>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government presented by these television companies and more including cox. >> good morning students. >> .. >> the third week of the trial of former minneapolis policeman derek chauvin accused in the death of george floyd last may 25 begins with judge peter cahill ruling on several motions, including one denying

to sequester the jury in light of a police involved shooting in sunday of a black man in the twin cities area. later a cardiologist testifies about the condition of mr. floyd when he died. here is judge cahill. >> we are on record and we motions before we bring the jury in. let's start with defense motions to exclude the testimony. mr. nelson. >> thank you, your honor paid yes, your honor, over the begin i noticed my intent to exclude the testimony of sf -- on the basis that its cumin live and with note, your honor, upon

further review his report over the course of the weekend is essentially the same analysis that several witnesses have already gone through, including minneapolis police policies and federal standards using materials that would never have been known to this particular defendant. this is the exact same thing that the sergeant has already testified to and will be very similar to what the lieutenant testified to an all the other widgeon says so this would be roughly the sixth or seventh opinion relative to the use of force in this case, using the minneapolis training materials at least in part and it is my understanding that what the state intends to do based on demonstrative exhibits that been provided to me but they intend to walk through this video once again, minute by minute, second

by second, stopping the video, playing various parts and discussing what has already been discussed numerous times throughout the course of this, throughout the course of this trial. in addition, your honor, friday afternoon or secondarily on friday evening, i should say, upon returning from court i was served with a secondary or supplemental report on matters that are completely unrelated to, unrelated to the use of force in terms of analysis, audio analysis of a statement that were made during the course of this trial. ultimately that is entirely irrelevant at this point and we are talking about the same and i ate too many drugs or i didn't do any drugs, whatever the statement is in the state has already introduced evidence that opposesnc the defense perspectie on that and it is ultimately for

the jury to defend what was said and when it was said. if there is any consideration of that. so, at a very minimum any testimony about that supplemental report should be excluded as we have not had an opportunity to review how they performed this analysis and there are video demonstrations that they have submitted that slows downwn these exhibits in n effort to try to determine what was actually said so we have not been afforded an opportunity to combat or contradict mr. stoughton's proposed testimony in that regard, in addition to it being outside the scope of what he would normally testify to. at least in this particular case. >> so, your honor, i do believe that bringing in a sixth opinion and this is the very nature of the motion in limine and at the beginning of the case and this is what wehe sought to prevent d

the court gave latitude with respect to the sergeant and with respect to lieutenant zimmerman and with respect to allowing the chief to testify as to his interpretation of the minneapolis police policies and so, at this point, and we have an expert witness who the state introduced sergeant sieg or who has already performed this exact same analysis and its king live and it just builds and builds and builds and that's the very nature of what we sought to prevent. >> who would like to speak to the state? >> i would. >> thank you, your honor. your honor, the state strongly opposes the defendants motion to exclude the testimony of expert witness based on, as we have

explained in the court in our memorandum professor comes at the use of force issue at a much different way than the other witnesses who have testified w, that he is a nationally recognized expert at an academic and takes an academic approach and he would not be pursuant to anthe courts direction commentig on npd c policies or analyze thm but rather rather than national standards and theyep accepted practices because as the courts knows the defendant is not on trial for violating policies and is on trial for violating the law. a department can have a policy that is improper and the department can have training that is improper but it doesn't make it reasonable and professor stoughton can speak to that and there is a national standard under graham versus connor and there's a standard of generally

accepted police practices in all of those fit into the constellation of what is objective reasonableness is viewed as a usable police officer on the scene. >> the —-dash spoke to graham and the chief spoke to graham so why do we need yet another person to talk about that? >> because he comes from a completely different perspective and i think it is important to first focus on when we are looking at exclusion it would be under minnesota rule 403, cumin live evidence and would be unduly cumulative and unfairly cumulative and unnecessarily so. if you look at the importance of the relevant evidence here and the use of force or authorized use of force is a complete defense to all the charges in this case. it is primary and its front and center and it's important that we counter what is the

goldilocks syndrome in viewing expert witnesses, this witness is too old for this witness is just an administrator and this witness is not a national expert in this witness has a knot testified as an expert witness before so in order to be able to convince the jury and we do have the sole burden of proof of doing so that the use of force here was unauthorized and was objectively unreasonable, we need to come at it at variety of ways and professor stoughton is able to complete the last piece of that to the aye's of nationally wreck allies expert. >> let's get more specific so what specifically was the professor doctor stockton say. >> what he will testify is that upon evaluating both the threaty or lack thereof posed by mr. floyd at the scene to the

defendant and the other officers both in terms of their own safety and fording law enforcement purposes based on that and based on nationally recognized best practices and police standards the use of force here was objectively unreasonable and he analyzes it both using graham versus connor but in a four-part analysis where he identifies the force being used in identifies circumstances under which the force is used in the duration of the force and he looks at the effects and the effect of the force used by the officers ass compared with sort of the threat posed by the subject and then makes the determination whether that is action was objectively reasonable under the circumstances and so, you know, it integratean graham versus connor but goes about it in a different manner and speaks to national and best practices

standards. it is important testimony and aa testimony that essential to the case. >> is your plan to show, yet again, the videos? >> certain segments of videos that are already in evidence is demonstrative and these are very limited in duration, your honor. i'm not counting them play through an entire video and comment on each and every thing. what he will be doing is in the same manner in which he analyzes and reviews cases so the threat, for example, or lack thereof posed by mr. floyd would be talking about specific segments of the video that he thought were key to his analysis for that and we would select those in their 52nd clips or 82nd clips and not an extended play. then going to the next portion of the analysis and also commenting on whether or not the bystanders would have would have had an effect on a reasonable

officer, we would highlightos through portions of those and not necessarily chronological order but in an orderly fashion and i expect his testimony will last up on direct more than 90 minutes and so it will not be exhaustive play of this. that is important because having read the report of the defense expert who is expected to testify central to his report if that the crowd was soan distractive and the defendant that he was unable to render aid and perform the normal duties that he would as a law-enforcement officer. it's important to that issue as well and that is an issue thatly has been raised and suggested by the defense throughout this trial. >> will, the courts concern is pity clear before and the motion to eliminate will not call every cop and ask him what you would have done differently because

the state has almost done leopard we now have opinions from the chief, the inspector who is in charge of training and the lieutenant in charge of training and lieutenant zimmerman because of his seniority and that he was the responding lieutenant on the scene and the sergeant and i think the state has made its own that here by deciding to ask all those people with their opinion was as opposed to sticking with their experts so i think the defense has a legitimate concern. i have a concern that this is become a king live in as far as use of force and more from an academic point of view and the national standards i will allow you to call doctor stoughton to talk about national standards and how you support violated them but i will not allow you to do the crowd effect on his opinion. it is really pushing the extremes of his expertise. he is the use of force expert. he cannot mention that he did

not think the crowd in this case was but he will not get into w s a factor per he's aware of it and did not think it was a factor and he can give an opinion as to whether or not the defendant violated national standards but i don't want them getting into a separate opinions about generally the existence of the crowd and he can talk about he's aware in this case about the crowd affecting but that does not change his opinion were not getting to small crowds, large crowds or how you deal with large crowds and i don't want to get into that again. to that extent i'm probably giving more than the state deserves by allowing you to talk about national standards in his opinion in this case whether they were violated and he can talk about how the crowd or he took the crowd into effect but i don't want him talking about what the experts did about small crowds and large crowds and all that. >> the specific crowd. >> zachary. >> i will limit it to the specific crowd or specific

events. we will look at the specific events here in the not hypotheticals, just the timeline, his examples and then his opinion. >> your honor, as to the phenomenon oratory is the supplemental report that we gave to the defense this is raised by the questioning of both the expert jody steiger and of lead investigator james ryerson in which the defense introduced exhibit 1007, i believe, and asked the witnesses to opine based on what the first suggested that mr. floyd said. professor stoughton because he reviews so many body worn camera cases and has expertise of that and, you know, lectured on this topic before of the phenomenon of suggestibility or auditoryof.

julia he would be able to provide not only testimony about the suggestibility of why a witness may have answered a question in a particular way to provide an example of this and we have a demonstrative of that particular segment slowed down supplemented with a transcript and it would suggest he said something complete different. ultimately professor stoughton would indicate that when he was listening to the portion several times he was unable to discern what precisely was said. >> anything to respond to that? >> your honor, again, i believee this is within the province of the jury to decide what was said in the state has already after i asked those questions of mr.s ryerson he formed a different opinion about what was said. and so, first and foremost this

is an issue within the province of the jury and what was said, what wasn't said, they can listen to it and they will be provided with the exhibits in this particular case so it is , not theeir province expertise for him to come in. it is also important, i think a judge, that the exhibit that they have intended to or provided that they intend to offer is a very slow down with subtitles showing what they believe or they think it could potentially be saying or could be interpreted as saying. so, again, we've not had any opportunity within the last 48 hours to analyze what it is they've done to have an expert to combat it or to have anybody in this was completely out of left field in my opinion and given the court's previous orders on expert witnesseses wih

the stateon has done that the course of this case is they've introduced segments and attributed statements to various witnesses were certain things, you don't know if it's officer king saying them or officer leanne saying something and the jury has not -- the jury has just been told by the state this is who is saying this. if the defense is right to introduce doubt and at this point the late hour on it is -- >> on top of which is a collateral issue. i will grant the request to exclude the testimony and it's not a proper topic for the testimony. the video is what it is inn the jury can listen to it and can make up their own mind. in fact, to be honest i wasas surprised that it was not an objection when mr. nelson asked the witnesshe, isn't he saying asked, y and z?

that's a witness opining on a videotape telling the jury what they should see or hear and that's not a proper topic for expert testimony. the fact that he had to slow it down and use subtitles is an indication that this is not a proper topic but is for the jury to decide. they can listen to it. h i have experience in listening to a lot of body cameras but that does not make me an expert. i have to make factual findings off the cameras in hearings and it does not make me an expert nor is appropriate that i would or when i was listening to body worn cameras i had to listen to it just t like the jury would. they will have to listen to it on own and figure it out and both sides can argue and both sides got their point across anyway. ager ryerson said it does say too many drugs and redirect d sd unit in context i think it was did not do any drugs so both sides had their say which

probably was better off enclosing but in any case he will not be allowed to ask about that stuffou. other motions we had, i think, we have mr. hall and we will deal with mr. hall and put him on the stand and have him either invoke or and for me to determine whether or not to each specific question if it's an appropriate indication or not but we are doing that tomorrow, i believe. but for now the question is assuming mr. hall does not answer any questions, refuses on the fifth amendment groundns or accuses the court order what did you wish w to introduce, mr. nelson and what is the basis for a disability? >> your honor, mr. hall provided an interview to agent doug

henning of the minnesota bureau of criminal apprehension and agent rookery -- of the minnesota bureau of reaction. after the incident on may 25 mr. hall left the state of minnesota and return to texas and was ultimately apprehended based on warrants that existed and was apprehended in the state of texas and agents henning and maureen traveled to texas to interview him. at that time i would note that mr. hall had a fun attorney who was present and was giving him advice as to providing statements about this particular incident.de the statement that he provided included just to give context of the statement, the statement was approximately an hour and a half long and he freely answered the agents questions about where he and mr. floyd spent the day and

what his behavior and what their behaviors were and where they want and the things that they did earlier in the day and specifically how he appeared physically and what his demeanor was et cetera. he then provided information to mr. -- excuse me, agents relevant to being in his observations of mr. floyd [inaudible] and his observation of mr. floyd in the car prior to the arrival of officers king and lane. what mr. hall described was that instantaneously itta was day and night difference essentially in his behavior. he fell asleep, he was, they were concerned and they did not understand why theyot weren't driving andll then all of this e describes the interaction with

the two witnesses who previously testified in the store employees who testified and he describes that they had to try to shake mr. floyd awake several times and then obviously he gives testimony about what happened "after words". there were questions about whether by the agents whether amr. hall or excuse me mr. flod had consumed any substances, controlled substances, mr. hall opined that that was at least in part what was going on and he had discussions about with mr. floyd about how these particular pills made him feel and largely attribute his falling asleep to taking these pills. >> in that statement did mr. hall admit that he had provided those drugs to mr. floyd? >> no, he was specifically asked that question by the agents, did you give him these pills and he

said no. that was his response. and so, then he obviously goes on to describe what happens after the officers arrived in the initial detainment and his interactions with peter chang of the minneapolis park police and so he paints a picture of what was happening before the incident, immediately preceding the incident and as the incident was occurring. what reactions were happening and so we would offer if mr. hall invokes his blanket or a blanket sort of indication of the fifth amendment, your honor, i believe first and foremost the court has to analyze the defendants mr. chauvinna right o present a complete defense and the constitutional law that stems from the right to present a complete defense when it contradicts with another personal or conflicts with

another person's right against self-incrimination and i also believe that mr. chauvin has the right to confront any witnesses that would be available to him, including trying to build his defense through those types of witnesses. number three, the state has gone to great lengths to establish that controlled substances have not played or did not play a role in his death and the state is the only party to this that has the ability to offer mr. floyd community and the court can order it, i can't request it but they have at least in the chambers discussion stated that they do not intend to offer mr. hall immunity for his statements so i think the statement would have to make a showing or offer of proof as to why they are not intending to offer mr. hall immunity at a very minimum of

his statement and the specific grounds or what we would propose is similar to what the court did in-state versus superer, and i n get for a site for you and a second. it was a similar circumstance where the defendant was charged with premeditated first-degree murder. a witness invoked her fifth amendment privileges in the state refused immunity and ultimately the court, what the court permitted was plain the witnesses statement in court to the jury so if playing the audio of the witness statement. that is what we would be proposing is to call eight intending tos come in, explain the circumstances of the interview to play portions of the interview that are ruled appropriate by the court and we

would offer those under minnesota rule of evidence 804 b3 which is a statement against penal interest or 8 807 which is the residual exception which is what the court used in the super case was the residual exception. >> 804 b3 the statement inherently has to clearly subject the person who is making that they are throwing themselves at the suits so to speak. >> understood and as you heard from ms. cousins, i believe, adrian cousins mr. hall's lawyer here the third degree homicide charge is a potential charge that mr. hall could face if he specifically provided, exchanged, bartered or had any knowledge of what was going on. the court has no also see the

evidence of mr. hall throwing what appears to be some package off to his side while the police were dealing with mr. floyd. if you look at the circumstances of the statement, it would certainly be if he were to be charged it would certainly be a statement about what was happening in that car and circumstantially and from a bare minimum it would be impeachment if he were to get up and testify that he didn't provide mr. floyd with the controlled substance. according to mr. hall's public defender even acknowledging his presence that that was him in the video or that was him with mr. floyd on that date certainly, certainly could potentially tend to incriminate him. they say everything about this

case or about his testimonyim could incriminate him. >> are you saying that the testimony that would be, that ha could legitimate they refused to answer on fifth amendment grounds and the evidence that is admissible under 804 b3 are the same? >> yes. >> the same universe? >> ultimately, judge, this, if you look at the sum total when mr. hall made this statement, right, which was june 2 of 2020 so within one week he was located and apprehended in interviewed he was counseled by competent attorney who gave, gave the blessing to speak abouo what happened to mr. floyd on the day but if you go back out and you look atou o there were s found in the car and there's a video of him throwing something and there are above and beyond

just the third-degree controlled substance crimes they do ask him questions about giving false identification and he gave to, he gave officer laying in actual driver's license or id card with someone's name on it. he then gave peter chang a secondary name so he can be incriminating himself. >> didid he admit all that in te statement? >> he did.. >> he had warrants for his arrest that were in place at thatat time issued by the statef minnesota and he explained in the statement that he had problems with the warrants that is why he took off out of town and that is ultimately why he was apprehended as well w so he had multiple layers and he acknowledges in the statement having a counterfeit 20-dollar bill in his possession so in the course of the statement he made several incriminating statements outside of this particular

incident and as it pertains to whether he provided mr. floyd with the drugs, he denies it. he said i did not do it. if that is his position based on how the questions that the state has presented they intend to impeach him if he were to testify in this case with that statement and so c they are usig some of the very things that he claimed in his statement to either impeach him or attack his credibility. certainly i think that the state has taken the position that mr. hall's testimony or his statement was not credible to these investigators. they have the ability to again offer immunity and if that is their position that the controlled substance played no part in this casee t so when we look at the defendant has a

right to presentag a complete defense. in respect to that analysis that would include investigation of facts that are exculpatory or that are consistent with his defense and that is what this is. we look at the residual exception in terms of the 807 and in terms of the trustworthiness of the t statemt that there are several aspects of the statement that are cooperated on the hill so particularly when describing mr. floyd's reaction in the car she also describes that mr. floyd fell asleep in the car and was they had a very difficult time waking him up so much so that she called her daughter to come and pick her up. she makes statements about mr. floyd taking percocet so there is above and beyond that mr. hall was counseled by his attorney about a this case and

giving this statement. >> let me just and maybe this is an argument of question though i do not mean it to be so you are saying that his lawyer who was advising him at the time of his statement advised his client to give a statement that was so far contrary to his penal interest that it's admissible under 804 b3? >> well, to that end a lawyerla was a texas lawyer and may not m have been familiar with minnesota's third-degree homicide statute. >> fair enough. who from the state would like to answer? mr. frank. >> your honor, thank you. i think the court clearly sees that sort of the conflict that

the council is presented here in saying that there are issues that mr. hall could testify aboutan legitimately despite a fifth amendment claim and yet those same statements are not what established the trustworthiness that the statement against interest requires and in other words, counsel is saying mr. hall made statements against his interests but those are not the statements that he is trying to have mr. hall testify aboutyi but he wans mr. hall to testify about that he is allows the court despite the indication of the fifth amendment against statements of interest. step back a minute and counsel argues that he has a constitutional right to prevent a defense and that is true but

the state or there are tons of cases that recognize that is true but the defendants still have to follow the rules evidence. the rules of evidence, hearsay rules, have to be satisfied for the statements the council wants to come in through mr. hall despite a fifth amendment indication are covered and the statement against interest's counsel relies on all the statements that he doesn't intend to introduce. for purposes of the sort of o catchall exception or before i get there the statement against interest in colonel cases also requires some indication of before they can be admitted in the committal case. >> isn't that taking care of by the court that it is so far contrary to the persons penal interest that is the reliability part otherwise it uses the

second part of the rule that is is a inculpatory statement we have to have cooperation and it does not seem to apply to the person and i say that to note that it's almost saying it's cooperated or we would consider because it is so clearly and contrary to the penal interests. >> and has an additional requirement in criminal cases and that is some indication of trustworthiness for the entire statement so it's similar to the analysis under this catchall exceptions and, you know, there is a lot of mr. hall's statement that is self-serving andg unreliable. >> for example. >> for example, he denies giving any pills to mr. floyd, denies that he had pills and we knowada

lot of that, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that is not true and gave false information at the scene at least twice and he had to flee from minnesota and had to be apprehended in texas and he gave very sketchy details about his own and denied having any fake money or passing any fake money so there are a lot of reasons to doubt mr. hall's credibility when analyzing the entire giving of the statement, it's very self-serving. >> what are your thoughts regardingr the body of evidence that would be considered that he could legitimately take the fifth t amendment and compel self-incrimination? or verses is that smaller, larger or as counsel said the same group of back factors that fall under 8034b with penal

interest? >> the primary point i was trying to make is that the evidence that counsel things can come in despite the indication of the fifth amendment and nones of that is a statement against interest but a description he had of others and of mr. floyd and that's not implicating himself and thereby not creating a statement against interest or something that would implicate him beyond the obvious fact that he is present and he is present in the vehicle where drugs are present and there are indications that he may not have been truthful when he said he did not give mr. floyd any pilly and may not have been aware of that and you know, in our proposed questions he will have to be asked if he was under the influence of any controlled substance that day because it's fundamentally affects the ability to no, remember and

relate. i think we will have then potential indication just on that question alone.ue but that sphere of evidence counsel wants to put in through mr. hall does not constitute taking against interest rate other stamens he made the rich i think evenn the court realized that he would have the right to invoke the fifth amendment are what he counsel is claiming other statements against interest. t the statement don't fit under that exception but just plain hearsay. that is the fundamental problem that we had with trying to limit the spirit of information to come out of mr. floyd to come out of mr. hall, excuse me, is that if they are not statement against interest. >> all right. i will take this under advisement until after lunch and look at the super case and consider counsel's arguments and argue your ruling at

1:00 o'clock. this will be before we bring the jury back. >> yes, please. >> 781 northwest 2390 minnesota court of appeals 2010. >> all right, i will look at that and consider counsel's arguments and we will come back. >> for clarification, in terms of the questions i have provided to the court, if i understood the court's instructions we are eliminating those questions to just in the car. >> correct. >> that is the basis of the statement that the agent had names took and i would intend to play with more of a descriptor because of what they did that day. >> understood. okay. any other motions we have to deal with this morning otherwise we should start with the jury?

>> do you have a motion? >> let's do it. >> yes, your honor, at this time and requesting again sequestration of the jury and in view of the incidence of us might and as a court i am sure is aware and officer involved shooting took place in the city of brooklyn center, minnesota as a result of that there was some fairly expensive civil unrest thatd occurred and i would note for the court that we have at least one juror whost is a resident of that particular city and other jurors who have connections to brooklyn center. given, given that this is obviously a high-profile case and this is a case that evokes a lot of emotion for a lot of iopeople, ultimately, your hono, the pressure becomes will the

jury be confident to make a decision regardless of the potential outcome of their decision and their are two possible verdicts here. right? guilty or not guilty. my concern is that these jurors and it is been an ongoing concern that a juror in hennepin county being exposed extensively to the media before coming in and serving as a juror and being at least initially cautioned only to avoid news about this particular incident and we have questioned one juror already about whether she had seen some particular pieces of information that i'm not been presented in court and she felt it had credible responses to the court but ultimately this incident, while it is i understand it is not this case and i understand that it is notas involved in tht it does not involve the same

parties but the problem is that the emotional response that that case creates sets the stage for a jury to say i'm not going to vote not guilty because i'm concerned about the outcome. we have many, many jurors who on both sides of the political or social debate who expressed ,concern about if they don't agree and if the public does not agree with the verdict. this incident last nighten highlights and i think brings it to the forefront of the jury's mindset that a verdict in this case is going to have consequences and they been exposednc to that already and so at this point i would request that the court further voir dire first and foremost further blood to your jurors as to whether or not they have learned of this because some jurors may be completely avoiding the media

and some may not and so we should, i believe, first voir dire jurors to see what, if anything, they have learned about last night's events. second, whether those events would have any impact on their decision-making process or concerns about their decision-making process and i think that the jury should be sequestered and i think that the jury should have been sequestered and i made that clear in previous discussions and motions and i think the duration of been sequestered throughout the pendency of the trial and i think that the jury needs to be cautioned at the beginning of every day and at the end of every day to avoid all media. again, we had discussions about that in chambers and so i believe your honor, that at a bare minimum that is what happened. >> does the state have a position? >> yes, your honor.

thank you. the state opposes the motion for sequestration and i don't believe that sequestration would be a remedy that would be appropriate where frankly effective in this and as counsel pointed out this is a different case, different department and it is an officer involved shooting and something that happened nearby that we don't really know what the facts of the case are at this particular point as those things are unfolding but world events happen and things continue to happen in the state despite the fact that we are all here at trial. that is just what happened. we can't have every single world event that might affect somebody's attitude or emotional state or anything be it grounds to come back and re- voir dire all the jurors. in the voir dire process we asked the jurorsrs specifically

the issue that mr. nelson is concerned about whether it would be soe concerned about the outcome of the verdict that they would be unable to be fair and impartial and render either a guilty or not guilty verdict and all of the jurors who were sworn in and paneled said they would be able to do that. the court ruled further to instruct them that they are to odo that and they are to render their verdict without regard to result in the law presumes thatr the jurors follow the court's instruction that we should presume they meant what they said when they said it and that they can set aside these external issues and decide the case based solely on the evidence. i think it would be inappropriate to voir dire jurorse now about events that while related and being on the same topic of the same case do not involve this case. in terms of sequestration i don't think that would be an effective remedy againha. as far as the court admonishing the jurors to avoid all media, i

don't oppose that request and i think that it does present issues. if you order j the jurors to avd all media then is very difficult to avoid all media and we would have to tightly define what is avoid all media mean. years ago it used to mean don't read the newspaper and don't watch tv but today it means something different, i suppose, because media comes at us in all different forms. i think it would be difficult to follow in order to avoid all media and while that might have the effect of reducing the media contact, i would not want to have a situation where than if a juror inadvertently receives some media on some unrelated thing that that would be a grounds of claiming jurors misconduct because they did not follow what would be a nearly impossible court order. i think the court could fashion guidance as to what to do and you could encourage them to avoid all media and you could

even order them to do it but if something inadvertently filters through i think we can'tin overreact and i think we would have to look at that on an individual basis just like we did with the other juror questions that we had the other day that it really wasn't what we thought could have been. >> i will deny the motion to sequester the jury and for additional one year. this is a totally different case. i realize there civil unrest may be some of the jurors i did hean about that but the reason why in my initial order i said we will not sequester but we might go to it in the middle of trial if the concern there was that despite keeping jurors anonymous that somebody mayep find out who onef the jurors is and reach out and have an inappropriate attempt to tamper with the jury and there is no indication that has happened in this case and that was the concern about going to sequestration.

i understand the argument for the defense that this now puts them even more ill at ease but i think sequestering them would only aggravate that. i heard about the civil unrest and of the judges putting us into sequestration and there must be a greater threat to our security. i think the better way is to continue with the trial as we've been going and as a separate issue they should treat it as such. it would be a different story if it was civil unrest following another verdict in the jury can see what the consequences of the certain verdict may be but that is not this case. the jurors all are aware and concerned about safety because of what happened in may of 2020, the civil unrest that followed there. not a big surprise that there is ilno civil unrest in response to this case but i don't think that should heighten the jurors concern and i think it is probably the same as it was before that they t all have a concern that they expressed were very honest about so i will not

sequester them but will sequester them on monday when we anticipate doing closings so i will proceed accordingly so, with that, let's bring in the jury. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. funded by these television companies and more including charter communications. >> broadband as a force for empowerment and that is why charter has invested billions building infrastructure, upgrading technology, empowering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service along with these other