exactly the nine twenty nine, which the prosecution so effectively kept saying nine twenty nine to. And the other thing he was saying, which I thought was really good, was he pulled like a Johnnie Cochran.

[00:20:06]

He was like, he does not let up and he does not get up. He was like he kept saying that about. And even when Chauvin is told that he doesn't have a pulse two times, he does not get up, he does not let up and he does not get up. And he kept saying that over and over. And it was a good phrase because, you know, it's always helpful to give the jury something that they can stick with or write down in their notes.

[00:20:24]

That sums up your case. It was it was it was effective. And normally so when you're in the district attorney's office, you're in the five boroughs of New York, they give you the little three ring binder handbook of how to try a case as a prosecutor. Usually the first witness you put on is the body I.D. So you put the mother on of the dead child or you try to get that sympathy for the loss of life. So this was and they could have done that here.

[00:20:53]

They could have put someone from George Floyd's family on. And usually the judge gives the prosecutor a decent amount of leeway to talk about how old George was and what did he do and, you know, make everyone sound pretty and you miss them to death. This was a little unorthodox, but I thought it was very powerful because, again, it was like the police calling someone on the police and they ask that question, have you ever done this before?

[00:21:16]

And she said no. So it showed how extraordinary the circumstances were.

[00:21:20]

So I want to get to the defense in a minute, because it is it's pretty interesting. And I'm I'm trying very hard to keep an open mind. As emotional as I felt watching that tape, I almost feel like there's an advantage that I just saw it the way the jury saw it, although I had seen, you know, the police body camera footage as well, which they haven't seen yet. But I'm sure will in any event, I'm trying very, very, very hard to keep an open mind to the defense and the legal elements and see, you know, does the prosecution make its case legally?

[00:21:49]

And so I am open minded to that. But I will say I think probably the most devastating thing we've seen so far for the defense is the judge's ruling that the prosecution only has to prove that Derek Chauvin's behavior was a cause of George Floyds death, not the cause. And so all we're going to get into the defense and the fentanyl and the drugs and all that, which is pretty compelling. But if all I got to prove is the knee on the neck was a cause, I'm feeling pretty good as the prosecutor horse.

[00:22:20]

So, look, it starts with opening statement. I want jurors who will somehow confuse the law. I do. I don't want jurors to follow the law. I want them to be confused. I want them to erroneously think that that has to be the reason. And they failed to prove, even though that's not what the law says, I'm looking for people who will confuse them. The second thing is I want as many be people who who would be described as B.L. fill in the blank.

[00:22:48]

And I'm not saying black because there were four blacks, which actually is higher than the 20 percent that Minneapolis has. I'm talking about blind. I want blind jurors so they can't actually see the videotape. And I'm joking. But with the truth of the matter is, once the video is in, that's a problem. Let's look at the defense now. OK, so we've given we've given a lot of what what we're going to hear from the prosecutor.

[00:23:12]

The prosecutor, by the way, is claiming that George Floyd died by asphyxia and that they're going to put on medical experts to say that their problem is that there was a medical examiner in this case, the Hennepin County medical examiner, who did ruled a homicide. They did they did conclude homicide, but they said that George Floyd died of cardiopulmonary arrest, complicating law in. Portsmouth's abdool restraint and neck compression, which is a very weird way of saying it almost feels like it's been massaged somehow, but they say but but they basically say that he that there was no finding supporting a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation, that the underlying health conditions, including coronary heart disease, heart disease and hypertensive heart disease, likely contributed to his death.

[00:24:07]

So you've got you've got the medical examiner saying he did not die of traumatic asphyxiation and I'll rule it a homicide because I understand what happened here with the knee on the neck. But he died of something bad that happened to his heart in this moment. Do I have it right, Mark Amite? Is that basically what happened? That's it.

[00:24:27]

That's perfect. One of the things I said at the top of the show was you focus on the scientific medical evidence and you get them to acquit of the most serious charges, obviously, or maybe at all that recognizing that maybe his conduct was not ideal and even he acknowledges it because then he wouldn't be in this predicament, but that in order to make a cake, you need all the different elements. Same with peanut butter jelly. You got a peanut butter, jelly and bread.

[00:24:58]

And what you're missing here is the essential element that this was the cause of death. And and we have shown that there's a reasonable doubt as to the cause. And you have an obligation. You swore to all of us that you would follow the law even if you didn't like it. Forget about the crowds inside and outside. You just lay into them that way and hope that they are empowered to make a difficult, courageous decision based upon the medical and the science.

[00:25:23]

I don't think Eric Nelson, I'm not disagreeing with you more, but I don't think Eric Nelson did that in his opening statement yesterday. I know he didn't want to use the VA any kind of technology. And he he just spoke to them. And I have no issue with that. But if I was going to use anything, I would highlight the the report of the very first medical examiner who you say, folks, this guy has no horse in this race.

[00:25:48]

He's a doctor. He just reports what he sees and hears what he sees, what the prosecutor just told you in their opening statement. As far as I know, Mr. Blackwell does has a J.D., not an M.D. and he totally disagrees with what you were just told by this lawyer. And his lawyer says he died from his being choked and the doctor said that's not true. Coming up in one minute, we're going to talk more about the defense strategy and really get into where we think he's going.

[00:26:16]

And we're going to talk about the juries, the jurors that have been selected so far.

[00:26:20]

Who would the defense lawyers we're talking to be looking at as the juror they need? Because keep in mind, when you're a defense attorney, it only takes one to get at least a mistrial declared. And there are a couple on this jury that may see more police oriented. It's tough to read the tea leaves, but we're going to try to next.

[00:26:41]

I've been saying all along that thanks to paint your life, I had the perfect present for Doug, and I finally gave it to him for our anniversary and he loved it.

[00:26:51]

And why not? Because I nailed it. I nailed it. Thanks to the folks that paint your life, this is his organization where you take a family photo or some whatever, some photo that you love. It means something to you. And then you give it to paint your life dotcom and then they will return it to you. After having a professional hand painted into a portrait at a truly affordable price. They'll frame it for you. If you want.

[00:27:15]

You can actually pick the artist you want, if that's what you like, or they'll figure it out for you if you prefer. And it's a super user friendly platform that lets you order a custom made, hand painted portrait in less than five minutes. Super quick and easy. Get the hand painted portrait in about three weeks. So give yourself a little lead time if it's for like Mother's Day, which is coming up. This is ideal for your mother, honestly.

[00:27:36]

Just get like you, your family, your kids, whatever. I promise you, it's really good.

[00:27:42]

I was like, hope it doesn't suck because like an appetizer. And I don't want have to say it's good and it's not.

[00:27:47]

I wholeheartedly endorse it. I'm telling you, they're super talented and I love my painting and so does Doug.

[00:27:56]

It worked out, Alex, so consider it for our anniversary and I am what I am anyway. It makes the perfect gift. It's meaningful and it's personal and it can be cherished forever. So check it out. You got to go to paint your life dotcom and know this. There's no risk. If you don't love the final painting, your money gets refunded, guaranteed. And right now is the limited time offer. You can get twenty percent off your painting.

[00:28:19]

That's right. Twenty percent off and free shipping. So to get this special offer, text the word N.K. to sixty four thousand. That's EMK to six four zero zero zero. Text MGK to sixty four thousand point your life. Celebrate the moments that matter most. One of the Emmys, Dr. Andrew Baker, said if George Bailey were found dead at his home with no other apparent causes, that you'd call this an odd he's saying, I'm not I'm not saying that necessarily is what did in this case.

[00:28:51]

But this is a huge amount of fentanyl. Now, the prosecutor tried to get ahead of this by saying he was an addict and what might kill you or me wasn't going to kill George Foy because he was a big guy, six, six and over 200 something pounds. But that's a ton of fentanyl mixed with other drugs. They said that he he said on tape that he'd been whooping that morning, which we're told, forgive me, is a way of inserting drugs rectally so that you can get high faster.

[00:29:23]

The prosecutor is apparently getting ready to argue it was a reference to basketball. They found drugs with George Floyds, DNA on it and saliva on them that he apparently tried to swallow before the cops got there. A while they got there, the guy was like ingesting tons of drugs that morning and he was judged high by the people he gave the 20 dollar counterfeit bill to and so on and so forth. And so that's the defense's whole case, that George Floyd died because he took enough fentanyl and methamphetamine to kill even a man his size.

[00:29:53]

And Derek Shervin, they're basically gonna say Shervin was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yeah, so so you add to that the drug use, coupled with the extensive history of medical issues, coronary disease, enlarged heart, swelling of lungs, all that is the cause of death. And by the way, I think it's time to mention it. We only need one when I say we I'm not on the team, but they only need one.

[00:30:21]

And by that I mean get one person, one stubborn juror who says, yeah, I think there's a reasonable doubt as to the cause. I'm not going to find him guilty. Then you potentially get your plea bargain when they consider, not consider when they do retry this case. That's what you want. If you can hang this jury up, that's a victory.

[00:30:40]

That's right. I think a manslaughter is a victory, in my opinion, because don't forget, there's two charges of murder, one charge of manslaughter. So if you get some sort of if you get that one, Mark, as you know, in a case of this magnitude, the judge is going to put enormous pressure on the jury to try to come to reach a verdict. And it wouldn't be the first time that they say, OK, even though you think he should be found not guilty, we think he'll be found guilty of the top count.

[00:31:05]

Murder two, why don't we compromise in the middle and we'll just do the manslaughter, which is the least the lowest charge facing him.

[00:31:13]

This is one hundred percent manslaughter at least. Right. The only real debate we're having here is whether it's something more than manslaughter. I realize the defense attorney is going for an all out not guilty, but I might my own legal assessment is this is one hundred percent going to be a conviction of at least manslaughter?

[00:31:30]

And what's really at stake here is whether it will be upgraded to murder, either third degree murder or second degree murder. Do you guys I mean, honestly, do you think there's any reasonable chance of an outright acquittal?

[00:31:42]

No, that's that's the answer.

[00:31:45]

No. No, it's not. No.

[00:31:48]

And I think the murder three what got me on the murder three, because I always I always said it's going to be a manslaughter, manslaughter until I really listened. I know I'm harping on this, but the video is bad. But the audio to me is worse. The play by play. And that's where it says that's a that's a disregard for human life when you have all of these human beings in broad daylight who seem very credible human beings, whether you believe or not, a woman who identifies herself as a fellow public servant, as MS worker.

[00:32:21]

And they're saying, you're killing him, you're killing him, you're killing him. To me, that's a reckless disregard of human life. What can you just explain, Arthur, the difference? Because we've got manslaughter. It just I don't think most people understand second degree, third degree. And then the lowest charge, which is manslaughter, which is the one Shoven offered to plead guilty to, and the prosecution rejected it. So the manslaughter, you don't have to have any any intent to kill someone.

[00:32:48]

It's culpable negligence and individuals, the culpable negligence or the negligence that is very obvious creates an unreasonable risk and that the defendant consciously takes chances of causing the death. So it's a chance of causing death or chance of causing bodily harm to another.

[00:33:06]

So you're not trying to kill anyone, but basically what you're doing either you should know that it could cause death or bodily harm or you are so negligent that you create an unreasonable risk of death. So that's the lowest charge. That's what everyone is saying. He's definitely guilty of the third degree murder, which is the next lowest charge. They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that kneeling on someone's neck for nine minutes is eminently dangerous, dangerous and shows a depraved mind.

[00:33:38]

So in and of itself, it's that's a close call.

[00:33:42]

Except when you have all of these human beings, again, reasonably credible human being, they don't seem like they're people who are mentally deficient, saying, you know, you're killing him, you're killing him.

[00:33:55]

That shows the depravity of his own mind when you can't.

[00:33:59]

That's not true. That's not true. You can't go by that as as sympathetic as the crowd may be to the jurors and everybody else watching this. You can't go by what the crowd is yelling at the cops and they're 15 feet away from him. It's not like a football field away. And he's not he's absolutely motionless. And he's already told you, I can't breathe. You have a knee on his back and on his back. And even when the EMS comes, he still doesn't get off of them.

[00:34:26]

It still doesn't say step right in and take over. And he's handcuffed the whole time.

[00:34:31]

I know that you want to know what were you thinking? Why after four and this goes right to the heart of whether it's second degree manslaughter or third degree, like, how do we get from your negligent. But what was in your mind at that moment? What were you thinking? And can we somehow find you guilty of something lesser because you mitigate your negligence or recklessness? Depending on what? Fine by you describing to us jurors and the court of public opinion, what the hell were you thinking?

[00:35:05]

And if he's got some type of explanation and maybe he does and it sounds decent, then maybe you put him on the witness stand for that purpose.

[00:35:13]

I looked at this under the actual guidelines, the Minnesota guidelines for somebody like Derek Shoven, who has no priors. And it looks to me like this is according to a local newspaper, that there's the presumed sentence for second degree and third degree is ten and three quarter years to 15 years, and that the presumptive sentence for manslaughter is only forty one to fifty seven months, which is I mean, that's why well, we're going to see riots if if it's only manslaughter.

[00:35:44]

I mean, but the prosecution is arguing for higher sentences than the presumptive sentences than the sentencing guidelines would would dictate. I mean can that be done. That seems unusual.

[00:35:57]

Can it be done? It can really. You're Tim, right? Well, I mean, they're not in a vacuum. This is if if this wasn't a high profile case and an officer had an exemplary record and and screwed up one time majorly, then that's when it might be appropriate. But no question, this is all about the court of public opinion and he is going to be the sacrificial lamb. But let's just flesh out these charges a little bit more, because there was this whole controversy over the third degree murder charge where this Judge Cahill, who, by the way, everybody seems like both sides say he's he's a fair guy, think everybody expects him to be good.

[00:36:31]

So far, he didn't seem like a Lance Ito, you know, wanting attention. So he he said, now you can't charge third degree murder. Third degree murder is is an act that's imminently dangerous to others. To others, it's when a guy robs my store, I run after him with my gun. He runs into a crowd and I start firing at him in the crowd. And so that's third degree murder because what I did was imminently dangerous to others.

[00:36:59]

And that's why this judge said, you can't charge that I'm not allowing third degree murder. It went up to the appeals court. The appeals court said, you're wrong, you have to let them charge it. And so this is the jury's going to have this one. That one confuses me. And I just if they do it the way you just said it, Arthur, just prove it's, quote, eminently dangerous. Let it hang out there.

[00:37:18]

Forget the part, the part that it's to others. And if it evidences a, quote, depraved mind, OK, I could see I could see it, but I don't know how like, how are they going to find it? Was Emily dangerous to the court in the end in Minnesota? Reversed the lower court judge because they found in another case, not this case, but they found another case that similar facts fit into the third degree murder.

[00:37:44]

And they basically overruled the trial judge and said, no, you have to keep it in there. So it's against the trials judges. Now, a trial judge often has the ability, even after a verdict, as you know, Megan, to throw out a jury's verdict if he thinks it's against the weight of the evidence, et cetera, et cetera. So let's see how the judge plays with that or how this plays out. If the jury finds him not guilty of murder two, which I think is that's a bit of a stretch.

[00:38:10]

And what's that one that's like I'm going to keep my knee on his neck and make sure this guy dies like I'm in it to make sure he's if there's premeditation involved now, premeditation does have to be four days to be four minutes. And you could argue that nine minutes and twenty nine seconds can you could have plenty of premeditation. I believe the prosecutor said this was not a split second decision. This was on. He gave the amount of seconds.

[00:38:34]

Four hundred and something seconds. But I think.

[00:38:37]

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. What's the difference then between first degree murder, which is not charged and second degree? Now you're stumbling.

[00:38:46]

I can tell you what is in New York killing a police officer or a law enforcement officer. I kind of.

[00:38:51]

That's the difference. I thought you were a little off. I think let me just correct you, the highest charge, my understanding for which you could be held accountable is the second degree unintentional murder, which is that Showband caused Floyds death while he was assaulted him. I don't think that it requires an intention to kill. I agree with you. That's that's what that's what I saw in my research, although it's confusing because it says caused his death while assaulting him.

[00:39:21]

And I think what they're saying is that assault needs to be like it has to be an unlawful assault. And that's why the prosecutor yesterday was saying or on Monday was saying members of the jury use of excessive force against a citizen is an assault. He's trying to get around preemptively that the jurors knee jerk reaction of, well, a cop is allowed to kind of assault you on a cop's allowed to put hands on you that you don't want on you.

[00:39:46]

A cop's allowed to rough you up a little bit. And his point is excessive force is not allowed. And that actually is an unlawful assault. And boom, you're to second degree murder, because if you cause the death while assaulting someone, you've committed this most serious charge. I mean, that's why I wanted that define properly there. He's looking at 10 and 10 and three quarters years to 15 years. You know, I think that that's what this is.

[00:40:14]

Well, you know that the pressure is going to be on the I mean, the jurors have no say in sentencing, but it's common sense. Second degree, third degree one's more serious than the other. You know, that they're going to have an enormous amount of pressure. And you started off this whole conversation by talking about the emotions. And as much as they show the video in the beginning, in the opening statements, you know, they're going to show that video in the closing statements to pull on the heartstrings of the jurors.

[00:40:40]

Is that the way the system is supposed to work? Not not ideal, but it's fair to show evidence in your closing statement. And that is going to be the way it affected you and your family and it affected me.

[00:40:52]

It's just naive to say it's not going to affect those 12 people.

[00:40:57]

Can I add to this? You you tell me one person in that town who doesn't know that the city paid out twenty seven million dollars for the. I mean, the unreasonable, unlawful actions of their officers. That's the presumption going in, they don't know about that.

[00:41:15]

Yeah, but let's talk about the other video. Let's talk about the body cam video, because when you watch the whole body cam video from the police vantage point right there, those four guys had body cams on that that caught more than the prosecution is showing us. And that's where you go to before the nine. Twenty nine. That's where you go to watch what George Floyd was like leading up to the moment he found himself in Derek Chauvin's unfortunate custody.

[00:41:43]

He was belligerent. He was strong. The two police officers trying to get him under control couldn't do it. He was kicking. He was pushing. He he totally resisted getting into that cop car twice. They tried to shove him in torso first. He wouldn't do it.

[00:42:00]

They were out of control. They were not able to control him. That's when Derek Chauvin got there and said, is he under arrest? And the other cops said, yes. And Derek Shogan did a technique that his lawyer is going to put experts on to say is not only allowed, but was part of his training. The prosecution is going to dispute this, but the defense told us yesterday they're going to put on experts who say Shoven was taught this as an acceptable means of getting a defendant, a suspect, somebody you're trying to take into custody under control.

[00:42:34]

And you know that maybe he didn't do it exactly the right way. Maybe he did. We'll see what the defense is going to argue. They're going to try to show the jury this is a man, George Floyd, a long criminal record. You know, they pointed out before prior to the trial that, you know, he was he served time for assaulting a pregnant woman by putting a loaded pistol up to a pregnant belly and went away for that and didn't want to go away again.

[00:43:01]

And that's why he was belligerent. He was he was high. He was on the fentanyl. And these cops didn't know what they were getting here, but they felt threatened. And that's a situation Chauvin came into. And as the defense lawyer pointed out yesterday or Monday, he's now he's getting surrounded by a crowd, a belligerent, angry crowd, which is not unusual for cops, especially in today's day and age, even prior to this. And they he was scared of them, too.

[00:43:25]

He had to worry about multiple threats. Now, that's going to be their story. Megan, I'm glad you brought that up, because it does two things, it continues on this dialogue that. This guy is not who you think he might be. It's not all about nine minutes and twenty nine seconds, you got to go back to how he chose to set in motion the series of events. Again, I'm not justifying it, but when I saw what happened before, I said, oh, you know, that's not on the cops.

[00:43:56]

That's on his choice. Mark, as you know, a lot of what Megan just said is not relevant unless you could show that the police officer who's on trial knew about that when he entered the scene. Did he know he had prior convictions that he. No, he resisted arrest before. Did he know he went to jail? Did he know he put a gun to a woman's belly before? All of that is irrelevant. Unless you could, then the judge should never let it in unless the cop knew about it and said, hey, this is a bad dude.

[00:44:24]

He's taking down other cops before he's been in prison. He knows how to handle himself. He can take a walk and stick it in my neck. So I really be very heavy handed with him. So that's why even though we know that the jury should never know that. Well, I kind of agree with you. I kind of doubt I think that they need context to know how he got there. So the judge should let all what occurred right before in.

[00:44:45]

But as sure as I'm sitting here, there is no way in heck that the defendant is going to say he didn't know from his fellow officers what just preceded him, putting his is his knee on his neck for sure.

[00:44:57]

He's going to say and the other officers, all of whom are charged with aiding and abetting these murder charges, they're on the prosecution witness list. The the is going to call them. So if I'm the defense attorney for Shervin, I'm 100 percent using those guys to get in the bodycam from the cops and talk about their state of mind, these officers, and why they told Derek Shoven that George Floyd was under arrest. It's because of all this stuff, the twenty dollar bill, the the the drugs.

[00:45:26]

And the defense attorney yesterday made a point of saying there are other witnesses in this case, and they're George Floyds friends who are going to show the jury just how far gone George Floyd was.

[00:45:39]

And here's actually we have a somebody that listen, you will hear from Chris Martin, who was the store clerk at cupfuls Mr. Martin, observed Mr. Floyd. He watched his body language. He interacted with Mr. Floyd in this moment, and Mr. Martin formed the opinion that Mr. Floyd was under the influence of something. Mr. Floyd's friends will explain that Mr. Floyd fell asleep in the car and that they couldn't wake him up, but they kept trying to wake him up to get going, that they thought the police might be coming because now the star was coming out and they kept trying to wake him up.

[00:46:17]

Their point is the guy was almost, you know, not dead, but like he was odd being that's that's what the defense's point is going to be. He was odd. And, you know, he went from sort of this drug rage with the cops to odd being. And that's why Chauvin's not guilty.

[00:46:36]

Marc. Well, good luck with that. You got to argue it. Look, let's the Arthur and I both did this for a living. The bottom line is this is a case you don't want to try, but there's no there's no plea bargain. It's an ultimatum. It's a it's a declaration of war. What they probably put on the table. Therefore, you're forced to try this case. You then look at it. You want to devalue Mr.

[00:46:58]

Floyd as much as possible in front of the jury, even though that's not what you want to say on the record, I could say I'm not in the case exactly what they're doing. They want to somehow point their finger at him, his prior actions, his actions before the defendant got there and make him look as bad as possible. Hope that you got one juror who doesn't fully understand the law and then pray that they compromise and come up with a lesser charge.

[00:47:23]

So, like, I like the legal analysis there. Well, let's let's spend a minute talking about the jury, because as you point out, Mark, that's the dirty little truth of criminal defense work. You only need one. You know, the prosecution needs all for a conviction and the defense needs all for an acquittal. But really, the defense only needs one in order for a mistrial, which is a win. Right, for the defense, because then you're in a better position to force a plea.

[00:47:49]

I'm looking at this jury. I think it's extraordinary that it's it's as diverse as it is, given that this is a predominantly white county. You've got something like I'm looking at U.S. Census Bureau. Black people make up nearly 40 percent of the residents in Hennepin County where this happened. Whites make up about 74 percent. And yet we've got eight white, six black or multiracial on this jury of 14 that two of them are going to be alternates, but it's pretty diverse now.

[00:48:17]

They asked every question under the sun of these these jurors. I mean, they had to basically, you know, they had to offer their opinions on global warming, basically to get on this jury. And here's just a profile of a couple I'd be looking at if I were the defense attorney, juror number two white man in his 20s from Minneapolis. He's a chemist. He said he's logic. He hadn't watched video of the death, he had seen some photos, he had some knowledge of the case, he when he was asked his feelings about Black Lives Matter.

[00:48:45]

He said he supports the movement and the message, but not the organization. Quote, I support the message that every life should matter equally. I don't think the organization necessarily stands for that. I don't know. I mean, these are vast generalizations. But as you guys know, as lawyers, you make gross sweeping assumptions about people in the limited time you have to assess them as jurors. I'd be looking at him, Mark, if I were the defense lawyer as possibly my one hundred percent.

[00:49:13]

That's what I will typically do when I've had cases like this where you just need one and I'll stare at that one. And the judge knows I'm staring at that one. I walk and I will put myself in front of that one juror in the jury box and just stare at that one juror and do everything I can. And, of course, include the others. But but I know I want that one. And I got that one juror in one major trial.

[00:49:34]

It's exactly what I did. Just to tell you, Megan, how I'm not as good as Mark that when I do that, that one juror, so big hung jury. I got in in Manhattan and at the end I met the jury in the back and I went over that one and I was like, thank you so much. Do you? Because you're great, Mr. Right. Give me your card. I was like, I knew you with me from the beginning.

[00:49:51]

Goes with you from the beginning. He was I was the one pushing the whole jury conviction you got is so guilty because you're amazing. You had six people in there saying he didn't do anything wrong and they had him on tape doing something wrong. So I never know who the one is going to be. And I usually shoot for three. I try to get three people who I think are going to go my way. But Mark, you know, what you saying about kind of a let's question Mr.

[00:50:16]

Floyds background? I thought the defense attorney was pretty tepid in his attacks on Mr. Floyd. And yet when you watch some of the news coverage last night, there were a lot of people who, like Mr. Floyd, is not on trial and he was attacking him too much. And, you know, it's a real it's a real slippery slope and a tightrope that you're walking on and bringing out facts or in evidence and not offending certain people on the jury who may identified in some degree or another was deployed when I both know we're not there to win over the talking heads on TV.

[00:50:49]

I'm worried about the jurors, though. If I'm extending the talking heads, maybe I'm offending a juror as well.

[00:50:54]

I don't I don't I don't give a lot about what these people in the studios are saying. I'm concerned about what those jurors are saying. And my only chance, one of my greatest weapons is to put the blame more on the decedent then my client. And that is standard procedure. And if you don't do that, then you're not the lawyer for the job. And if it offends people, well, that may happen. But you may not offend any of the jurors.

[00:51:21]

You may offend some of them. But it only takes one to not be offended and go, you know what? All right. So maybe we should reduce the chance. That's you know what offends me a little bit, Megan, is all of these people who don't work in the prosecutor's office, who are coming in as pro bono people on this prosecution. Yeah. What's up with that? That's just not supposed to be how the system works. And I honestly, if I'm the prosecutor, I'm Keith Ellison.

[00:51:47]

I think it's almost an insult to my office that what my staff isn't good enough to handle is relatively simple. I don't want to use the word simple, but relatively straightforward prosecution. Oh, no, we need to bring in four or five pro bono people who have been the head of this division and the head of that division. And they're in private practice and they're federal former prosecutors like, no, no, no, I don't need anyone. I this is my office and my people are competent enough to handle it.

[00:52:13]

How did that happen?

[00:52:15]

I'll take the other side on that. I disagree. In other words, look, if my ego is not my amigo, I'll take whatever help I can get to win a trial that is absolutely necessary to be one. From the prosecutor perspective, if someone's willing to offer some assistance, I'll take whatever they're willing to offer as a leader. Mark, as a leader, what does that say to your chief of the homicide bureau? If you're the D.A. or you're the attorney general, what do you what message are you giving to the head of your division?

[00:52:43]

That he can't handle it himself or she can handle that themselves, that I'm going to bring in outside force? Arthur, that is your message. Your ego is telling you that that's the message. My ego is I'm not afraid to welcome anyone who wants to come on to my dream team is not as long as they know their boundaries, they know their place. They're certainly willing to contribute. I'll take more people. Why not? As long as they don't mind my effort in anyway.

[00:53:10]

Well, I got this guy, Jerry Blackwell, who I don't understand it, to be honest. He's assisting the prosecutors pro bono. He's the founder of the Minnesota Association of Black Lawyers. I don't understand, like drafting somebody in, like, a ringer to try the case for the prosecution. And what does that say to every other person who gets killed? And there's another murder trial. Are you going to bring in one life more important than the other?

[00:53:32]

A one defendant is more important than the other. Then how are you going to have all this? For help on every murder that takes place in a certain community, you're going to get upset. Are you going to pretend that this case is like every other case, really? Well, you know what you're supposed to try that is part being part of the system. You're supposed to try to treat equal justice under the law, period. Amen. Well, I mean, listen, he's better than Keith Ellison, the attorney general of Minnesota, who's a nightmare and an anti-Semite.

[00:54:01]

And that's been pretty proven and is in love with Louis Farrakhan. All right. I'll take this guy, Blackwell or Keith Ellison any day of the week and twice on Sunday. And I my impression of him, along with the defense attorney, Nelson, for that matter, is they both seemed reasonable. They both seemed sort of calm, almost avuncular. They didn't seem like hotheads in any way. They both like in terms of manner. I think they're on par.

[00:54:28]

Give maybe a slight edge to Blackwell, the prosecutor.

[00:54:31]

I would have liked to see a little more energy out of Eric Nelson. I'm not a big fan of starting off a defense opening statement right after all of this blistering stuff from the prosecution with the words reasonable doubt. To me, that's almost waving a white flag. I mean, I would have started off with saying, stand up our five foot nine. One hundred and forty pounds. Forgive yourself. Ladies and gentlemen, walking, it's David versus Goliath, two six six, two hundred and sixty pounds.

[00:55:00]

Think of the disparity. The heavyweight champ against the featherweight, Jim, something that's going to pull them into your side a little bit. Golden rule. Objection, asking them to put themselves in this position.

[00:55:12]

But whatever. You know what? You get the point. Just to clarify, you're not allowed to make the jury well, you're not allowed to make the jury for its own safety, which is the one I was thinking. But you're not allowed to what, make the jury all the great stuff that you see in cheesy law dramas on TV where I yell at my wife, kids stand watch. You know, shows like. You can't say that you can do that.

[00:55:31]

Well, you know what? I go by the rules. I'd rather ask for forgiveness than permission. Objection. Sustained. What the jury did just hear what I just said. It's a hard drive that just got wiped out from their memory.

[00:55:41]

So let me so let me ask you, Arthur, in the Harvey Weinstein trial, you said, Mr. Wise, you stand up to the jury can say, oh, we put your walker to the side. Sorry, I had to.

[00:55:50]

You feel better? I do feel better. You got it out of your system is great.

[00:55:55]

You can ask themselves in the position of of the defendant, but you do it creatively with the minute they object. You say you go from you go from imagine you're in his position instead of that, you say imagine a person, blah, blah, blah, and you just change the ship and you're telling me when you have like a one witness ID case and you're the defense attorney and the witness is is not about the pillar of society. In closing argument, you didn't say, Mr.

[00:56:23]

Foreperson, would you even let him hold your wallet for five seconds? Would you trust him with your driver's license or your twenty dollar bill? You wouldn't trust him with that. Then you can't trust with my client's life partner.

[00:56:34]

I will do whatever it takes that I can get away with to win the case of. Yes.

[00:56:39]

Well, listen, so so the the one of the biggest problems that Chauvins going to have, even if even given the size differential is there, they're going to put on testimony. The prosecutor from the police chief, his police chief, according to the prosecutor, saying this wasn't in this was not an appropriate use of force. It wasn't lawful and it wasn't within the police department's policy. That's not good, right? I mean, I don't like I don't know.

[00:57:06]

I feel like the police chief saying that. And that's what I'm expecting, like the defense going to argue the opposite, but that the police chief is on the prosecution side and they fired Showband the next day.

[00:57:15]

That's a bad fact for officer to show no one Mark and March. I'm not disagreeing with you, but hold on. I will say, what am I doing on the defense side? I say, you know, my client became the sacrificial lamb. You know, people are going crazy. There were riots. You know, he had to say that this was not something that he was taught. And that's just not true. And we're going to show how the techniques that were taught to him, he implemented and he did it properly.

[00:57:45]

If you could say that with a straight face, I'm going to give you another juror that's interesting to me. If I'm the defense lawyer looking for one, looking for one white woman in her 40s, works in insurance, bachelor's degree in communication. She has not seen the bystander video of George Foyt in its entirety. Obviously in the courtroom, she believes there's discrimination in the criminal justice system against black people and other minorities, but also that the police make her feel safe and she has strong respect for them, somewhat favorable view of Black Lives Matter, but is not involved in the movement herself.

[00:58:16]

Also said she has a, quote, very favorable view of blue lives matter and said she would be, quote, terrified if the police departments were dismantled. But she does believe some change needs to happen. Now, keep in mind, they did dismantle the police in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It was a disaster. They already had to refund the defunded police because it was such a nightmare.

[00:58:38]

But I think she's interesting, very, very favorable to blue lives matter. Mark, she's yeah, I'd be looking at her, too. This is worthy of extra eye contact for sure.

[00:58:49]

But I still think the best case scenario, Megan, is what you said is the manslaughter. I mean, I think that's that's the victory for the fans. And that's kind of a loss to some degree for the prosecution.

[00:59:00]

Yes. So, all right. So one one other thing. Just to get people up to speed on the I would say the prosecution's biggest witness so far was not the nine one one operator, though. She was fine. It was not the the woman who just they used just to introduce a tape she had taken from across the street of the incident, which I thought at it absolutely nothing. And clearly, the woman didn't want to be there. And the biggest buzz about her on Twitter was about her false eyelashes.

[00:59:24]

But it was the the third guy, Donald Williams, and he was the one who he was the most vocal guy that you hear on the videotape. Like you're a bum, you're a bum F in this F and at the cop. And now it's say, frankly, he's sort of the voice of the people. As you watch the thing go down, you know, you're rooting for Donald Williams. You're on Donald Williams side. And it turns out he's a mixed martial arts expert and basically got certified to testify, I thought is kind of unusual because he wasn't actually certified as an expert.

[00:59:54]

But they're allowing him to be an expert in mixed martial arts, talking about how Shogan had him in sort of a blood hold and it was inappropriate, was cutting off the airwave airway. And Nelson, the defense attorney, got his chance to cross-examine Williams on Tuesday and really went after him about how. He's got a he's got an axe to grind against cops, and he's too angry to be an objective witness in this. And here's just a transcript of what happened on the stand on Tuesday morning.

[01:00:27]

Defense attorney, you told the BCA that you wanted to, quote, beat the shit out of the police officers, Williams. That's what I felt. Nelson, you were angry, WILLIAMS No, you can't paint me as angry, I was controlled with professionalism. NELSON You called him a fucking pussy ass bitch. WILLIAMS If that's what was heard on the video, I guess I did. That's good. It's good. Cross Shouldn't you just owned his anger?

[01:00:53]

Yes. I was angry a man was being killed.

[01:00:57]

Right. We were all angry. I mean, the truth is we were all angry and I think that that guy, given the play by play, I don't think anyone would be angry. So it's not like he comes off as being unreasonable by calling the guy those curse words that you just said because I felt the same way. I mean, I was watching by I was yelling at the TV and I know obviously what happened to get off of him, get off them.

[01:01:23]

And that's I think that those emotions you can't overcome that when you're a juror. I mean, the best again, the best case scenario is Mark Glass gets his one or two jurors who say, no, I want to walk him out of the courtroom and they say, we ain't walking him out of the courtroom. We'll compromise and we'll give you the manslaughter. And by the way, back in all these years now, because it's so easy, they all cheat, right?

[01:01:45]

They're not supposed to look at the law. They're not supposed to see what the sentencing is. Now, when Mark, at least when I was trying cases, they'd have to go to the library and pull out a book and find it. Now they just say, hey, Siri, what's the sentence of manslaughter? And so they'll probably they're not they're not allowed to. But they do it. They do it all the time. They go on Google.

[01:02:06]

They did a thing recently, one of the bar associations, and they asked jurors anonymously how many of them did go on social media during the course of the trial. And it was like a ridiculous number. Thirty five percent, 40 percent said that they do. Wow. It's just so easy. And it's a case like this. If they leave the courthouse and they get into a cab, there's going to be radio on in the cab. There's going to be TV on the cab.

[01:02:28]

You're going in an elevator now. It's there. It's omnipresent. Back in the day when I was trying cases, they'd be sequestered in a murder case. They would be in the custody of the court officers, no newspapers, no radio, no TV. They go from the courthouse to the hotel room, back to the courthouse, and they'd be able to talk to their family on the phone with a quarter of the listening in. They were really it was really much more pure than it is today.

[01:02:50]

I'm less concerned about them checking the possible sentence as I am about what's going on outside of the courthouse. The minute they check their habitually check their social media and then they see all the posts, it's unavoidable. They know that they there is intense pressure for them to find this cop guilty of the main charge. They know that they feel. So that's the toughest thing as a defense lawyer, I have a very similar case where there's a lot of pressure down here in South Florida on a guy that I'm representing and I'm studying this trial because, you know, there's you've got to take this on.

[01:03:29]

You've got to get them to promise you that they're not going to you know, they're not. But they're going to there's no way to avoid it. Right. Right. Because the jury the jury is not sequestered. So they are I mean, they might be once the deliberations start, but they're not right now. So they are out there. And you're right, it's everywhere.

[01:03:44]

But but they know I mean, there are protests in 60 countries after the death of George Floyd. It led to the biggest civil unrest we've seen in this country in decades. And you'd have to be living under a rock. This is part of the reason why the Judge Cahill, didn't agree to the change of venue motion because he's like, good luck finding a jury anywhere that doesn't know about this case or know about this video. Moving it to the country is not going to be any more fair to him than moving it, you know, than having it here in the city.

[01:04:15]

I think you could you could make an argument. I mean, I actually think I disagree with him on that. But, OK, it's happening where it's happening. But that's going to weigh on these jurors. Everyone knows what happens in today's day and age. Look what happened in Ferguson, Missouri, when they didn't indict over Michael Brown's death. Right.

[01:04:29]

Like we had riots and we saw everything burned and everything burned even after George Floyd was killed. Never mind a jury had its say. And I do think these jurors are going to be scared, frankly. Can we be honest? It's a little scary just talking about it, isn't it? It's a little scary just being honest about the fact that George Foy did have a pretty decent criminal record and he was on drugs. And there may be a defense here like, you know, everybody says you're racist.

[01:04:57]

You say that. But this is a legal case. You've got to be able to make a defense.

[01:05:00]

But even bigger than that, I mean, look, George Floyd was a victim. He was definitely a victim, in my opinion. He's not a hero. He's not a martyr. He's not someone who should be. He's not a role model. And people are making him into that. And whatever. I may get thrown off your podcast for saying that, but I mean, that's the truth. Do I want Luka to be like, hey, you want to grow up and be like George Boyd?

[01:05:23]

No, you don't. I mean, you want to be like the defendant in this case or like George Floyd, who was clearly I mean, the guy's eating drugs in the amount that would put down a small horse on top of his criminal record, et cetera, et cetera. So I have no problem saying I totally disagree with this exalted view of George Floyd. With that being said, the guy definitely did not deserve to die. The guy definitely was was mistreated.

[01:05:49]

The police officer, in my opinion, used absolute excessive force, especially after the guy was absolutely immobilized, not moving, handcuffed down there for four minutes. But is he a hero? Not not not in my eyes. Or anyone who I know who's being reasonable about is not a hero. He's he's a victim. And he should be mourned as a victim.

[01:06:10]

All right, I'm going to let that be the last word for now, but stay up on your homework, guys, because we'll have you back often and continue to follow this. I just feel like there's going to be very few places we can go for a truly fair coverage of this trial. Right. For the very reasons we're discussing. I really want this to be one of them. And I know you guys well enough to know we'll get that.

[01:06:28]

So may I say a pleasure. Pleasure talking to you again. I imagine. Well, we're going to get to our next guest in just one second. But first, I want to bring you a feature here on the Megan Kelly program that we call Asked and Answered, where we try to answer some of our listeners questions in.

[01:06:45]

Our executive producer Steve Krakauer has got one for me today Steve.

[01:06:48]

Hey, Megan. This one comes to us at questions at Devil May Care Media, Dotcom, and it's relevant for today's show. So that comes from Joe Humphry. He wants to know I know you ultimately branched out from practicing law, but do you have any advice for someone preparing for law school?

[01:07:03]

Don't do it. No, no, I don't mean preparing for law school. I mean, I remember when I was in that position, you don't really have to do anything to prepare for law school. But when you actually get law school, you have a lot to do and that is to treat it like it's your full time job. You know, I used to get to the law library at 8:00 in the morning and I did not leave all day except to go to class.

[01:07:24]

But in between classes, I went right back to the law library and I studied every waking minute that I wasn't actually in class being taught because that's frankly great training for the law. You know, the the law is a jealous mistress and it will always be with you. It will always be trying to seduce you into another tryst. And unfortunately, you're going to have to give it to her. So you might as well start now, understanding that lifestyle and throwing yourself into it in law school is an enormous opportunity to develop your brain, to just become a greater intellectual, to improve your thinking.

[01:07:54]

So why wouldn't you? It's a gift. You get into law school, you hit the lottery. You should be thanking your lucky stars every night if you can afford it, because I would say, you know, greater than any other experience I've had in my life that was critical to the way I think as a human, my my three years in law school. I love my time at Albany Law School. I have nothing but great things to say about the school in my time there.

[01:08:16]

But it is what you make of it. And anyway, when I phone it in and you just want to like, learn black letter law or try to like learn enough to ease the exam, OK, a better way might be to actually try to enjoy it and let it sink in and, you know, throw yourself into the Socratic method where they make you stand on your feet and take you down the lane of an argument that may or may not be correct.

[01:08:34]

And like the like the mouse in the maze, you discover too late. You've gone down the wrong lane, you get a back up. But that's fun. You know, logical reasoning, thought through to its successful point or unsuccessful point is fun, I think, for the brain, for me, I love Macourt. That was also an important skill to develop as a professional and you could use that doing anything.

[01:08:54]

So just enjoy it and take it deadly seriously. Deadly seriously. You just you can't, you can't on that end and there's no better prep for what's coming your way after.

[01:09:05]

So good luck. OK, we're going to go to Michael Belski in one second. But first this.

[01:09:11]

So once you get everybody hired thanks to zip Scooter, you got to think about how to manage them. You don't want to deal with that. H.R. These issues can kill you. It's awful. No one wants to deal with this stuff. You can wrongful termination suits, minimum wage requirements, labor regulations and H.R. manager salaries, by the way, are not cheap. It's an average of seventy thousand bucks a year. That's where Bambi comes in. These are people come to you and say, hey, how'd you like me to take huge headache off your plate?

[01:09:39]

Yes. Yes. Thank you, Bambi. You get a dedicated H.R. manager, craft H.R. policy and maintain your compliance all for ninety nine dollars a month, less than one hundred beanz a month. People with bamby you can change H.R. from your biggest liability to your biggest strength. Your dedicated H.R. manager will be available by phone, email or real time chat from onboarding.

[01:10:03]

Hiring.

[01:10:04]

Why do we call it onboarding now? I don't know. For hiring people to terminating them, they will customize your policies to fit your business and help you manage your employees day to day, all for just ninety nine dollars a month, month to month. No hidden fees cancel any time. Couldn't make it any easier on you. You didn't start your own business because you wanted to spend time on H.R. compliance or whatever business you're doing. Nobody wants to deal with that stuff.

[01:10:28]

So let Bambi help you get your free H.R. audit today. Go to Bambi dot com slash EMK right now to schedule your free H.R. audit. That's Bambi dot com EMK spelled Bamp to the B dot com slash M.K.. Michael Belski, thank you so much for doing this. I've been wanted to talk to you for a long time. I want to talk to you about Freddie Gray's case. I want to talk to you about this case. But you're somebody who knows a thing or two about defending a police officer in the national spotlight in a case that there's all sorts of considerations at play.

[01:11:07]

It's not just about the evidence. It's about the public pressure. It's about, you know, public servants who feel like they they they got to do what they got to do, irrespective of what the law may dictate. I think we're looking at a lot of that then this George Floyd case. So you tell me because you've you've actually been there. You represented a police officer, I call them the Baltimore Six charged in the Freddie Gray case. And you've got a complete exoneration for your for your client.

[01:11:34]

Lieutenant Rice, he's he's been exonerated. But you tell me whether you see similarities between Derek Chauvin's trial and the trial that you handled.

[01:11:44]

Sure. I mean, there's there's a lot of similarities, you know, in a lot of differences. Every every case is different. And that's why we have juries. But from a from just an optics standpoint, there are a lot of similarities. Number one, there's a tremendous amount in both cases, public scrutiny and public interest in it. Just procedurally, there were settlements in both cases on the day of the trial. There were protests and and significant public interest in it.

[01:12:14]

And in both cases, from a factual perspective, there are a lot of similarities. There's allegations in both cases that the police used unreasonable force, but the police didn't treat the situation as a reasonable police officer would, just an even more specific factual similarities. In both cases, there were literally allegations of a resistance of arrest to the point that a vehicle began rocking. I mean, just eerily factually similar allegations. But there are also a lot of differences.

[01:12:49]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[01:12:50]

So but before we get to those, look, let me stop and ask you about one of the things that I'd like to flesh out. I mean, on the eve of of trial, in this case, it was announced that the city of Minneapolis entered into a settlement with George Floyd's family in which they get paid. Twenty seven million dollars. That's a big settlement. And, you know, if I were the defense attorney, I would have been going nuts about that being made public when it was and renewing my change of venue motion, which this judge really didn't want to entertain anyway.

[01:13:21]

But you tell me whether that plays into the prosecution's argument that this is an admission by the city. Like I'd be up there saying Shoven was fired. The next day you're going to hear from the police chief that this was excessive force and the city paid twenty seven million dollars to the family. So what are we doing here? Just convict and let's put an end to this, right?

[01:13:40]

I mean, it puts the defense at a tremendous disadvantage, right? Because you're right. You do a tacit admission by the government that a wrong was committed. And it's very difficult to divorce yourself as a lawyer from from that conclusion. But like every fact, it is also a double edged sword because a juror could look at the situation and look at the facts in this case and have questions and say, well, some element of justice has been served and I'm sitting on a criminal trial, not civil trial.

[01:14:12]

And because some element of justice has been given, maybe I'm going to air on the side of caution and give the benefit to the officer. I don't know. I don't know what the 12 people think, but like every fact, it could go both ways. But, yeah, it's a very, very difficult. Fact to get around if you're defending this case, there's a lot of prejudice incurred by the fact that the state is tacitly admitting from doing the same thing happened in the Freddie Gray case on the Dorner trial.

[01:14:39]

There was a civil settlement.

[01:14:40]

And it's difficult when I watch the opening statements, you know, you could see the clear strategy for the prosecution. It was nine. Twenty nine. Nine minutes. Twenty nine seconds. That's what this case is about.

[01:14:51]

And the defense was broad, broad, broad, broad, all the stuff leading up the broader crime scene when it was happening in the crowd getting an Chauvin's head and making the officers feel in danger and making the show and have to focus on them and not just on what was happening to Derek, to George Floyd. One wants it very, very narrow. One wants a very, very broad. What were your impressions of the opening's? You make it that's such an astute observation, and that was exactly my my my observation of the opening statements was that the government was myopically focused on the nine minutes, as they should be, that their focus was on those nine minutes.

[01:15:31]

And the defense was painting a much broader picture that there's a crowd gathered, that there's you know, there's a danger to the people around that that that there were situations that unfolded leading to the nine minutes. And my perception of the opening statements was, I think the state the government did a very effective job in talking about those nine minutes in a way that that I hadn't thought about before, focusing on those last four minutes and the amount of time that went by after Mr.

[01:16:02]

Floyd stop speaking. I thought they were very effective with that. I think there were ineffective and certain other aspects. And I think they sort of sort of omitted everything that that surrounded those nine minutes and surrounded where Chauvin and Mr. Floyd were. Similarly, I think the defense did a very good job at painting a very broad picture and sort of allowing us to see and feel and hear what the children saw around him and not just with Mr. Floyd, but the crowd in the minutes leading up to the situation.

[01:16:39]

But at the same time, I think that there are questions left unanswered by the defense's opening statement about what happened during those nine minutes, particularly the last four minutes. So I think you're right. I think both sides focused on what they wanted to focus on. And I walked away from opening statements asking myself, these are two totally different stories, two totally different killings of the same story. And I have a lot of questions. I'm eager and hungry for the facts to understand exactly what did happen, both in those nine minutes and in the moments surrounding it.

[01:17:14]

So you tell me, because the prosecutor was saying, Blackwell was saying, you got four minutes and forty five seconds were George Floyd was crying out for his life. You got four minutes and forty four seconds where he was unconscious, breathless or pulseless and the grinding went on just the same. That's what that's how he put it and reminded the jury that use of force has to be evaluated from moment to moment. So even if you can say the knee on the neck, if the defense can prove that this was an acceptable technique generally and that even that it was an OK technique for George Floyd for the first four forty five, how do you how do you prove it was OK for the second four.

[01:17:50]

Forty four. Right. That seems to be where the prosecution is going.

[01:17:53]

But my impression was, although that would have been helpful if the defense had made this more clear, he's definitely going to say the technique was OK and it was taught to show him and and show him small and Floyd was big and that's why the first half was OK. And I think his explanation for the second half is going to be the crowd. It's interested because the prosecution's painting the crowd as a bunch of heroes. They took the time to put a screen grab of the crowd on on the screen for the jury.

[01:18:20]

And they're going to call they've already called a bunch of them. The children came on Tuesday, you know, the younger people who watched it. And so the prosecution say these are citizen heroes who two saw something wrong and tried to step in and videotaped it, and without the videotape, we probably wouldn't be here. Right, because cops tend to get protected. That's their that's going to be their case.

[01:18:39]

And the defense is going to say the crowd, maybe their heart was in the right place, but they were a bigger problem than they were an asset for George Floyd and everybody else there because they were distracting the officers who, unlike you or me, do need to worry about an angry mob surrounding a crime scene and police officers who are now outnumbered.

[01:19:02]

Yeah, so two points on that one. I think you're right. You do ask the question, are you suggesting that maybe the defense could have done a better job in explaining sort of those last four minutes or the. What's interesting is I think that was intentional because I think there's a question mark as to whether Officer Shogan, even at this point, is ever going to take a stand one way or the other to explain what the crowd meant to him.

[01:19:25]

And I think that ambiguity, that that greyness was a sort of intentional because the defense doesn't necessarily at this point know where they're going. But you're right. I mean, the crowd is an issue and the defense will go there because officer children had a duty to protect not only himself and Mr. Floyd, but the quote. And if Mr. Floyd, based on Shogun's perception, presented a danger to the crowd, he has a responsibility to to protect them.

[01:19:54]

But the interesting thing from the state's perspective, the government's perspective about the crowd is this and I haven't heard a lot of people talk about this, but there's been a lot of focus about this one person in the crowd who had medical training. And I suspect you can mark my word on this. This is going to become a part of the state's theory down the road relative to in the very least, the manslaughter case is that in those last four minutes, if what started out as an innocent use of force became a crime and in those last four minutes, even if the cause of death wasn't related, anything else showed and the defense can prevail in that.

[01:20:34]

There's going to be this argument that if Officer Shogan had stopped using force when Mr. Floyd stopped moving or stopped speaking, there would have been an opportunity, perhaps for somebody from the crowd to interview and alter the outcome. And that's going to be an argument relative to the manslaughter charge.

[01:20:56]

But how I that's that's smart. And I you're probably right about that because, I mean, for sure, we saw the prosecution talking about how he didn't even get off George Floyd's neck when the EMTs had arrived. It wasn't until they had the gurney next to George Floyd's lifeless body that Chauvin finally removed the knee. And and there had been pulse checks by that point, which didn't produce a pulse. So and still he was on there. So that's definitely going to be those are key moments.

[01:21:24]

But I also think that, you know, if I'm if I'm Nelson representing Derek Chauvin, I'm going to say members of the jury, you how did he know this woman really was a firefighter and EMT worker?

[01:21:37]

How how do you like. She's yelling obscenities at them. Like how?

[01:21:42]

And by the way, this is going to be, again, a defense argument. How do I know George Floyd is actually unconscious or subdued or whether he's just pretending or whether he's fallen asleep? How do you know is a police officer? Because you're taught this is going to be the argument. This is a safe technique. This is a technique that doesn't cause death. And yet here you have a defendant saying all the stuff we've heard defendants say many, many times, I can't breathe.

[01:22:08]

I mean, that's actually one of the sad things, is that it's been used so many times now that I think there are some officers who dismiss it easily. But anyway, I think they'll easily be able to dismiss the EMT because it's like how does he know from Officer Chauvin's perspective?

[01:22:21]

You're right. I mean, you're absolutely right. How did he know and how could he have known that that would have altered the outcome? But from a pure legal perspective, a manslaughter charge and the necessity to prove causation, it could be an issue even if you didn't know. But I think you're absolutely right. And what the defense is going to argue in this case, you're going to hear all of these witnesses take a stand and say people saying I can't breathe or people fainting.

[01:22:50]

Not that Mr. Floyd did this. And I'm not saying that, but but people fainting, you know, non movement people saying that I can't breathe again, whatever those are. Those are tactics used by people all the time to resist arrest. And I'm not saying that's what happened in this case. I'm not saying that it isn't. But you're right. How was officer children to know whether that was genuine or not? And that's going to be a part of the defense in this case for sure.

[01:23:19]

And what matters is what's in his mind.

[01:23:21]

You know what I'm finding I'm finding when I discuss this legally with lawyers or when I think about it. Logically, I can argue the case. I can argue the case for the defense, and then you see the videotape again and you're like, hell no, this guy's got to go to prison. He's got to go to prison for as long as we can possibly set in prison because you have to send a message to him and every other cop out there that we will not tolerate this kind of inhumanity when there's another life present.

[01:23:49]

The prosecution kept saying yesterday they opened with the duty of a police officer in Minneapolis to protect with courage and serve with compassion, serve with compassion, and that even when they have somebody in there in their custody, that they would never employ unnecessary force or violence. It's like he he violated his duty to the community, to George Floyd in. And you're going to have a parade of cops up there, you know, the the police community. There's going to be some to defend him.

[01:24:26]

But they're not largely behind Derek Chauvin, right?

[01:24:30]

Yeah. I mean, the video tells a very damning story. It does. And it's going to be very hard to defend against the optics of that video and the story. But the video is only part of it. The defense is right in their opening statement by saying there's a lot more to this case than the video. And that's why we have jury trials. That's why we have four people sit there for a month and listen to the medical examiner explain what the cause of death was.

[01:25:00]

Listen to people talk about what reasonable use of force is and isn't what. At the end of the day, the video is the video and it does prove damning picture what the defense is going to have to figure out how to mitigate.

[01:25:13]

It's so emotional. It's emotional. It's like one one side.

[01:25:18]

You can make the logical argument, you know, the fentanyl and all that. But when you see the tape, it's emotions take over. And honestly, just common sense takes over.

[01:25:27]

It's like, get the hell off his neck. Get up, get up. That's how you feel when you watch it the same way that the narrator narrator of the tape feels.

[01:25:35]

You know, Donald Williams, let me ask you about judge versus jury, because in in the case of the Baltimore six, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you guys have judge trials? So we did that if it was interesting how that came to be. But we ultimately did. We started with a jury trial. The first officer that went at a jury trial resulted in a hung jury. And by a series of very fortuitous circumstances, we ended up with a court trial in the least egregious of the six officers, which allowed us to sort of watch the judge and understand his perspective and listen to his ruling and dissect it and and come to understand where he was coming from, which sort of led the way to the other officers, including my client, ultimately taking court trials.

[01:26:25]

We had court trials.

[01:26:26]

So how does that play you? You guys you have six cops who were exonerated with it by a judge versus this case where you've got a jury who are subject to all the same pressures and pulls as any other human being is notwithstanding the admonitions they'll get from the court to maintain their fairness and decide the case based on the evidence. Only in the courtroom it's you're playing to 12 people instead of one.

[01:26:52]

And you said you can look at this as a lawyer and you can analyze the legal issues in a detached and objective way, which is what a judge is equipped to do. Juries don't have the experience of doing that, and they're much more emotional and visceral as they should be. And it's talking to 12 people who are not lawyers, very different than talking to one judge who is a lawyer. And it's a challenge. But there are 12 people and 12 people that come from different avenues and different walks of life with different life experiences.

[01:27:29]

And, you know, it depends on who those 12 people are as to how you talk to them. But it's a very different game talking to 12 people than to one lawyer for sure.

[01:27:39]

What what about you represented a cop accused in a case where his fellow cops were also accused. So in that case, I'm forgive me, because it's been a while back and 16 this trial took place. But I thought everybody had their own lawyer. Each cop got his own lawyer. And but and now. And now that's the same situation. So each of these other cops, there's three others. They've been charged with aiding and abetting second degree murder, third degree murder and manslaughter.

[01:28:07]

And we're told that the prosecution is going to call them. So what what do you how do you see that situation, the three versus the one?

[01:28:16]

Are their interests aligned? What what's going to happen there?

[01:28:18]

You think they're charged, as I understand it, with crimes at this point, the prosecution calls them. What are they going to do if they're going to invoke? All right, not to testify. Are they going to testify? I mean, there's a lot of avenues and a lot of off ramps that this could take, and I don't know how that's going to play out. And I could certainly envision a world where they take the stand and took the fifth.

[01:28:40]

Right, because they have pending trials. And what's interesting in this case is, is that the government tried most culpable person first and the less culpable people second of it. And certainly in our case, you saw it in the reverse where the government wanted to get the information on the less culpable people before they took their shot at the more culpable person. So I don't know how that's going to play out. That's going to be interesting. And then that's going to be a decision that those officers are going to have to make time.

[01:29:13]

If I were advising them, I would be very reluctant to allow them to testify, knowing that they have pending trials. But you don't know what's going on behind the scenes and what conversations are being had about potential immunity or potential deals, I don't know.

[01:29:29]

You've got as I look at the transcript, you've got the one guy, Officer Lane, who appears to be the only cop who's expressing any concern that mirrors what the what the crowd is saying, like Lane says, roll him on his side show and says, no, leave him staying put where we got him. Lane says, OK, I just worry about the excited delirium or whatever, which is a thing where that's the defense is going to argue that I think excited delirium, as I understand it, which is like so excited that that it becomes dangerous, that your adrenaline is flowing.

[01:30:00]

And if you have underlying conditions, as Floyd did, it could become obviously problematic. Then Floyd says again, I can't breathe in. Chauvin says that's why we've got the ambulance coming. Lane OK, I suppose. Shoven It's fine. Lane I think he's passing out. The crowd starts screaming that Floyd is not breathing Lane. He is breathing. And then I think it's King is how you pronounce the other guy. Yeah, he's breathing. Lahn want to roll him on his side.

[01:30:25]

Chauvin doesn't verbally respond. Lane checks the pulse. You got one. Kong responds. Eight seconds later I can't find one. And then anyway. But my point is if I'm representing Lane. I guess my first thought is I'm better off than the others because I have a guy who's trying to to take into consideration the state of George Floyd, I think you could also make the case maybe he's more culpable than the other two because he he recognized there was cause for concern and he did nothing.

[01:30:55]

Just saying a few words isn't good enough.

[01:30:57]

Right. And find him and I'm his attorney advising him. I'd be very nervous to put him on the stand and testify in this case, absent some. Some cushion or some understanding that what he testified to is somehow protected because there are innocuous or potentially innocent statements that he may believe is going to make that could come back to haunt him. I don't know. I'd be very nervous if I were him in that situation. And I'm sure these are conversations that are all being on right now.

[01:31:29]

By the way, that guy Lane, all four of these guys were fired the next day. It was his first week as a Minneapolis police officer. He was thirty seven years old. I mean, the thought that he's going to be able to sort of overrule that, the 20 year veteran who's in control, I think is a lot to ask of a first week cop. The other guy, Choung twenty six. He's for whatever for what it's worth, he's mixed race.

[01:31:55]

He identifies as African-American. It was his first week as a Minneapolis police officer. And then there was Thow, who you see quite a bit on the tape, trying to keep the crowd back. And he he had been there a longer time, I guess. But what about can you can I just ask you about the complaints against Eric Chauvin? We're told that it is 20 years or so on the force. He had 17 complaints against that, against him, told that two of those resulted in some sort of disciplinary action, 17 misconduct complaints, two ended in discipline.

[01:32:28]

How does that like I'm looking at how thought he had six complaints against him. None resulted in disciplinary action. He was only 30 for Chauvin's. Forty four. So he has more time in life and on the job. How do we know whether is that bad or should we be looking only at the disciplinary action or should we be looking at the number of complaints?

[01:32:48]

I mean, I'd want to know more about the complaints and what they were. Obviously, police officers have a lot of complaints brought against them for a benign things like being late to work or missing a court date. Not that that's a less serious and serious complaints. And seventeen or twenty five in an extended period of time, maybe a lot, depending on what they are. I'd want to know more about them, but certainly he doesn't come in with clean hands in that respect.

[01:33:22]

But that doesn't surprise me. I really would want to know more about what those were.

[01:33:29]

They say he was also shown and also received a Medal of Valor in two thousand six and two thousand eight, a commendation medal in two thousand nine. One of those was for handling a case in which they had to restrain somebody. And he that the medical professionals had said that he handled it in a way that saved the person's life. But and so that stuff is going to be used for him and against and saying you knew how to do a proper arrest, you knew how to do a proper restraint.

[01:33:56]

You were even given a commendation for it. Why didn't you do it here? Why did you do it here? And exactly. That's every fact. Every fact in this case is going to be a double edged sword. I mean, every fact could be used by the state or could be used by the defense. And certainly that that is the perfect example. Yeah.

[01:34:16]

So if you have to take odds on what's going to happen, what do you think? I think I well, I hate that question, but I think those last four minutes are troubling. I really think the defense is going to have an uphill battle getting an all out acquittal based on the fact that four minutes went by where he continued to use force at a time where force probably wasn't or wasn't warranted. It's going to be what caused the death of Mr.

[01:34:51]

Floyd.

[01:34:51]

Do you think this is a manslaughter case or a murder case? I would want to know more facts. I watched the opening statements and I learned things that I didn't know that that that moved me in both directions. And so I'd want to know more specifically about the causation issues and what ultimately caused the death. There were things that I didn't know in both ways that that that moved the needle for me. And I want to hear the medical testimony before I before I make that decision.

[01:35:20]

I think manslaughter is certainly on the table. And I certainly think that murder could be depending on how the evidence comes out. And it could not be. I want to know more. I'm hungry for facts in this case. I want to know more. And I think we all should.

[01:35:38]

The medical testimony, as much as you want to hear it and I want to hear it, is going to be disappointing because you're going to have dueling experts who say exactly the opposite. It's going to be sky is blue, sky is not blue, grass is green, grass is not green. And it's up to the jury for the jury to sit there and assess the credibility of each witness and decide who they believe. But don't expect some learned expert to take the stand and say this is definitively how he died.

[01:36:08]

And that's the end of it, that there's going to be dueling experts and it's going to be unsatisfactory. Right.

[01:36:14]

But you do have the medical examiner's report, which tends to not necessarily support states.

[01:36:20]

Now, it says he didn't die of asphyxia. It says it wasn't. And that there was there was no bruising to the neck. And I mean, this guy, his report suggests that Jovan didn't actually hurt George Floyd.

[01:36:35]

That's right. But then you have this weird jury instruction or law in Minnesota, which is the law in most places, and that is the state did not prove that Officer Shogan actually caused the death, but that his actions were substantial, a contributing factor to the death rate. That's that's what the law is. And I hear the state really say that. And I was actually little surprised by that because I think at the end of the day, those words are going to be that the government of this case, substantial contributing factor and the medical examiner's report where they ruled that the death was a cardiac event that was complicated by him being subdued.

[01:37:16]

And the jury is going to have to take all those words and make sense of it. And I think that's the conversation that's going to be had by the jury ultimately.

[01:37:24]

Yeah. I mean, good luck convincing the jury that Chauvin had nothing to do with this, right? It's like I mean, it's like the prosecution made the case on Monday. Yes. George Floyd was an addict to suggest like he'd been an addict for a long time. He'd been an addict in cars on the road, playing basketball, living his life. He never died. It's like to suggest it was pure coincidence. And I guess, you know, the defense will say it wasn't just coincidence.

[01:37:51]

It was the fact that he had so much fentanyl in him. He was popping methamphetamines like they were, you know, fruit.

[01:37:58]

And and even if Shoven hadn't come along, George Floyd limited his own lifespan in that moment. OK, what I want to ask you one of the thing, because we all watched the Freddie Gray trial, and it's been one of my it's just been something that really frustrated me that those those six officers were they were exonerated. You know, you had a D.A. in that case making very public statements that we shouldn't have heard a mayor in that case who seem to have their thumb on the scale.

[01:38:27]

There was a lot of problems in that case. But still, we hear Freddie Gray's name mentioned as somebody who's on the list of people were supposed to think was unfairly killed by police, even though that was never proven at all anyway.

[01:38:39]

How is your client doing, Lieutenant Rice? Is he back on the force? And how would you say having gone through this has affected him?

[01:38:48]

Sort of caveat that by saying not only was she exonerated in a court of law, but also all six of the officers were exonerated by trial, by internal troubles police department. And it has taken a tremendous toll on them. There's no doubt that that there is no doubt that there is a systemic problem in this country with the relationship between police officers and the fact that these six officers from my case were sort of. Poster children for for that problem weighs very heavily on them.

[01:39:25]

That case is very different in this case as we started this conversation by saying very different. And it's it's it's hard on them being lumped into know very real cases of police misconduct. But yeah, my client is back on the force, is doing his thing and. No. And life goes on, you know, but it's it's very difficult. There is a real problem in this country. There really is. And I think we all know it.

[01:40:00]

That was not the case. Is the Freddie Gray case in this well may be the case, but every case is different. And here we are.

[01:40:10]

Yeah, I mean, even the prosecutor in this case said was sure to point out to the jury, this case is not about all police. And I do think that's an important thing to remember. You know, you can you can back police, you can black, you can back black lives matter and still come to an independent assessment of the facts here. And that, in fact, is the obligation of the jury. And I also think of those of us who are, you know, in a privileged position to talk about it publicly, you know, not to not to rush to judgment anyway, to keep an open mind.

[01:40:45]

But if we get to the point of guilt or not guilty, for that matter, then we have to accept it. We have to respect the jury's decision one way or the other. This is going to be a tough one, is an emotional one. Thank you, Mike. Thank you.

[01:40:58]

Megan is good talking to you. And our thanks to Marc and Arthur are our legal dream team, as well as to Mike Belsky, who will have on again to talk about this case as it goes on. And I want to tell you, do not forget, go ahead and subscribe to the show right now because we've got Jordan Peterson on Friday. I mean, that's that's a dream come true. He's agreed to come on. And I can't wait for this conversation.

[01:41:27]

So seriously, do subscribe. So you don't miss it. If you're subscribed, then we sort of give you the knock on the shoulder, the tap on the shoulder on Friday morning saying, hey, here it is. Do you want to download or not? And you do. And then semi review. It's funny because when I was I was on break these past couple of weeks, but we put a lot of interviews in the hopper, which I hope you guys have been enjoying.

[01:41:48]

And I do read all the reviews, as I said, and I read a couple of people like, I don't believe you that you read the reviews. Well, I do. I'm still reading all of them. And I do love hearing from you. So if you have thoughts on any of the interviews on this case that we've just been discussing, please go to the Apple reviews and let me know what you think and, you know, sort of weigh in, because I do listen to you all.

[01:42:10]

And on this one in particular, the shogan trial, I'd I'd love to hear what you have to say. It's just so fraught, isn't it? It's just makes me feel uncomfortable. But we've got to keep talking. A lot of our subjects make you feel uncomfortable, but the only way through is through. Keep talking and we'll do that on Friday with Jordan. See you then. Thanks for listening to the Megan Kelly show. No bias, no agenda and no fear.

[01:42:35]

The Megan Kelly Show is a devil may care media production in collaboration with RedZone Ventures.