tv CNN Newsroom with Alisyn Camerota and Victor Blackwell CNN April 19, 2021 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT
controlled substances thahabituy for some time. we know in 2013 during an encounter with police, mr. floyd ingested some controlled substances. they were percocets. he was startled by the police, like he was in this case. officer drew his gun in that case, too. and that resulted in a blood pressure of 216 over 160. i mean, that's not just high. that is skyrocketing high. we know from ms. ross that in march of 2020, they purchased some pills that were supposed to be percocets, an opioid, but they were clearly knockoffs. she described that. they were clearly knockoffs. she described how those pills made her feel. they kept her up all night. the introduction of the
methamphetamine. we know from ms. ross that in march of 2020 mr. floyd was seen for a drug overdose. she described how he felt in that instance. she said his whole body hurt. his stomach hurt. we know, based again from ms. ross, that he was clean and sober for some time while they were in quarantine. we know that ms. ross again described taking about a week before a similar pill to the one they had back in march. kept her up again all night. she said she felt like she was going to die. we know, again, from ms. ross, that those pills were purchased from morty's hall. she described going to the hotel
while mr. floyd, while george floyd was on the phone with him. she heard his voice. we know mr. floyd was with maurice on may 25, 2020. we know from the store clerk, he described mr. floyd as being high. his responses were delayed. he may have been, you know, standing around. he may have been standing up. he may have been able to have communications, but mr. martin clearly described him as being high. we heard from ms. hill that when they got back into the car, they had a conversation for a few minutes and suddenly mr. floyd fell asleep. all of these things become important. they had trouble waking him up. she called her daughter because they couldn't wake her up -- wake mr. floyd up. they couldn't keep him awake.
we heard how mr. martin described mr. floyd when he went back to the car and how he was -- he wasn't speaking, right. he kept putting his head back and shaking his head. we know from peter kueng's body-worn camera that mr. floyd was dozing off. we know that whether mr. floyd was chewing gum while he was in the store, we can also see he was eating a banana. he bought a banana .
we know those pills were later tested to be a combination of methamphetamine and fentanyl. that's what was in mr. floyd's system. it's relevant because it's what was in his system. these are the pills that were found. we know at some point mr. floyd was handcuffed. his hands were behind his back. it would have been physically impossible to put anything in his mouth at that point. and we know that in the squad car 320 were pills. we know those pills were analyzed. we know those pills consisted of fentanyl and methamphetamine. we know that mr. floyd's
salivary dna was found on those pills. how much fentanyl does it take to kill? this is from the minneapolis police department's training. approximately two to three milligrams. smaller than a penny. this is from the squad car. you can look at these pictures closely during the course of your evidence. there is a video of mr. floyd -- when mr. floyd is being subdued and restrained by the police.
mr. maurice hall reaches into his bag. he's reaching through the windows. and then he throws something. we know that mr. floyd had drugs in his mouth. we know that some percentage of that would have been consumed and absorbed into his system. we don't know how much he took before. we don't know when he took an earlier dose in relation because fentanyl had actually started to metabolize. so fentanyl was longer before. for the medical experts to minimize the timing and the amount of illicit drugs that were found in mr. floyd's
bloodstream, it is just simply incredible to me. it is incredible to me. every single doctor testified that relevant to the -- that the absence of signs of fentanyl overdose weren't present because he was alert, he was talking. but it ignores what ms. hill and maurice hall says, right, that he was all of a sudden asleep and difficult to wake up. it ignores the fact that the combination of these two drugs, methamphetamine is a powerful stimulant. fentanyl is a powerful sedative. they use it for surgeries every single doctor dismissed outright nothing about this case. it was only 0.19 nanograms per
mill mililiter. it is such a small amount of methamphetamine in his system. it's a vasoskconstrictor. it causes the arteries to constrict even tighter. doesn't matter. every single doctor just brushed it aside. said it would have no effect. i asked, would any of those doctors prescribe illicit methamphetamine to their patients? would they give it to their children? would they give it to their elderly parents with a 90% blockage of the coronary artery, of the right coronary artery? i guarantee you the answer is no. dr. rich is the only one who said, i would never recommend to my patients that they take any amount of illicit methamphetamine. it is preposterous that -- it is
a preposterous notion that this did not come into play here. >> let's take a half hour break for lunch. i don't want to interrupt, but -- >> i apologize. >> 30 minutes for lunch, please. thank you. >> wow. >> hello, everyone. thank you for joining us. i'm alisyn camerota along with victor blackwell and for -- >> more than two hours. >> for two hours you have been watching the defense make their closing argument in the derek chauvin trial, the former minneapolis police officer is charged with murdering george floyd by kneeling on floyd's neck for more than nine minutes. the defense argues that chauvin's actions were reasonable. so we know our legal experts have also been standing by all this team and listening.
let's get to them. we have ariva martin and cnn legal analyst elie, formerle federal prosecutor. i know you have been paying very close attention to this more than two hours of eric nelson. how did he do? >> so far this has been a clinic in distraction, a clinic in blame-shifting. the defense so far has tried to get the jury to focus on everything, everything but the heart of the matter. i'll give you an example. with the 9:29, we know that 9:29 is the crucial period in this case when derek chauvin had his knee on george floyd's neck. the defense lawyer said, that is, quote, not the proper analysis. not the proper analysis? that's the only analysis that really matters here in terms of the use of force. another thing that's really important, the defense lawyer has misstated the law on medical causation. he is leading this jury to believe that if there were any other factors involved other than the knee to the neck, the verdict has to be not guilty. here's what the judge instructed the jury earlier and watch for
the prosecution to correct this. the judge said, the fact that other causes contributed to death does not relieve the defendant of criminal liability. that's why we have rebuttal. the prosecution has to clean that up. >> let me bring you in here because i don't want to rush by what just happened as we came to air for analysis. the judge here just interrupted and said, we've got to send the jury to lunch. we had an hour and 45 minutes from steve schleicher from the state, special prosecutor, and more than 2 1/2 hours into the defense's closing argument. the judge just cut him off. that seems atypical, that he would interrupt the closing arguments from the defense. >> well, it's probably to the defense's -- a benefit to the defense because, let's face it, these are individuals and they've been sitting in this courtroom now for almost 4 1/2 hours listening to testimony. as riveting as this testimony may be to us, as journalists and
as legal analysts, to the everyday person called to jury duty, this is gruelling. it's gruelling to sit there and listen to each of these lawyers go through in painstaking defense all the evidence they've already heard for the last couple of weeks. victor, although it's not common to cut someone off in the middle of thr argument and go to lunch, i think this is a benefit to the defense because i can't imagine we haven't got pool notes from the reporter inside the courthouse, but i can imagine there are some jurors drifting off. jurors get irritated when they're hungry and they haven't had food. i think the judge made a good call because it doesn't look like eric nelson is any way getting to his final part of his closing argument. sounds like he may have another 30, 45 minutes to go. >> before we get to the meat of what he's saying, i want your stylistic point on that. it is hard as a juror to stay laser focused if you're hungry f you've been listening for 2 1/2 hours. eric nelson kept apologizing for
being long-winded. you've been a trial attorney. is is there some science as to when you let a jury take a break? >> there's no science but there's common sense. you have to read the room. juries have short attention spans. he's going too long. if you as a viewer are going, when does this end? where is he going? i guarantee you the jurors are thinking the same thing, especially when it's 2:15 in minneapolis, p.m., i'm sure they're thinking of lunch. i think the judge did him a favor when he cut him off when he did. >> let's go into the actual content of the closing argument. and it seems as if thus far, maybe because it's gone on an hour longer than the closing from the state, that the defense is using far more video, far more of the body cam to make its case. is that -- to borrow a phrase,
is the juice worth the squeeze? what i'm hearing is george floyd calling out to his mother, george floyd continuing to say, be i can't breathe. he puts up a photograph. what's in the center of the frame is the gun, not really the item, gum, banana or pill in george floyd's mouth. what's your assessment of the use of video and the evidence in this closing? >> yeah, i think you're right. this video is extremely troubling for the defense. every time they use a piece of this video, they run the risk of alienating these jurors and cause the jurors to be taken back to the heart of the case, which is that 9 minutes and 29 seconds. that piece of video with the gun in the face of george floyd, i think, is fatal to the defense's position because what they're trying to convince us -- you know, what they want us to believe is somehow the conduct of these officers, and particularly derek chauvin, was reasonable. and they want us to look back before the 9 minutes and 29 seconds. he keeps talking about these 17 minutes. i think what the jurors see is a man who was compliant, who was doing everything he was asked to
do by these police officers, putting his hands on the steering wheel, starting immediately to talk about his claustrophobia and his anxiety. and yet what we saw were these overly aggressive police officers dropping the f-bombs, pointing the gun in his face, wrestling with him in this car. i think that whole focus on that so-called, you know, when he was being aggressive as chauvin's lawyer wants us to believe, i think that's going to hurt the defense. i'm sitting here thinking, you got a man that's 6 feet tall. you say he's a big guy. there has to be a bigger car you can call? there has to be a different technique you can use. we saw him sitting next to that building very calm, answering questions, responding to police officers. i think jurors, again, not leaving their common sense at home are going to be thinking, gee, couldn't you have taken him out of that car, sat him down, slowed the situation down and used some better de-escalation tactics rather than this wrestling back and forth over
this tiny cage, as i think the prosecutor correctly called the backseat of that squad car. >> that's what we heard from steve schleicher. he continuously went through the chronology and said, that's not resistance. that's compliance. he was sitting next to the wall. that's not resistance, that's compliance, to ariva's point. >> if i'm the prosecutor, i would argue to the jury, everything before the 9:29 is a really, who cares. the atmospherics sets the stage, but the time when the prosecution is charging this murder occurred during those 9:29. was there a struggle to get into the police car? yes, there was. does it matter once george floyd is rear handcuffed, face-down on the pavement with three officers on top of him? a lot of closing arguments are about focus. and the prosecution wants to draw the focus to the key points, to derek chauvin, to those 9:29. as we're seeing now, the defense wants to throw the focus everywhere and anywhere else. and the prosecution's task when
they get their chance to rebut after that is to bring that focus back to derek chauvin and 9:29. >> one more thing about that videotape because i thought the defense attorney, eric nelson, brought up something interesting. he said, do you do something illegal when you know you're being videotaped by four or five body cams? i mean, he was sort of saying, derek chauvin is aware his body cam is on, he's aware the other officers' body camera is on. he was making that point that he wouldn't have been doing something criminal or illegal at that point. what did you think of that argument? >> i thought that was a decent argument. here's my comeback if i'm a prosecutor, he thought he was untouchable, he was air gants. he never thought he would be held accountable for his actions. guess what, folks, jury, that's what we're doing here. that's what you're doing. >> can we bring in anthony barksdale, former acting police commissioner. >> i think the defense is doing
their very best to distract from the issues. i personally have made well over 1,000 arrests and having been a reasonable officer, there was nothing reasonable about keeping a knee on a man's neck, a man that is handcuffed, telling you he cannot breathe, screaming for his mother to keep it on the neck and kill him. nothing reasonable at all about it. >> commissioner, i'm so glad you brought that up. areva, can you talk about that. we heard the defense attorney, eric nelson, say that many times. it was a catch-phrase he was using. reasonable police officer, who a reasonable police officer do this? any reasonable police officer. it was like he was sort of planting that phrase into the jurors' heads. what did you think about the use of that? >> yeah, i think he overused it. i think jurors, again, they're going to harken back to the testimony they heard throughout this trial and they're going to think about their own encounters
with police and what they know generally about policing. and i thinking everyone's going to be asking themselves, if this is the conduct of a reasonable police officer, then what does the conduct of an unreasonable police officer look like? because we know in this case, this conduct that you want us to believe is reasonable, resulted in the death of a man who we saw minutes before the encounter, who was acting completely normal, who seemed to have no health issues and was not in any distress. i think it's going to backfire on them. >> what we heard from the lead prosecutor, steve schleicher, during his closing argument was trying to separate derek chauvin from policing. separate derek chauvin from the minneapolis police department and the affinity some jurors may have for supporting police officers. here's an example of that. >> this case is called the state of minnesota versus derek chauvin. this case is not called the state of minnesota versus the police.
it is not. policing is a noble profession and it is a profession. you met several minneapolis police officers during this trial. you met them. they took the stand. they testified. make no mistake, this is not a prosecution of the police. it is a prosecution of the defendant. and there's nothing worse for good police than bad police, who doesn't follow the rules, who doesn't follow procedure, who doesn't follow training, who ignores the policies of the department and the motto of the department. to protect with courage, to serve with compassion. >> he went on to say chauvin is not on trial for who he was. he's on trial for what he did. it is rare for police officers to be charged, even more rare for them to be convicted. the strategy you're seeing from the state and do you think they've been effective in their
execution? >> i thought that was brilliantly done right there. one of the key things you want to do as a prosecutor is take the energy out of things that may work against you here. i thought the prosecutor did a really good job saying, this is not us versus the police, this is not us versus good police or bad police. this is about derek chauvin, what he did, really to disgrace the badge. i guarantee you when he was making that speech, i kept thinking back to chief arredondo, who took the stand, testified unequivocally and what derek chauvin did was unacceptable, violated policy and procedure. and the contrast i think is something that will stick in the jury's mind, between what a police officer should be and what derek chauvin did to george floyd. >> commissioner, do you think given the back drop this is happening in -- we have seen since george floyd's death, obviously, a slew of other police-related killings and shootings and excessive force. so, do you think the jurors will
be able to separate in their mind, this is just derek chauvin versus, you know, what's happening down the road in brooklyn center? >> i pray that they can separate it. i believe the prosecution's statement was arg c rat. this is about his actions this day and he has to be held accountable. i think he said something about, believe your eyes, what you saw, you saw. and we all saw it. and chauvin's actions ripple across the united states. every good officer now has to deal with what he did that day. and he's not the kind of cop that any good cop wants working next to him or her. so i hope he's convicted, buried under the jail, i don't care. this is not what police stand for. >> areva, speaking of separation, what we're hearing
from eric nelson -- i'll read part of his opening statement. he said the jury would learn about crowd control, human factors of force, what happens to a police officer when they're involved in the high-stress use of force situation. in some of these elements, it seems as if he's arguing a single variable, that the prone position is not innately dangerous but takes away the 9:29 of the weight of another person. that the presence of fentanyl in the system can cause reaction "x" without the discussion of element "y." do you believe that is going to be effective? and what's the first thing you hit in rebuttal if you're the state? >> well, let me address eric nelson's style. one of the things he has done throughout this trial is he uses all these hypotheticals. pigs can grow wings and fly hypotheticals and they have
nothing to do with the facts of this case. elie has talked about it, the chief has talked about it, the whole concept of distraction. we know, unfortunately, the way our jury system works, particularly in these cases, all you need is one juror, you need the argument about these hypotheticals that aren't related to the facts of this case resonate with one juror. and that one juror won't get you an acquittal but it can get you to a hung jury, which in this case by some standards would be a victory for derek chauvin. but i think most jurors, all jurors i've dealt with in my trial experience, they understand that that's legalese, that's what lawyers do. they get paid to do. and i think the prosecution has done such a good job of keeping them focused on the 9 minutes and 29 seconds. getting this em to realize none of that is relevant until you put the he knee on the neck. that's what you have to stay focused on. yes, the fentanyl is? his system, it's in small doses, but there's no indication that but for the knee on the neck he would have died from having
fentanyl in his system. the same with respect to his enlarged heater, his arteries. this man had pre-existing health conditions. there's no indication that but for his chance encounter with derek chauvin, you know, that he would not have survived. and i think the first thing that blackwell, who they call the johnnie cochran of the midwest, is take jurors back to the bystander video and get them to remain focused on derek chauvin's actions on that day, actions which by any standards were unreasonable, unlawful and caused the death of george floyd. >> elie, what's going to happen next? as we've been talking about, the judge sort of intervened and said, we've got to take a break. i've got to let the jurors take a lunch. what now? >> hopefully eric nelson will get his thoughts together and finish quickly and then we'll see the prosecution stand up and rebut. if i'm the prosecutor, whenever i was in this position, i didn't want a break. i wanted to hop right up and hit the jury right away to
counteract what the defense lawyer had just said. if i was doing that in this situation, i would start by reminding the jury, you're allowed to use your common sense. the judge just told you that. it's the beauty and power of our jury system. so, if you don't buy this carbon monoxide theory with no evidence, you can throw it out. if you don't buy this unruly crowd theory, you can throw it out. i think that's what the prosecutor has to do. get up, bring the focus right back to the core of this case. >> thank you both very much for all of the insight. obviously, we will -- you're going to stick with us because we'll call upon you again. commissioner barksdale, thank you very much. so, at this moment, the country is on edge as the jury in the derek chauvin trial will soon begin deliberating. first, the closing argument needs to wrap up and the rebuttal. we have details about how the minneapolis community is preparing for what happens next. we started with computers. we didn't stop at computers.
we didn't stop at storage or cloud. we kept going. working with our customers to enable the kind of technology that can guide an astronaut back to safety. and help make a hospital come to you, instead of you going to it. so when it comes to your business, you know we'll stop at nothing. tonight i'll be eating a calzone from doughballs in aurora. (doorbell) rock on. tonight i'll be eating lobster thermidor au gratin. really? sh-yeah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt. make it two calzones!
that's our promise to you. that's career services for life. learn more at phoenix.edu the defense is scheduled to resume their closing arguments in the derek chauvin trial after a short break that the judge called because it's gone on so long and apparently the jury was hungry. >> after the judge. >> josh campbell is with us from outside that courtroom. josh, give us an idea of the color in the courtroom, the jury. what were they doing as this was going on for more than 2 1/2
hours? >> reporter: yeah, you know, we're getting some of those reports from our colleagues inside. i'll say at the outset, it's always difficult to read too much into a jury's actions, when they're taking notes or when they're listening, but there have been, according to some of those reports, a couple jurors who have appeared somewhat agitated, especially during the defense's portion. that could be due to the length of time it's been going on. hard to read too much into that. that was notable. there were two other instances that were really worth mentioning. the first is when it goes back to that prosecutor, schleicher, who is obviously working on behalf of the state, when he started out it was slow, it was methodical, there were a lot of jurors that were taking notes. but as he started to ramp up, he really captivated them. jurors stopped writing. he had their full attention as he was explaining the state's case. for their part, the defense had one of those moments as well, and that's when he was -- the defense attorney was talking about the amount of strength someone might have when they're under the influence. all of the jurors, according to
the reports, all of the jurors started taking note of that and paying attention. so, the jurors, we don't know how many have already potentially started making up their mind, how many are waiting for closing arguments in order to make that decision on what their personal verdicts will be. as far as what else is going on inside the courtroom we cannot see, as we mentioned, there are two seats there. there's one seat reserved for the floyd family. that has been occupied by george floyd's brother, philonise floyd, and a representative of the chauvin family. that's been represented by an unidentified woman who's been in there throughout. now, where we are right now, as this is taking place, as we've said, the jury is on their brief lunch break. that abruptly called by the judge in and around this area, security is very tight. we've been describing police, members of the national guard. we don't expect a verdict to come today. deliberations will start today but as with most trials, you never know what the timeline would be. but the city is nevertheless on full alert as well as the state.
a number of members of the national guard also on standby to come in. we also know that on wednesday, the city here will move all the schools to distance learning. they don't want children and parents and buses and the like out and about. just unsure what the results of this verdict would be and what the resulting protests could possibly be. that is notable as well. the security precautions they're taking. finally, once we get back, what we're going to hear is the defense, they're going to complete their closing argument and then we'll hear the prosecutors. they get the final say. they will have their rebuttal, that given by state prosecutor jerry blackwell. the judge, as we understand it, will give some additional instructions to the jury. that's expected to be a lot more brief. he gave those lengthy instructions earlier this morning, but nevertheless, he will have some words for the jury before they end and they will begin their deliberations. it's also worth noting this particular jury will be sequestered, which means they will be in hotels in the evening. they will not be allowed to go home. the judge telling them they can have some contact with their
families, but admonishing them to talk to no one about this case other than their fellow jurors. so, closing arguments ending today. deliberations will start. then we'll wait and see what the verdict will be. >> josh campbell for us outside the courthouse, thanks so much. >> cities are preparing for the eventual verdict in the chauvin case. tensions are high, not just in minneapolis but across the country over concerns there could be unrest or violence. cnn correspondent adrian is in minneapolis. tell us what the mood is on the street right now. >> reporter: anywhere you drive you'll see boarded up buildings or members of the national guard. downtown minneapolis is beautiful but that beauty is hidden because so many of the buildings are boarded up. if you drive downtown near the hennepin government center, you'll notice some business owners have written "open" on the boards because they want people to know, hey, we're still open. and this is all coming at a
tough time for many folks. keep in mind, we're still in the middle of a pandemic. and for a great deal of time, they've been shut down. and behind me guard members have been protecting this police station, which is downtown throughout the weekend. i wanted to hear from minnesotans, what they were thinking, what's on their hearts. here's what some of them had to say. >> i'm concerned for our community no matter what the verdict is. >> at some point, this trial also becomes a trial of our criminal justice system, a trial of our court system. if this system is capable yet of valuing black and brown lives, we're going to see that. and we fully expect that if the answer again is no, that people will be very frustrated. our goal is to channel that frustration and that anger, that energy into ways that are constructive to help us build a better future for our children and not in ways that are
destructive. >> reporter: and the last person you heard from was mayor melvin carter. he's the mayor in st. paul. and i think it's important to underscore, first, obviously, he's a black man. he's also the mayor. but he's also the son of a former officer. his father served the st. paul police department for nearly three decades, so he has a different lens, a different experience. he is letting the world know, this is not an attack on polices. this is a call to action, to change policing, and not just here in the twin cities, but across the country. a >> that is really good context. you also have an interesting lens. you've lived in this area. so watching these small business owners board up, watching the police prepare, i guess, what is it like for you to see the city in this way? >> it feels like, here we go again. the twin cities -- i lived here
for seven years and i still adore the twin cities. a big piece of my heart is here. my family is here. and right now the world is seeing the ugly part of minneapolis, the ugly part of the twin cities, especially following the shooting death of daunte wright. but there's so much beauty here in the twin cities and across minnesota. and we saw it on display after the death of george floyd. everybody came together. there was unity. like you see so much negativity taking place in the streets at night, but during the day, there's a lot of positivity. behind closed doors, people are getting together and planning. they want to change how things are here. for example, i spoke with leslie ledman, former president of the naacp. her push is don't complain, activate. she's been around the community since last summer, 11 months ago, activating people, getting people involved, and amplifying voices we don't normally hear
from. so, you asked me how do i feel? what is it like? i know there's so much good in this community. right now, it feels like minnesota is a case study to change and root out some deep, serious issues, starting with the complex issue of racism. >> it's really, really helpful to get your perspective on all of this, particularly because you have that connection there. adrienne, thank you very much. next, the defense is scheduled to resume the closing arguments in the derek chauvin trial. what shall we expect? we'll talk about that next. (vo) nobody dreams in conventional thinking. it didn't get us to the moon.
it doesn't ring the bell on wall street. or disrupt the status quo. t-mobile for business uses unconventional thinking to help you realize new possibilities. like our new work from anywhere solutions, so your teams can collaborate almost anywhere. plus customer experience that finds solutions in the moment. ...and first-class benefits, like 5g with every plan. network, support and value without any tradeoffs. that's t-mobile for business.
some say this is my greatest challenge. governments in record debt; inflation rising, currencies falling. but i've seen centuries of this. with one companion that hedges the risks you choose and those that choose you. the physical seam of a digital world, traded with a touch. my strongest and closest asset. the gold standard, so to speak ;) people call my future uncertain. but there's one thing i am sure of... i'm ordering some burritos! oh, nice. burritos?! get a freshly made footlong from subway® instead. with crisp veggies on freshly baked bread. just order in the app! ditch the burgers! choose better, be better. subway®. eat fresh.
paying attention to the instructions from the judge, the first thing he wanted to correct was the tales about carbon monoxide. where does that go? and what's your reaction to that being the first element here? looks like we'll have to go back to the courthouse. >> before the break we were talking about the controlled substances and the role they were -- levels they were found and the role they may have applied or contributed to mr. floyd's death. and i was suggesting to you that it is, again, this death needs to be looked at -- mr. floyd's death needs to be looked at as dr. baker describes a multifactorial process. this is the way the human body works. the heart beats, the lungs
breathes, the blood circulate, the brain controls all of our movements, all of this. and to simply come in and say, this particular substance or these combinations of substances, when taken in combination with each other, when taken in combination with -- of a person who has blockage in the heart, substantial, significant blockage in the heart, when we know that these drugs play a particular role in the -- in how the blood circulates, to just poo-poo it and say it has nothing to do with anything is a preposterous notion. yet dr. baker, dr. fowler, and dr. thomas have all certified deaths at levels less than 11 nanograms or 19 nanograms or combination. these deaths have been certified
on that basis alone. and it didn't necessarily contain any of the other issues that were confronting mr. floyd on that day. likewise, again, every other doctor that has testified has gone to great lengths to dismiss the role of mr. floyd's heart disease and hypertension in this case. forensic pathologists define coronary artery disease resulting in death -- death can occur with 70 to 75% blockage. that is sufficient to cause the -- a person's death. every pathologist who testified in this case has indicated likewise, that they have certified deaths with those types of blockage and attributed it to the coronary artery disease. yet here again, this has played zero role. dr. rich testified, mr. floyd had a healthy heart.
coronary heart disease, not relevant, according to the state. hype hypertenseive disease, not relevant. drugs acting to further constrict in an already deceased heart, not relevant. adrenaline coarsing through mr. floyd's body, not relevant. what does adrenaline do? it further constricts the arteries. adrenaline from the paraganglioma wasn't there, didn't happen, played no role. they just want you to ignore significant medical issues that presented to mr. floyd. and the failure of the state's experts to acknowledge any possibility, any possibility at all that any of these other factors in any way contributed to mr. floyd's death defies
medical science and it defies common sense and reason. now, doctor tobin describes the death of mr. floyd essentially, as i understand again, to hypoxia, low oxygen, resulting in brain -- going to the brain. low oxygen to the brain. dr. fowler also ascribes the death to hypoxic death but the heart was the muscle that did not get the oxygen. resulting in a sudden cardiac arrythmia. the reasons that dr. fowler dismissed the notion of brain hypoxia were because, number one, hypoxia of the brain results in certain observable symptoms. the brain demands more oxygen, right. it takes 20% of our oxygen to function the brain, even though it's a smaller percentage of our body.
it is the most sensitive to the loss of oxygen, and it reveals a progressive set of symptoms, confusion which was not exhibited, right, because if you compare -- if you compare the testimony about how -- whether mr. floyd was intoxicated, well, he didn't exhibit any confusion, right? restlessness, not exhibited. shortness of breath, it was complained of, but that is also a sensation that can be caused by a sudden cardiac arrhythmia. visual changes. not complained of. incoherent speaking. not complained of. when someone is experiencing hypoxia to the brain as dr. tobin stated, you would see an increased ventilation or respiratory rate. dr. tobin said it is a completely normal respiratory rate. 22 breaths per minute. the timeline in this case is consistent with a sudden cardiac
arrhythmia. at 8:23:58 mr. floyd speaks. i really can't breathe. if you can speak and have oxygen in your brain. at 8:24:09, he again verbalizes, please, i can't breathe indicating at 8:24:09 that his brain has oxygen and there is no impairment to his airway. 39 seconds later, mr. floyd goes limp. at 8:24:48. a person can hold their breath for 39 seconds, right? that does not result in hypoxia in 39 seconds. 27 seconds later, according to dr. tobin, mr. floyd takes his last breath. it's a total of 66 seconds. 1 minute and 6 seconds from the
time we know that there's enough oxygen in his brain to speak, know occlusion to the airway at that point, 66 seconds to his -- from his last word to his last breath. this timeline is consistent with a sudden cardiac arrhythmia. it is not consistent with the longer process of brain hypoxia. dr. fowler's time analysis was that mr. floyd died from a cardiac arrhythmia due to atherosclerotic and hypertensive cardio vascular disease during restraint by police. other significant factors, fet nil intoxication, methamphetamine intoxication, possible carbon monoxide exposure and the paraganglioma. what role did mr. -- did carbon monoxide play in mr. floyd's death?
we don't know. nothing was ever tested as far as the vehicle is concerned. we don't know if the car was emitting carbon monoxide. we don't know. one thing we do know is that it was running, and how can we tell that it was running, because in the video we watched earlier when thomas lane pulls in that squad cut at cup foods, he puts it in park, he never touches the keys of that vehicle and he gets out. the car was running. one last point to make. and i should be fairly quick with this. the superceding cause that was discussed. a superceding cause is a cause that comes after the defendant's acts alters the natural sequence of events and is the sole cause of a result that would not have otherwise occurred.
now, let's look at the medical timeline here. we know that ems was called initially at code 2 at 8:20:11. we know that ems was stepped up to code 3 at 8:21:35. we know that ems responded to cup foods based on the videos at 8:27:27. we know that ems called for fire at to:38:36. it takes approximately three minutes for ems and the arresting officers to put mr. floyd into the ambulance and the ambulance pulls away from cup foods at 8:30:17. fire responds to cup foods at 82:59. that's 44 minutes and 15 seconds after they were closed. that's pretty close in
consideration of the three-minute expectation of miss hansen, but the ambulance had driven several blocks away to 36 and park arriving sometime between 8:31 and 8:33. and we know that because there are two exhibits, 62 and 63 that were introduced. 62 shows one paramedic and officer lane in the back. 63 shows two paramedics and officer lane in back. so somewhere between a minute and a half to three minutes to get to 36 and park where they began the resuscitative efforts. the first air is pumped into mr. floyd per dr. tobin at 20:35:06. that's ten minutes after mr. floyd went unconscious per dr. tobin, but it's 77 minutes and 46 seconds after ems responded to cup foods. we ultimately know that the
ambulance left 36 and park at 8:48:23. it arrived at hcmc at 8:53, shortly after 8:53, so it took about five minutes to get from 36 and park to hcmc. what if you -- what would have happened if ems had started resuscitative efforts right away? what would have happened if rather than driving at 36 and park they went to the hospital? they would have been there in that time. gramm not suggesting to you -- i'm not suggesting to you that the ambulance paramedics did anything wrong, but it raises the prospect of that continued delay in resuscitation. what if ems had administered
narcan? we heard that it would not have hurt him but it could have helped him. i'm not blaming the paramedics. more importantly than this anal -- in this analysis is it shows that human beings make decisions in highly stressful situations that they believe to be right in the very moment that it is occurring. there's lots of what ifs that could have happened, what could have happened, what should have happened. lots of them in lots of regards. we have to analyze this case from the perspective of a reasonable police officer at the precise moment with the fatality of the circumstances when it comes to the use of force. we have to look at the cause of death to determine did mr. floyd die exclusively of asphyxia, or
were there other contributing factors that were not the natural result of mr. chauvin's acts, right? things that happened that were set in motion before mr. chauvin ever arrived, the drug ingestion, right? the bad heart, the diseased heart, the hypertension. all of these things existed before mr. chauvin arrived. the struggle, what role did the struggle play? we know based on a prior incident that mr. floyd's heart was beating at 219/160 in a situation where he was confronted by police and had ingested drugs. he didn't die that day. all of this, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, all of this when you take into
consideration the presumption of innocence, the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. i would submit to you that it is nonsense to suggest that none of these other factors have any -- any role? that is not reasonable, and when you as members of the jury conclude your analysis of the evidence, when you reviewed the entirety of the evidence, when you review the law as written and you conclude it all within this -- all within a thorough honest analysis, the state has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and, therefore, mr. chauvin should be found not guilty of all counts.
Uploaded by TV Archive on