Chauvin Trial Day 24, Daunte Wright Riots Aftermath, New Harvey Weinstein Indictment

Derek Chauvin’s defense starts today as defense lawyer Eric Nelson starts calling witnesses. Minneapolis smoldering after night of unrest resulting from the Daunte Wright killing. Remember Harvey Weinstein? He’s back in the news facing new indictments. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

• Eric Nelson calls retired police Officer Creighton to describe George Floyd’s 2019 arrest.​

• Michelle Moseng, the paramedic who attended to George Floyd in 2019, testifies about Floyd’s last-minute ingestion and blood pressure.​

• Shawanda Hill, the woman in the car with Morries Hall and George Floyd, testifies about George Floyd falling asleep.​

• Defense use of force expert Barry Brodd testifies that Chauvin’s use of force was reasonable and was not in fact deadly force.​

• Daunte Wright shooting protests turn to riots and police arrest about 40 people north of Minneapolis.​

• President Biden calls for “full-blown investigation” into Wright shooting.​

• Washington County Prosecutor Pete Orput hopes to have a charging decision regarding the former officer, Kim Potter, by Wednesday.​

• Harvey Weinstein back in the news, facing new indictment on 11 charges in California.​

• Weinstein’s lawyers are challenging extradition and a Buffalo, NY Judge set a court date on April 30th to review.​

• Weinstein’s lawyer, Effman, stated that Weinstein has a strong defense to the charges and that he will not be extradited.  ​

• Derek Chauvin’s defense starts today as defense lawyer Eric Nelson starts calling witnesses.​

• As always, your questions and live Locals.com chat after the news!​

LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: ​

• https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/​

CLUBHOUSE AFTER PARTY DISCUSSION:​

• No Clubhouse today!​

• Join the Club: https://www.joinclubhouse.com/club/watching-the-watcher​

Connect with us:​

• Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​

• Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprout.com/​

• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq​

• Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/RobertGrulerEsq​

• Robert Gruler Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrulerEsq/​

• Miss Faith Instagram https://www.instagram.com/faithie_joy/​

• Clubhouse: @RobertGrulerEsq @faith_joy​

• Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq​

• Homepage with transcripts (under construction): https://www.watchingthewatchers.tv​

Don't forget to join us on Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​

Why Locals? We head over to Locals to continue the conversation before, during and after the show. You can also grab the slides (and other stuff) from the show as well as a free PDF copy of Robert’s book which is also available to buy on Amazon here: https://rcl.ink/hHB​

Other tips? Send to tips@rrlawaz.com or tag @RobertGrulerEsq on twitter.​

#WatchingtheWatchers #DerekChauvin #ChauvinTrial #GeorgeFloyd #UseofForce #ExcessiveForce #DuanteWright #MNPD #Minneapolis #Riots #Protests #Manslaughter #OIS #OfficerInvolvedShooting #Weinstein #MeToo #HarveyWeinstein #SexAssault #Indictment #LA

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert ruler. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group in the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. And throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges not particularly interested in a little thing called justice, and it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. And so that's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency back down upon our very system with a hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here in with us today. Of course, we're talking about day 24 of the Derrick Shovan trial, a lot of activity today. I think we had six witnesses that we're going to fly through on this show. So we've got a lot of people to get through today. Of course, today was the start of the defense case in chief. Eric Nelson took the floor today in court and he was presenting the defense. He was representing Derek Shovan. And so we heard from former officers, we heard from an officer who was involved in a 2019 case also involving George Floyd. So we're going to hear from him, there was another paramedic who was there back in 2019. We heard from today show Wanda Hill. We heard from expert witnesses from the law enforcement who are testifying. That basically what Shovan did was perfectly reasonable, not excessive force, not even lethal force. And so now we have a dueling expert witnesses that we're going to have to deal with. So we've got a lot to get to on Shovan. We're going to spend the bulk of the show on Shovan today. Then we're going to change gears a little bit. We're going to talk about the Dante right shooting. We covered this yesterday, you know, sort of very closely related to the George Floyd, Derek Shovan trial, because this happened about 10 miles away from where the Floyd incident went down. So we covered that shooting yesterday. Now there's a bunch of aftermath, of course, the day after we've got president Biden, who's speaking out, we have a prosecutor from Washington County who is now making determinations about whether or not to charge that officer and how that officer is going to be charged. So we want to break that down then briefly at the end of the program, we're going to talk about old Harvey Weinstein, where the heck is that guy been while he's been in federal prison. And now he is, uh, facing new charges out of Los Angeles. So, uh, 11 new charges, a brand new indictment Weinstein's lawyers are now trying to prevent him from being extradited from New York back over to the West coast. And so we're going to break that down very, very briefly. As you may recall, Tuesdays are a little bit of a short show. We're going to get out of here in about an hour and a half from now, but I want to really make sure we sink some time into Shovan because obviously this is, I don't know, maybe the, the, the, the trial of a lifetime for many of us. So we want to just sink some time into that. If you have questions throughout the broadcast, the best place to ask them so that you can be a part of the show is to go over to locals.com. Find our community there. It's called watching the Watchers. If you want to just put this in your web browser right now, just hop on type in watching the watchers.locals.com. You can go over to our community, sign up, support the show, and ask some questions. You can also get a copy of my book. It's free. There's a PDF available to download along with some other goodies and a copy of the slides that we're about to go through. So if you'd like anything that you see here, it's all available@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. All right, so let's get into the news of the day. Derek Shovan day 24, the defense is now up Eric Nelson and Derek Shovan have to present their case to the jurors. And they got to be pretty compelling because the government has now finished. They have presented their case in chief. And so today we're going to see that the defense went, came out, guns blazing. We have, it looks like six different witnesses that we're going to get to today. So here, I want to show you, we're starting to assemble our witness panel chart. This was what the prosecutors look like. And they're even people missing from their list of witnesses, because I didn't start this until about, I would say four or five days into testimony. And so you may recall that we finished up last week with a law professor and Floyd's brother. You're going to see some familiar faces because here today we have officer Crighton. Uh, he was from the 2019 incident. We have not heard from him yet. We have Michelle[inaudible], who was a paramedic in the 2019 case. Of course, we hear about Shawanda Hill. She was a passenger in the car in the 2020 case. Then we have officer Chang who was on scene, but was not one of the other four officers that was directly on Floyd's body. So of course he did not get charged with a crime. Then you may recall that we heard from officer McKenzie. Now she testified in the government's case, you may recall her over here. She was the crisis trainer. And so the defense brought her up as well. And she testified today. Then we wrapped up testimony this afternoon with officer Brode, who is somebody who is testifying about use of force. So we've got a lot of people to get through today. Let's get started by talking about this guy. So his name is Creighton. He's a retired police officer, and he was the first witness to come into court this morning. He was on duty back in 2019. So this was may six, 2019. A lot of conversation about this prior offense from George Floyd back during 2019, obviously the defense wants to get this in because this was very, very similar to what we saw happen in may of 2020. If you recall, in 2019, very similar set of circumstances, George Floyd was in the vehicle. Well, we're going to see it actually. So I don't even need to explain it, but you're going to see what happened. And so he is somebody who was on the force, right in Minneapolis testifying about what it happened almost one year ago, here he is members of the jury. Uh, you're about to hear evidence of, let me back up. I forgot. I forgot to mention this. So before we get there, the judge gives what's called an admonishment. So he, or something very similar, but he's basically warning the juries jurors that they're about to hear testimony, but they should not be considering this, except for very, very limited. And so the judge did this a few times today, which is why I forgot. I wanted to pause and just point this out. There are some very clear rules about what you can say and how you can say it and what evidence it's being proffered for and what you're trying to prove. What's the whole point of the conversation. So before several witnesses today, the judge just talked to the jurors and said, listen, you're going to hear from this person, but it's only about this issue. Very, very limited. And so this is the judge giving them that instruction.

Speaker 2: 6:21

The George Floyd on May 6th, 2019, this evidence is being admitted solely for the limited purpose of showing what effects the ingestion of opioids may or may not have had on the physical wellbeing of George Floyd. This evidence is not to be used as evidence of the character of George Floyd. Chanels

Speaker 1: 6:46

All right. So it's just for the impact of the opioids. It's not for character. It's not to say, Hey, this guy's a criminal. It's not to say anything about the fact that yeah, there was a law enforcement incident that happened in 2019. It's only about the medical component about this, about this whole ordeal. How did the opioids, how did the pills affect his heart in this case in 2020? And so it's, it's, you know, being admitted for that purpose, but it looks very similar to what we saw in May, 2020, very similar to 2019. And so they go through the series of questioning a line of questions with this officer Creighton and Nelson is really trying to, uh, get him to lay some foundation so that they can get the body camera admitted so that they can play this in front of the jury, because it's a pretty damning video, very similar. You're going to see the George Floyd, uh, I don't want to color your perception of it. So let's just go ahead and take a watch. This is the 2019 incident that was played in front of the jury today.

Speaker 2: 7:46

Did your belt, sir, sir. Passenger seat belt. Go ahead. Go ahead and undo your seatbelt. No, I don't plan on shooting you. I'm just saying let's take it. Take your time. Okay. Relax. Just under your seatbelt. Let her take care of her guy. Just keep your hands out where I can see them. Hey, let me kick your where I could seal. Okay. Put them up on a dash. Put'em on the dash. I'm not going to shoot you. Put your hands on the dash, put your hands on the dash. The last time I'm going to tell you that it's simple. You won't listen to what I have to say. What I want to have your head jerk away from me. Okay? Nope. Slowly, come on out. Okay. Relax. You're not going to get beat up for not asking you to do that.

Speaker 1: 9:26

All right. So that's all I have for that. So you'll notice very similar, right? Cops came upon them. They're in the vehicle. Lot of interaction, a lot of freaking out going on from Floyd. And you heard the officers. I'm not sure if you could hear it there. I elevated the volume. I went into Adobe premiere and sort of jacked up the volume, cleaned up some of the noise a little bit, but you should have been able to hear that there was an officer shouting through the passage, through the drive-ins or, uh, driver's side of the vehicle, something to the effect of spit it out, spit it out. What'd you put in your mouth, spit it out, take it out, you know, all of that stuff. And this is where I think we're going to see some more of the, you know, last minute ingestion theory come into play. At some point in this trial, it may not even be until closing arguments. So that is what we saw. The jurors saw that they, you know, they've already had some interaction or some belief from other witness testimony that there, there may have been last minute ingestion. We know that there was a pill that was found in the back of the police car that had George Floyd's DNA and saliva on it. We saw the image, the photograph of the, uh, sort of the white object don't know what it was, could have been. Gum could have been, you know, saliva, or it could have been a pill. We saw the two pills that were photographed by the forensic, uh, inventory person who received the vehicle. Now, what we're hearing is somebody says, spin it out in 2019. Right? And so w w what Nelson is hoping the jury believes as well. If he did it in 2019, maybe they did it. He did it again in 2020. So all of that got played today. Then we fast forward a little bit. And what, what if you saw that last clip was sort of broken up? They had a sidebar, a couple objections, whatever was going on, and then they come back out and Eric Nelson asked that officer, officer Creighton, Hey, who was that in that video?

Speaker 2: 11:08

Did you subsequently identify the, uh, driver of the, or excuse me, the passenger. Yes, I did. And who was that? Mr. Floyd? Um, your honor, based on the court's ruling, I have no further questions for this witness.

Speaker 1: 11:24

All right. So, uh, that was that witness now on cross examination. It was interesting. So we saw, uh, early this morning, it was Mr. Frank. Now we have Ms. Eldridge, who is the another prosecutor we've seen a lot of recently. She comes out and she does a cross examination with his officer. And it's very interesting, as I said, you know, in this trial, we're all kind of wearing different hats a little bit. Typically I'm a defense lawyer. Typically we go against the cops and the cops are sort of, you know, lining themselves up, circling the wagons, bulletproofing themselves, making themselves vulnerable against any defenses. So when you see a prosecutor go against sort of a police officer, as we're going to see, right, this is a police officer. He's retired now, but he used to be on the force back in 2019. So now we're going to see a prosecutor from the same state come in and kind of go after this guy a little bit. Hey, you're kind of screwing up there a little bit, weren't you? Because he is now on the defense witness. He's a defense witness. So this is interesting. She comes out and she says, Hey, it's kind of difficult to follow commands from police officers when you're all barking orders at them from multiple different directions. You're, you're somebody on the other passenger side saying, put your hands on the wheel, put your hands up. You're saying, put your hands on the dash. You're both shouting. You both have guns out. It's madness. It's chaos, which is true. It is true. We saw that yesterday with the Lieutenant Nazario case, right? It can be very chaotic. Oftentimes the cops don't recognize that they just think that anybody on the other end, the receiving end of their actions should just automatically understand and respond. As though they're speaking clear, perfect English in a very low volume and a conversational setting in the room somewhere. It's not how it works. This stuff is very aggressive, hard to hear hard to understand, which is something I, I can empathize with very clearly because of what I do. But typically the prosecutors are not the people making that argument. Typically they're making the other argument because the defense has to say, your officer was acting unreasonably in this case. Now it's the prosecutor who's going against a former officer from her same States who now she's saying, Hey, maybe what you did was difficult for a defendant to interpret. And so it's a topsy turvy world. It's like bizarro land. We're all living in the Twilight zone. Here it is. This is the prosecutor. Cross-examining an officer today.

Speaker 2: 13:38

You testified that you were the officer who approached the passenger side of the vehicle. You approached George Floyd on May 6th of 2019. Is that right? That's correct. Yes. And you had your gun drawn when you approached Mr. Floyd. Isn't that right? Yes, sir. Yes. And when you approached Mr. Floyd, he said, don't shoot me, man. I don't want to get shot. Right. You told him to undo his seatbelt, correct? That's correct. Yes. Ma'am. And he did that, right? Yes, he did. And then you said, put your hands where I can see them, correct? Yes. And then he put his hands in the air? Yes. And then you told him to put his hands on the dash. Is that right? That's correct. And that was when you grabbed his hand and forcibly put it on the dashboard of the vehicle? Correct. And then the other officer with you on the other side of the vehicle changed that to put your hands on your head, correct? That's correct. And then you put his hands on his head, right? That's correct. Yes. And there was one officer who said they were going to tase him. Right. That's what I heard. Yes. And you were yelling pretty loud, correct? Yes, sir. Was it escalated real quick? Some profanities as well, correct? Yes. And you had your gun drawn the whole time you were giving commands. Right? Once I started ordering them as ni refused to show me his hands. Yes. Eventually it escalated where I pulled my gun. Yes ma'am. And he was awake, correct? What's that now Mr. Floyd was awake. Was he awake during this incident? Yes. He was conscious, yes. He didn't appear to be in medical distress to you when you were pulling out of the car. Is that right?

Speaker 1: 15:24

Yeah. So he had some difficulties hearing, which was kind of interesting given the fact that they were asking him a lot of hearing questions to you. You heard him say this and you heard him say that. Right. And the guy really had a difficult time even hearing in court. So, you know, not, not real sure how, how effective that was, but it was really kind of irrelevant. They needed him to get the video into court just so they could play it in front of the jury. Mission accomplished Nelson got that done. Cross-examination comes out, not really, particularly consequential one way or the other. So that was the first witness. We changed gears. Now we get to Michelle most sang. She was also there in 2019. She is a Hennepin County paramedic. And so after that, after George Floyd was pulled out of that vehicle, uh, paramedics came again very similar to what happened in 2020. And she took his blood pressure, sent him right to the hospital based on what she found because of blood pressure level was so high. It was basically on the verge of death. And so, uh, let's, let's play this real quickly and then we'll, we'll see what's next. So this is her,

Speaker 2: 16:26

But he had informed you a, taken some, some sort of an opioid, uh, every 20 minutes or something like that. Correct. And then another one as the officer came up. Okay.

Speaker 1: 16:38

Yeah. And I, I want to point that out. Right. He said he was taking opioids every 20 minutes or so seven to nine, seven to eight of them, whatever he said. And then she sort of inserts in there. And he also mentioned right before the cops came. He also took pills right before that. So she that's her testimony today.

Speaker 2: 16:54

He told you that he had taken the pill. Um, at the time the officers were apprehending him. Okay. Did you do a physical assessment of Mr. Flight at that time? Yes. Specifically. Did you take his blood pressure? Yes. I took a set of vitals. Um, would you agree that, uh, your first vitals were taken at approximately one 34 and 59 seconds? For sure. It wouldn't refresh your recollection to review the run sheet? Yes. Yeah. I approached the witness. Okay.

Speaker 1: 17:29

Yeah. So I fast forward a little bit. This is almost two years later, right? I mean, how can you remember this 2019

Speaker 2: 17:35

First recorded vital signs that refreshes your recollection? If you need to refresh your memory with that? Just let us know on, well, at approximately 1334 that's 1:34 PM. Agreed. You took his vitals, correct? Correct. And that would include his blood pressure at the time? Yes. And did you record what his blood pressure was at that time? Yes. It was 216 over one 60. Did you ultimately make recommendations, uh, to transport Mr. Floyd to the hospital based on that and other issues. Okay. Um, and ultimately did he, was he brought to the hospital eventually. All right. I believe that's all I have, your honor.

Speaker 1: 18:24

Okay. Now you see what happened there. Did he go to the hospital? She goes eventually, right. And so that's, uh, you know, that question might have been an objection question, but, you know, there was something there that she's like, you know, we were trying to get him to the hospital, but he was being very difficult, I think is probably what she was saying. And this is just speculation. This is not an evidence of course, but she said, yeah, eventually, but she couldn't say yeah, after we, you know, subdued him and all, whatever, she couldn't go into that because it's not relevant. Her testimony here today was only about any medical ramifications, any consequences to Floyd's body in 2020 as a result of what happened in 2019. So, you know, she, she was a little bit, you know, bland, there sounds like she could have added a little bit more flavor to that meal, but chose not to and could not because of the limited scope of her testimony. So, uh, you know, uh, another, another 2019 fact that got brought in front of the jury today, we're going to see how that lands. So that is that then we change gears. We get into the May, 2020 case, and now we move over to Shawanda Hill. Shawanda Hill is this woman. And you may remember her from one of the body cameras. And I couldn't remember her name yesterday. Somebody asked a question, are we going to hear from Shawanda Hill? And I was like, who the heck is that? Who are we talking about? But then yes, it's her. She was these, there was, there were three people in Floyd's car. And we already heard about Maurice hall, who is going to be invoking the fifth amendment, right against self-incrimination at some point taking pleading the fifth. And there was another person who was in the passenger seat, in the backseat and it was Shawanda Hill. And so she was there, there is body camera footage that we're going to see where I'm not sure I clipped it, but from, uh, officer Chang, who was in court today, another witness from the defense. And you can see in that video that she is there and officer Chang's communicating with her quite a lot. And so she was brought in into court today to talk a little bit more about George Floyd's demeanor. She saw him inside of cup foods while he was in there and allegedly passing this counterfeit$20 bill. And then she also saw him cause she was the passenger in the car when she got back into the car. So they've been communicating a lot throughout that day. And so they wanted to bring her in specifically to testify about what she saw. What was his demeanor? Was he active down? Was he high sober? What is it right? You were there. And you may recall that there was a little bit of conversation back and forth about the other witness, Maurice hall, the other passenger in the vehicle that day. And they saying that some of his testimony is not going to be allowed because it's not necessary because Shawanda Hill can talk about those things. If we wanted to bring in Maurice hall and put them on the stand and say, well, what did you think about George Floyd? Was he sober or high? Was he agitated or calm? Whatever he is not the only person who can testify to that information. So now we have Shawanda Hilkene coming in and do that. And so she did today. We have this clip from her where she's describing Floyd, both inside the store and outside the store. And we're going to notice that there was kind of a big difference between his disposition inside and his disposition back outside in the vehicle. So here that is,

Speaker 3: 21:24

How would you describe Mr. Floyd's behavior while inside of the classrooms had normal talking alert? Did, uh, you, uh, did he offer to give you a ride? Yes. A ride to wherever it was were going. And, um, so did you go to his car with him? Yes. Once you got into the car, did you observe any changes to his demeanor? But we were in the car for the first, like eight minutes. We were talking and, you know, saying, hug him, you know what I'm saying? Something about what we were about to do. And then I got a phone call. And so I was on the phone for the rest of the time until the little voice came to him, to the car and he fell asleep at that time. So at some point during the course of the time that you were in the car with Mr. Floyd, Mr. Floyd suddenly fell asleep. Right. And the phone call you received was that from your daughter? Yes. And so you were talking with your daughter during that time, um, and you described, uh, would you agree that at some point, uh, some, you said some little boy has, are those employees that's okay. Um, the store employees came and approached the car. And at that point, Mr. Floyd suddenly fell asleep. He was already asleep. He was already sleeping when they came to the car. And when they came there and tried to wake them up, they try to wake them up. I try to wake them up over and over. And his friend tried to wake him up and he kept, he woke up. Then he'll say something like, uh, he made a little gesture, you know, and not to back off. Okay. Was that at that a couple times, was that kind of a sudden change from how you observed him in the store to the car? But he already told me in the store, he was tired because he had been working objections or problems.

Speaker 1: 23:27

There, there there's some objections that are going on back and forth there. She, she kind of had a little bit of a difficult time testifying today, obviously very emotional. And as, as we sort of flushed out at the start of the trial, there's a difference between lay people and experts, people who are professional, people testify in court, regularly, cops use of force experts, consultants, medical people, they're called into court all the time. You have a lay person, this woman, obviously, you know, as a lay person, she does not testify frequently. And so she was very, you know, kind of tense, right? Obviously her, her friend is dead and she's now being called into testify. And who knows what, you know, what, what effect this is going to have and how she wants this thing to go right now, she's being called to testify by the defense for the guy that killed allegedly her friend in the car a year ago. Right. So you can have a little bit of compassion for her. She's coming out, Eric Nelson is asking her questions and she's being honest. It sounds like, right. She said, Hey, look, he was awake in the store. Then he was not up and down. He was kind of coming in and out of it sounds like somebody who might be intoxicated, which is exactly why Eric Nelson brought her in to talk about it. Right. And that, that was her perception of it. So the prosecution comes back out and for the sake of time and because we got so many other witnesses to go through, I didn't clip a lot of the cross-examination and largely because it just wasn't that interesting prosecution comes back out, uh, is sort of asking her a line of questions about her observations and about Floyd being up and all of these things. And she kind of gets really agitated and she sort of, uh, w says, what do you want me to do? You want me to say, yes, you want to explain, what do you want me to do? And so, you know that he didn't get much out of her either kind of an, an agitated witness, rightfully so you know, much compassion to her and she was done. So now we have sort of this narrative, this theme building where Nelson is coming out, we know that last minute ingestion is going to be a defense. We know that cause of death, they're going to say his heart and drugs. And she is now saying that, well, he actually sort of did appear to be maybe like under the influence of something. Cause he was awake and down and awake. And there were other people who were trying to wake him and he could not wake up. And so this is the sort of the corollary, the converse to what the government was saying about driving under the influence. Remember we saw that testimony from the toxicologist last week, where he came out and they were going through all the charts, Hey, you can drive a car. We have found people who were driving a car up to 50 nanograms per milliliter, no problem at all. And we heard another doctor, I think testify, uh, the same thing with meth, right? You have these high levels. You can drive around no big deal, but it's variable. It sort of varies person to person just because there is an upper limit that some people can do that doesn't necessarily mean that Floyd could do that. And so she comes out today and says, no, he was actually falling asleep in the car. Then we get his toxicology report. And it looks like there was 11 nanograms per milliliter, per milliliter of fentanyl combined with other drugs. So it sort of feels like the toxicology matches the physical signs and symptoms. You have, you have a connected there, you have a connection. Sometimes in, uh, in criminal law, you'll get, what's called a disconnect case where you'll see somebody who looks sober as a bird. This is a theory in DUI cases specifically, but you'll have somebody who is perfectly sober, walks. The line stands on one leg, the whole thing. Then they get a toxicology report. We get the numbers back and the blood alcohol is like a 0.25, right? This person should be falling over. That's how intoxicated the blood results are. And you say that doesn't match. Do you call that a disconnect case, physical signs and symptoms don't match the toxicology reports. And so here what is happening is Eric Nelson is kind of reversing that he's saying, Oh, okay, well they're saying the government came out and said, 11 nanograms per milliliter, who cares? And you can drive a car. Doesn't mean anything. We went through the pie charts on two different separate drugs. They're trying to say what we saw. George Floyd, his signs and symptoms of intoxication were basically nonexistent. That's why they didn't matter. They didn't have, they didn't play a role in his death at all. We have all these experts who say, so didn't impact his breathing didn't impact his heart didn't impact anything. He was sober. He may have technically had a toxicology report that was 11 nanograms per milliliter. But so what, because they're alleging the government that his signs and symptoms were sober and then that 11 nanograms or not impacting him physiologically. So what Nelson does is said, now we already know that this is 11 nanograms. We already know from other studies. This is a very high number. We think that he was under the influence. So he's trying to fill that hole. What's missing signs and symptoms. Who does he bring out to fill that gap? Shawanda Hill. She does a pretty good job of doing that. As she just mentioned, he was awake down, awake up and down. Nobody could wake him up. Sounds like intoxication, probably going to sound that way to the jurors. Also then we get to officer Chang, officer Chang comes in, and this is an officer who was also at the scene that day, but he was not involved. He was not one of the four officers. So we had officer Kung, we had, uh, thought we had Shovan and we had, uh, there was another one it's escaping me right now. I forget what it is. But there were four officers there. He was not one of them. And he was somebody who came after the fact and was, uh, assigned to go and watch the vehicle. So now Floyd, you know, they walked Floyd back, try to get him in the back of three 20. He kind of kicks himself out. The other end of the, that the other side, he gets pulled out street side. Now four officers are laying on him. One of the officers gives officer Chaing instructions to go back to the vehicle that Floyd was driving, go secure the vehicle because we still have Maurice all over there. And we still have Shawanda Hill and they both are kind of hovering around the vehicle. He's go, go secure the vehicle, go secure the evidence over there. And he does that. And so he, you know, probably the, the biggest gift that he's gotten during his time on the force, he's not being charged with murder. He is being just a, a witness. Now he's a, he's a bystander. And this is the first sign that we see another officer, a fellow officer actually coming out and stating things that are supportive of Shovan. So you're going to hear from him. His testimony was not very long. A lot of the testimony today. Wasn't very long, actually very short until we get to Brody or Brode brood, who is the last use of force expert that we're going to hear from today. But relatively quick, now, Nelson, just kind of call these people up. What do you got? Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. Next move out. And so we got through a six people today, quickly, and the court finished early. So his testimony again was very quick. There was one segment that I did think was important for us. And it is this conversation about the aggressive crowd. So this has been coming up a lot. And I think this is very important to frame before we get to officer Brode, who is the use of force expert that we're going to get to at the end of the show. And at the end of, uh, the court today, he was the last person to testify. So we have officer Chang. Now we had a lot of conversation about the crowd and I thought this was pretty important component of this case because people are asking the question, well, why didn't show up and help. He was on his neck for nine and a half minutes. Why didn't he help? Why didn't he render aid once he had already gone limp? Why didn't they start maneuvering the scene around and render aid immediately? Well, I think the only explanation that legally would make sense that Shovan would have to proffer is his training, told him to not adjust the scene because he was evaluating an external threat. He fear for his safety and you have to prioritize things in anything that you do, right? If you're going to be making your bed, you got to do one thing before another and officers have same priority scales. We've gone through a lot of them, right? How do you, how do you move around these use of force charts? And so I was going to say, I might, my thought was, obviously I'm not a use of force expert in Minneapolis. I don't know anything about the Minneapolis police other than what we have been covering here. But my guess is they resemble a lot of other law enforcement agencies around this country and that they have pretty clear priorities to protect themselves their lives and the lives of their other officers who were there with them above other lives at the scene. I'm going to guess that there is some sort of hierarchy that exists there, and we're starting to see some of that frame out a little bit. And so one big conversation that many of us have been having is about the crowd. Was it an aggressive crowd? Was the defensive posture by Shovan and the other officers to not render aid reasonable. Was it conducive to the scene? Was it justified for them to not act because they were fearful about the crowd and we've heard a lot of use of force experts from the prosecution come out and say, no, it wasn't. They should have rendered it. They should've done something else, but they really weren't there. This guy was there. So let's listen in and see what officer Chang says about the crowd.

Speaker 2: 32:05

Now, in terms of, as the crowd or the group of people were, uh, uh, congregating around squat three 20, did you notice anything in terms of the tone or tenor of the voices of those people? There were us very aggressive, aggressive towards the officers. This did that, did the volume increase? Uh, yes. And so how, how were you reacting? How were you splitting? How are you reacting to that focused on card? But then it

Speaker 4: 32:40

Strikes me and I was concerned for the officer's safety too. So I just kept an eye on as the officers and the car and the individuals as a person.

Speaker 1: 32:52

All right. So you let that one linger and he's not alone. Right? We know that other officers have said that we know that the paramedics you showed up at the scene also didn't want to perform any resuscitation on Floyd right then and there, because they also felt like the scene was problematic. So they loaded Floyd up into the back of the ambulance, rolled around the corner. Then they started performing CPR using the machine. And so now you've got this guy who was there, uh, presumably you've got Shovan if he decides to testify, probably will not matter. Maybe he will. We don't know. And we've got him, we've got two paramedics who both testified to that fact. Then we're going to see, we have another use of force expert. Who's testifying to that fact that maybe the crowd was a little bit aggressive and that you really should rely on the officers who were there. Like this guy was not the other people who are academics, who are reading books and watching movies on their laptops over at Northwestern is what the defense is going to say. You have people who are here, who said it was dangerous. We should believe them, not the intellectuals. So, uh, pretty important there, right? This guy was there. He was there. He was on scene. He's a cop and he's coming out and testifying for the defense on behalf of Chauvin. So pretty, pretty, I think compelling figure. We also have this woman. This is Nicole officer, Nicole McKenzie. As I mentioned earlier, she testified for the government. She was a crisis trainer. She's somebody who helps train officers on responding to crises. And so government brought her out to talk about training and all of that. We covered her when that happened. Defense brought her back out to talk about excited delirium. So we're going to, I don't have any clips from her, not that interesting testimony, pretty quick witness. She runs through the different elements of a excited delirium. She talks about this acronym. They use not a crime and she goes, Nelson just walks her through that. Okay. So in Minneapolis, part of this training material, what is the end stand for? Naked? Naked means if you're, if you're in excited delirium, your body is very hot. So you just start stripping your clothes off so you can cool down. So if you see somebody who's naked, maybe they are experiencing excited deliriums. And so she just runs through the rest of the chart. And then that chart, ultimately I think it gets admitted. They had some conversations about that chart after the jury was sent home for the day. But I think that is coming in. So she lay some foundation. Nelson wants to get that chart in. That's probably going to happen. Then we get to the big witness of the day. Then we, we sort of get to a full afternoon of Barry Brode. It's this officer right here. And this is the use of force expert who is talking for the defense. And you may recall, but think we had four, three or four witnesses for the prosecution. We had the chief of police. Uh, we had Sergeant Steiger, we had, uh, the, the law professor yesterday. We also had, I think, another trainer from the Minneapolis police department. I think it was for at least maybe more than that, all coming in and opining about use of force. And it's an, a pretty important thing, right? If, if Derek Shovan was, was acting in an unreasonable manner in a way that no objective officer would be acting, that's a pretty big problem. Cause now he's acting outside of the scope of his employment. Clearly that becomes a felony. Somebody died substantially related to the commission of that felony. That's kind of enough sort of breaking that bubble a little bit. So they have to show that his force was unreasonable or it's very, it's very compelling if they do. And this guy comes out and says, no, it's the opposite of everything that those people said. And he's also very highly credentialed. So this guy has a master's in law enforcement, he's got three degrees, licensed police officer. He started with the park police in 1977. Then in 1982, he went over to Santa Rose for 29 years. Defensive tactics instructor use of force experts certified by the FBI, blah, blah, blah. The list goes on and on. And you know how this goes by now, right? You know how the, the prosecution and the defense now just bring out a witness and they just run through the laundry list of a resume about all the great things that they've done. This guy very similar. And his name is Barry, which is basically a cop name. I mean, if it was Harry it's like game over, that's a full acquittal. If his, if his name would have been harried it's game over, we don't even need the jury. We just say, okay, it's, it's, it's, it's full, full acquittal, but since his name is Barry, it's pretty close. Almost a cop name. Hey Barry. Right. And so he's, you know, he's pretty a pretty credible guy and he is, we got several clips from him. So he starts with the final conclusion first, and then we're going to walk our way back. So let's start here. He's saying that Shovan was in fact justified. He was acting with total objective reasonableness and, uh, he's following all proper policies and standards along the way. Here is officer Brode

Speaker 3: 37:32

Now, based upon your training and experience and your expertise in the use of force matters, um, your review of the materials that have been provided to you, have you formed opinions in this particular case to a reasonable, reasonable degree of professional certainty I have. And can you just briefly overview your opinions in this particular case? I felt that Derek Shovan was justified. It was acting with objective reasonableness, following Minneapolis police department policy, and current standards of law enforcement and his interactions with Mr. Floyd. Okay. Um, we've heard a lot over the last couple of weeks about the Graham versus Connor factors. Are you familiar with the Graham versus Connor factors? I am. And can you just very briefly, um, uh, provide your definition and your, how you look at those facts? So in my 35 years of teaching, it's not just dealing with, but it's dealing with providing an officer the mindset that what they need to justify to use various tactics that they were trained in. And the standard of Graham versus Connor is, you know, what would a reasonable officer have done in a similar set of circumstances that you're doing now? The Graham versus Connor factors? The first one is the severity of the crime at issue, correct? Yes. How do you analyze that Graham versus Connor factor? So I know in my experience,

Speaker 1: 39:08

All right, so I stopped there now, I think, uh, yeah, so I stopped there. He does go through all of the factors and the rest of his testimony. So we get a conclusion, then he says, all right, so we got your conclusion. How did you come to that conclusion? Walk us through all these different factors. We've heard a lot about this case use of force case. And so he goes through all the different elements, just kind of one by one and analyzes them. And remember how we talked about this. There's a, there's a certain format that we use in law called Iraq issue, rule, application conclusion. I R a C he's kind of doing that right now. So, so this witness isn't doing it, but Eric Nelson is doing, and he's saying, all right, so we've got all these different factors. We have all these different rules. We have to answer the question. Did Derek Shovan use unreasonable force or was this reasonable objectively? He's all right. That's our issue. We got all these different rules. We have the gram factors that we're going to analyze one by one. He does it, he goes through, he says, okay, on that factor analysis, conclusion analysis conclusion. And so he kind of runs through it piece by piece. I have a couple of clips from that analysis. This is him right now talking about the officers at the scene. And again, compare this with what officer Chang said that we played previously. Officer Chang said, crowd was very aggressive, felt dangerous. I was concerned for my officer's safety. He was there. He was at the scene and who's telling us who we should listen to people at the scene or people studying the scene. This now is defense use of force expert road.

Speaker 3: 40:32

Now, in terms of, again, the, um, the analysis of Graham versus Connor, are there other factors or components of that analysis that are relevant? Yes. Can you explain some of those? So as you were reviewing an incident such as this, you have to try to see it through the eyes of the officers on the scene. You know, what factors were they dealing with? What circumstances, what was the suspect doing? What were onlookers doing? Whether I put yourself in the officer's shoes to see what they, the decisions they made, were they objectively reasonable or not? So it's, you would agree with the other, uh, people who've testified in this case that the standard involves objective reasonableness. Yes, I do. Based on the totality of facts and circumstances of this case that were present to the officer at the time and a view from a reasonable police officer on the scene. Yes. And what, uh, what about hindsight? So it's easy to, and judge in an office on an officer's conduct, it's more of a challenge to, again, put yourself in the officer's shoes to try to make an evaluation through what they're feeling, what they're sensing, the fear they have, and then make a determination. Right?

Speaker 1: 41:51

So very interesting standard here, right? You can, you can sort of analyze that both ways. This guy's basically saying the default should be what that officer said. So he's kind of, he's saying it's objective really reasonable, but we got to give a lot of credibility, a lot of leeway to that subjective interpretation of what that officer experienced that day, right there. They were there. So if we're going to err, on the side of caution on any of this stuff, it's erring towards the officer at the scene and that's, uh, you know, as a defense attorney, that's like, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, hold up, hold up there, buddy. Boy, it's a little too much deference to the cops, right? Because every cop at the scene, whoever does anything on unlawful or unreasonable or excessive is always going to say, well, that's what I saw there. That's what I experienced. And who are you to tell me that I didn't experience that fear or I didn't sense that threat. So we're being a lot more deferential to the cops per that standard. On the other hand, he was there and Chauvin's got some pretty strong corroborating witnesses. He's got officer Chang who says the crowd was a threat. He's got the two paramedics who say it was a threat. He's got video footage of people on the side of the road, screaming at him, right? You're a punk, you're a B, you're this, I'm a slap you, whatever, all going on. So you wrap all of that up. That does kind of sound like the totality of the circumstances, doesn't it? And that's the police owns that's their own standards. Everything's totality of the circumstances. That's how they wiggle their way out of any liability all the time. And so this use of force expert is coming in and he's executing the cost playbook beautifully. It's all about objective reasonableness in the totality of the circumstances. And so they're trying to a frame that out, they're trying to really expand this thing. Whereas the government wants to come back in and say, no, it's only about this specific incident, right, right then and there, it's not the totality. It's not the crowd. It's not any of this other stuff. It's only what happened for those nine minutes. See what the jury has to say about any of that. Now here is Brode who goes on and he's talking about deadly force now. So was the prone position, deadly force. We have experts who say that it is, we had the law professor yesterday who said that it was that entire time was deadly force. We saw the chart, we saw the graph, we saw the red line at the top, nothing in that was appropriate. He said, now we have a counter witness. Who's saying basically the opposite.

Speaker 3: 44:23

Now, in terms of, again, the, um, the analysis of Graham versus Connor, are there other factors, components of that analysis that are relevant? Yes. Can you explain some of those? So as you're reviewing an incident, such as this, you have to try to see it through the eyes of the officers on the seat. You know, what factors were they dealing with? What circumstances, what was the suspect doing? What were onlookers doing? Whether it put yourself in the officer's shoes to see what they did decisions they made, were they objectively reasonable or not? So it's, you would agree with the other people who've testified in this case that the standard involves objective reasonableness. Yes, I did. Based on the totality of facts and circumstances of this case that were present to the officer at the time and a view from a reasonable police officer on the scene. Yes. And what, what about hindsight? So it's easy to sit and judge in an office on an officer's conduct. It's more of a challenge to, again, put yourself in the officer's shoes to try to make an evaluation through what they're feeling, what they're sensing, the fear they have and then make a determination. Okay.

Speaker 1: 45:43

All right. So he's, once again, he's just honing this thing right back in what was Shovan experiencing right then and there at that time. And we got to take those facts into consideration. So you can, you know, have the government by his argument, you can have them parade as many use of force experts. As, as you want up there, you can have everybody come in and talk about, well, you know, this, no reasonable officer would have done that. This guy is saying, well, you, but you weren't there. Right? So you don't really know. And there are a lot of other factors, characteristics of the scene that maybe will come into play. So when you saw yesterday, that law professor said, no reasonable person could agree with that member. Eric Nelson said, Hey, reasonable minds can differ. Right? He said, on this point, no. Then Eric Nelson said, okay, well you disagree with your own government witness. You disagree with Sergeant Steiger, who said kind of the opposite of that recently. So this guy is now coming out. We now have basically three witnesses who have different interpretations on all on this scene exactly about whether the prone position was use of force. This guy is largely saying that no, it's not Steiger was saying it can or cannot be. Then we have the law professor who's sort of characterizing it a different way. So you get the whole thing was deadly force. Never put somebody in that position when they're in handcuffs is deadly force was the generalization, I think of his perspective. So you've got three competing interpretations of the same event, which is problematic for the government's case. Now, Steve Schleicher prosecutor comes back out, does a very nice job cross examining this witness right here. And this witness, I think, lost a little bit of credibility during his cross-examination because he was very, very ornery. Let's just leave it at that. He was very entrenched and you can see this just sort of in his body posture and his, his phrasiology, you can see how he's just waiting for a gotcha question. He's kind of just, Hmm. And then he comes back out and he says no, or yes, he's it very, very clearly not putting a lot of meat on the bones. And Steve Schleicher his last question? I don't think I clicked it, but the last question with this witness, he was very irritated with him. He basically said, uh, you know, he asked him a long form question. The guy says yes or no. He says yes. And Steve wants him to go and make some additional statements about that. And he responds, he says, I said, yes. And then he looks at him like you PISA. And then he walks right off the podium. So I didn't clip that because, uh, I, uh, um, I'm a terrible person, but let's listen in on this one. So this one, Steve Schleicher switcher is now cross-examining this witness and he is making it hurt. He's twisting the knife a little bit. So this guy just got done saying that Chauvin's actions were reasonable, right? Reasonable use of force, objectively reasonable, any officer in that position, what had done the same thing, cause it's objectively reasonable. So then Steve comes out and he just twists it right in his back that knife a little bit. Oh, you think that's reasonable while how about this section of the video? How about that here? Here's George Floyd is crying out for mama. He's saying I can't breathe. My stomach hurts. My neck hurts. My shin hurts. Everything hurts, everything is off. And he goes through minute by minute. Was that, was that reasonable? A reasonable officer would have also heard him say that he can't breathe and just ignore that. Is that reasonable? And he says, well, uh, yes, in certain situations. Okay. So how about this one? When, uh, and he just walks them through every stinkin sentence and it's painful, but it's very effective cross examination.

Speaker 3: 49:08

There's a little bit of that reasonable police officer in the defendant's position would have heard that. Correct? I believe so. From his position on top of Mr. Slate, true. It's possible. And the bystanders who were there again, you couldn't hear any noise interference or anything like that. True. Not then. No. And so would it be fair to say that there was nothing that the bystanders are doing at that moment in time that we just watched that would have been distracting or preventing the defendant from attending to Mr. Floyd? Not during that video clip? No. Okay.

Speaker 1: 49:45

All right. So he's just, just digging that in there. And if you watch the whole cross-examination, it's just a lot of that. All right. So we've got, let's play this 10 seconds from that exhibit. It's George Floyd's crying out and he goes, Oh, so an officer who's laying on top of him probably would have heard that. Right. A reasonable officer would heard that probably would have done something about that. You know, if he just heard somebody saying I can't breathe like alone, would they have said, maybe I should do something about that. A reasonable officer. Yeah. Maybe this is what he says. So it's just like, it's drawing it out. And he was not happy about it, nor should he, because it's, it doesn't make him look good. Of course, which is exactly what they're trying to do. So let's jump into some questions over from our locals platform, locals.com. You can find our community over there watching the Watchers, or just go into watching the watchers.locals.com. And our first question comes from deep state, says all the state witnesses said, if it were a fentanyl overdose, they would have expected foil Floyd to fall asleep. We saw testimony today that he did in fact, fall asleep. Is there any angle left for the prosecution to refute the reasonable doubt that should exist based on that alone? So that's a very good point. Excellent observation. And you're exactly right. And I didn't catch that, but you're exactly right. That that's true. Right. We had several different medical examiners, people who came out and said that no fentanyl overdose is indeed indicated by passing out or going comatose and all of that type of statement, uh, his testimony. And that's exactly what we heard today. Is there any angle left for the prosecution to refute the reasonable doubt that should, should exist based on that alone? Um, well, yeah. I mean, I think you could make an argument for it. Right? You could still say that. So what if he fell asleep? So what if fentanyl did have a role in it? They were still there. There's still the, the argument that it wouldn't have killed them anyways. Right. That's really what they're saying. They're saying that the drugs don't matter, they're saying that the heart didn't matter, they're saying that the, but for cause here was the knee on the neck. In other words, there is nothing that would have killed Floyd except for Chauvin's knee. That's going to be their argument, the sleeping thing, whether fentanyl had a role, I think that they knew that was sorta sorta part of the game and they're doing stuff to rebut that, but they're still saying that it was low oxygen and[inaudible], and the fentanyl really had nothing to do with that, all that, that all of that was caused by Shovan and his knee news. Now Wyoming says, I still can't believe the use of force expert could say with a straight face that this was a comfortable position for George Floyd. Did he, did he say that I missed that? Did he say it was a comfortable position? Uh, did he say that specifically, or did he say the prone position is generally a safe and comfortable position? If he say, if he said George Floyd was comfortable, uh, that would sort of, I think throw his credibility right out the window because we could all see that that is not the case. Uh, we have woodworking medic says, I really don't see that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Shovan is guilty with the defense starting out in a pretty good footing with their case. How important or how much sway do you think closing arguments will have on the jury? So I think a lot at this point, the reason why I say a lot at this point is because we still haven't seen, I think the full display of Nelson's case. And so I'm not real sure what he's going to do with that yet. I'm not sure if he's going to, you know, call Shovan tomorrow or, or, or, you know, any other people to come in and talk about fentanyl and overdose, or if he had a S you know, uh, a different medical examiner to come in and review the autopsy. Like we still don't know what the rest of his case looks like yet. He hasn't really gotten into a lot of medical testimony about any of the heart, uh, analysis or any of that stuff. Don't know if he is, he's going to wrap up this week. So he may just be flying through this thing. But if he, if he is going to lay a lot more out, if we have additional witnesses, we sit about Wednesday and Thursday and maybe even Friday. So there's still a significant chunk of witnesses forthcoming, I would guess. And we already saw six today. So the pace is going to pick up, but if he lays a lot of it out on the table, then closing arguments would not necessarily be that important. But if he is

Speaker 5: 53:39

Sort of being a little bit coy about his strategy, and he's

Speaker 1: 53:45

Going to button it all up, wrap it all up in a nice bow during closings. Well then obviously that ladder strategy makes the closing that much more impactful,

Speaker 5: 53:55

Much more necessary that it seals the deal

Speaker 1: 53:58

Because we have a lot of, we have a ton of issues in this case. It's hard to keep track of if you are using PowerPoints and you're observing this stuff. I mean, imagine being a juror who doesn't have any legal background who doesn't have all of the tools and skillset and education and ability to sort of read the news and get alternative information and analyze and go and say, Oh, I was wrong about that. What does that say? And go look that up, type that into Google, find out who that person is. We all have

Speaker 5: 54:23

That they don't. So there's a lot that they're going to have to sort of dig through

Speaker 1: 54:29

In order to make sense of all this. And that's where the closing argument

Speaker 5: 54:32

Really comes into play

Speaker 1: 54:35

And why renal MD says, I think it's a disconnect case, as you say, I work with methadone, fentanyl, and meth patients. He wasn't behaving as someone under the influence in an overdose. You don't go from 60 miles per hour to zero in a second, unless there is a needle in his arm, you can't just achieve that kind of anesthesia. Yeah. So that's a good question. Right? And I think we have, we have a lot of questions about the timeline, really, and, and how this all,

Speaker 5: 55:01

How this all,

Speaker 1: 55:02

Uh, fleshed out, right? When you have the absorption phase, you're a doctor. So you know how this works, right? You absorb your body absorbs you peak, you sort of dissipate, whatever the active metabolites are, your body processes, those in inactive metabolites, we've gone, we've gone through some of that analysis with active fentanyl and nor fentanyl during the government's case in chief. And you're right. I mean, Floyd was he, we saw video of him in the store up. We saw her or her testimony today that in the car, he was down, we saw potentially a pill in his mouth at the last minute. Then we have questions about

Speaker 5: 55:35

Consumption and

Speaker 1: 55:36

Processing. We heard another doctor testify that if you consume fentanyl, you, you expect to reach peak depression of respiratory function at about five minutes, which would have been right about five minutes after they pulled him out of the back of the police vehicle. So a lot of co-mingled issues, jury's going to have some serious work to do. Oh, SOC says, do you think the prosecution is putting on a good case? Yeah. I mean, to me it looks like they're half asking it, possibly they think this is an ODI and also not pushing hard. I don't, I don't see that at all. Osaka. I think that their case has some pretty big questions in it, but I think they're working extremely hard on this case. And we've seen that, I think just symbolically in the amount of resources that they've mustered up in order to prosecute this. I mean, this

Speaker 5: 56:18

Is not, you know, this case

Speaker 1: 56:21

By, by my count, I think we've covered 10 or 11 different prosecutors on the case pro hoc. BJ's, uh, what's your motions for other attorneys. You don't even live in the state to come in and practice in the state. Those were happening all throughout the case. Even I think as recently as jury selection, we saw some, some new attorneys come on board, so they are bringing out all the stops. They've got the whole, you know, the whole prosecutor's office, I think is oriented towards securing a conviction here. But sometimes you just have some questions in your case. You've got some bad facts. Maybe that's what you're seeing from the prosecutors we've got Liberty or death says, excuse me, I, at first I thought Shovan would testify to clear this up. However, now we don't see a strong need for it. Maybe safer not to Casey Anthony isn't in jail because she didn't testify. Jody areas is because she thought her side of the story would clear things up. What do you think? Yeah. You know, I'm thinking more and more, probably not testify. You know, that's, that's the general rule. As I mentioned, 99.9% of the time, I'm not expecting him to testify. Don't think it would be a good idea to, to, to presume that he would testify. I think really the only reason that you'd need him to come in is to explain the, the length of time, the nine minutes on the neck, if you can get a good explanation about that in another way, then I think that is, is the better approach to go. If I had to, if I had to say, because right now it's looking, look, if it's a 50 50 case, Shovan wins right. Automatically if it's 50, 50, that's not beyond a reasonable doubt. That's 50 50. If it's like, Hey, it could have been Chauvin's knee could have been the drugs or the hearts. I don't know. It's a coin toss. That's a not guilty verdict, like automatically easy. It has to be significantly more than that. And so, you know, right now, I'm not sure that it's, uh, that, that it's an equation that requires drastic action, like testifying, which is exactly what that would be. So I think you're right on track Liberty or death. I'm not sure that I see a need at this moment for him to testify. Uh, Liberty says, help us settle this one, comply and take the rest, get to the jail house, give us a call or to resist and get in a fight with the cops. So, uh, our, our, our typical advice on this is you don't say anything, right? Other than the three things that you have to comply with your name, your ID, your registration, if you're stopped in a car, you got to identify yourself. Other than that, you know, you're complying and you are not offering up anything. You just, and you call us, you have our number on speed dial. We say it's better to know us and never need us than it is to need us and not know us. That's why it's helpful to have a defense lawyer's phone number in your car, because typically, and I've gotten on the phone with people when there's cops outside of their car and had conversations with cops over a cell phone on the car, and it doesn't go. It's never gone bad for me when I've been involved in that, right. It's never turned into one of these situations. So that is a, that is one way to do it, but I know not everybody can have an attorney on speed dial. And so yes, generally the, the, you know, the, the thoughts are comply. Take the rest, get to the jail house.

Speaker 5: 59:22

Give us a call. Yeah. I mean, yes, for the safe, for the safety

Speaker 1: 59:30

50 of this, I am not giving any legal advice here. I'm not giving any legal advice, no legal advice. This is not legal advice for about the fifth time,

Speaker 5: 59:39

But yet there are certain

Speaker 1: 59:41

The ways to interact with the police that makes things go a little bit more smoothly. There are other situations, other responses that make things go poorly. That's just the nature of the situation of the, of the, the world we live in. You may not like that. You may say that there needs to be some serious justice reform and maybe police shouldn't be making high risk arrests in the middle of a traffic, you know, traffic E roadway and have some policy distinctions about what we can do to change it, to stop these types of interactions. But yeah, as it exists,

Speaker 5: 1:00:08

Currently turning and running and trying to flee from on

Speaker 1: 1:00:14

Arrest is taking place on the side of the road is not a smart

Speaker 5: 1:00:16

Thing to do. It's not good. It's not good

Speaker 1: 1:00:19

To not comply with the officers cause you might get killed. Now, if you want to take that stand, if you want to sort of push your luck on that, then you can, you can do that again. This is not legal advice. That's, that's just a decision that some people make, but the cops man, they are they're on a hair-trigger. We see it all over the place.

Speaker 5: 1:00:36

So if you want to, if you want to get a little bit aggressive with them, typically it doesn't work in your favor. There's a lot you can do

Speaker 1: 1:00:44

After the fact, right. File a civil lawsuit filed

Speaker 5: 1:00:48

Plants, Tufts stuff. We got murder of crows in the house. As my question for Robert is this, sorry,

Speaker 1: 1:00:55

Are, if you've answered this a hundred times, if I were a juror and I came to believe that Mr. Floyd

Speaker 5: 1:00:58

Died from a multitude of

Speaker 1: 1:01:00

Factors, including the drugs overdose Mr. Floyd's health problems and officer Chauvin's actions. What I vote guilty on any of

Speaker 5: 1:01:07

The charges. If I only thought one

Speaker 1: 1:01:10

Was approximate factor in Minnesota, I think that's a vote for guilty on the manslaughter to charge. Very good question murder. So the way that this is going to work, and I know a lot of people are asking these questions. There is actually a mechanism that we use in law in order to answer this question, it's called jury instructions. The reason why we haven't talked about this quite yet is because they haven't been settled right now. So what we know right now is generally speaking, not in this case in particular, we know what Chauvin's been charged with. We've seen the government's evidence. We've seen some of the state's evidence of the defense evidence, but we're still not quite there yet. So we know the charges. We know the three charges. We know what the statutes say, but we haven't interpreted those into lay people terms for

Speaker 5: 1:01:54

The jury. And so if you want to

Speaker 1: 1:01:56

Get a look at how this works murder of crows, Google, nor jury instructions, Minnesota, N O O R jury instructions, Minnesota. And you're going to see what happens. So both sides now are going to come together and the way that this works, we're going to spend a lot of time on this. So I don't want to go too deep on it right now

Speaker 5: 1:02:14

We have what are called, uh, uh, what, what does Minnesota

Speaker 1: 1:02:17

Column M M J whatever their, their jury instructions, right? There's sort of scripted templates of jury instructions based on the charges. So you go, okay, we've got a murder charge. And the jury instructions say, if, if so-and-so did so-and-so, then that person can be convicted of murder. And it writes it out in a way that sort of like paint by numbers, put the green ones in number in the, in the yellow, in the number one boxes and paint, the three boxes purple and paint, the, the four boxes red, right? And you have a nice little beautiful draft or whatever you're drawing. So it's kind of like that it's jury instructions and you start from a template and then both sides will make suggestions and modifications. So the government's going to come out and say, no, we don't like that. We want to modify this to explain it this way, the defense is going to do the same thing. And both of those are going to be settled by the court. So then we're going to have an official set of jury instructions that are going to tell us exactly what the law is and how it all works. And when it comes down to Minnesota to answer your question, there is my understanding is there is some sort of language in there about substantial factor, substantial factor in the cause of death. Then it defines what a substantial factor is. And then the jury is going to have to weigh the evidence against that standard. So we're going to get more information about how these rules work and how they all fit together. But we're just not there yet because it hasn't been fleshed out. So I'm sorry that I don't have a better answer for you murder of crows, but there is going to be one forthcoming. We're just not there yet. We'll be there soon, probably by the end of the week. Uh, if not first of next week, because I think the defense and the prosecutor, Hey, you know, what is a great website to go to go to, let me see if I can pull this up very quickly. Cause I just, I was just reading this legal insurrection. Let's take a look. They have, let me show you this right now. This is great. This guy is doing a great job by the way, since we're talking about jury instructions. So go over here to legal insurrection.com

Speaker 5: 1:04:06

And you can see

Speaker 1: 1:04:07

Here trial day 12. I really think it's day 24, if you encount jury selection, but they have already done the heavy lifting for us down here. So we've got murder in the second degree defined, we've got murder in the second degree elements, manslaughter in the second degree elements, all these different elements. And then they've already pulled for us the proposed jury instruction. So we've got state's proposed instructions. Then we have the defense proposed instructions. Those were filed earlier

Speaker 5: 1:04:31

In, uh, in, it looks like February. And then if you look up, uh, nor, uh, jury instructions, let's see here,

Speaker 1: 1:04:42

High profile cases. So when we go over to nor you're going to see that it looks like this. So let's zoom in just a quick,

Speaker 5: 1:04:48

And it's going to tell us it's going to give us some

Speaker 1: 1:04:51

Guidance. So let's say murder in the third degree, under Minnesota law person causing death of another, by perpetrating an act imminently, dangerous to others and inventing into praise. Mine is guilty of murder in the third degree. And then it goes through and it says, okay, so what is murder? In the third degree, it tells us what it is. Then it tells us this, the elements of murder in the third degree as alleged in this case

Speaker 5: 1:05:08

Case are as follows. First Justine Rusike

Speaker 1: 1:05:13

Death of her was proven. Then Mohammed Newark caused the death. Third. It wasn't intentional act, which caused the death was eminently dangerous to human beings and perform without regard for human life. Fourth Muhammad, nor it took place within Hennepin County. If you find each of these elements has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is guilty of this charge, same thing with manslaughter, right? Which is more applicable to what we're talking about

Speaker 5: 1:05:34

About, uh, here manslaughter and the third degree murder in the second degree. So this is intent to kill. Yeah.

Speaker 1: 1:05:44

So you're going to see something that looks exactly like that. That's what the jurors got when they went back and deliberated in the Knorr case. And we're going to see something very similar to that in Sjogren's case, but we just haven't fleshed out what this final page looks like, but we will get there. Very good question. And thanks for letting me take a little bit of a tangent there and show you around. All right. So enough of that segment, um, that was Derek Shovan. Thank you everybody for those great questions. We're going to be back here tomorrow with a lot more Derek Shovan because we are getting close it's crunch time. The defense is now presenting their case and we're going to get to deliberations starting. It sounds

Speaker 5: 1:06:18

Like next week, which is very soon. We're all

Speaker 1: 1:06:21

Looking forward to that. All right. So let's change gears a little bit. Let's talk once again about Dante.

Speaker 5: 1:06:27

Hey right, Dante right shooting took place

Speaker 1: 1:06:30

Over the weekend and Minneapolis, Minnesota in general is still feeling the effects of it. Last night. We know that there was a lot of activity, a lot of protests, some peaceful, some not so peaceful, some evolving into riots. And we got to break down exactly what's going on because now a lot of our elected officials are responding and we're starting, uh, starting to make a little bit more sense about what really happened that day. So let's dig into it over from the bbc.com says dozens were arrested in fresh unrest in Minnesota, about 40 people were arrested just North of Minneapolis in a second night of unrest over the shooting of a black man protesters in the city of Brooklyn center, defied a curfew, threw objects at police who responded with flash grenades and tear gas curfew went into force at 19 hundreds. So that was I think, 7:00 PM local time. Excuse me, got a little bit of a, of a cough today. I apologize across four counties with a huge enforcement deployment in a press briefing after midnight, local time state patrol Colonel Matt Langer said officers had reached out to organizers to try to keep protest peaceful. But fortunately the organizers weren't able to influence the desires of the crowd. Langer said that officers had been shelled pretty significantly with objects, including fireworks. He said protestors had pushed against the fence of the Brooklyn center police headquarters, and a decision had been made to push back the crowd. These, there were sporadic incidents of looting in the area and other parts of Minneapolis and neighboring St. Paul, which is interesting because we know that our new attorney general, right. Uh,

Speaker 5: 1:08:03

The guy who

Speaker 1: 1:08:03

Couldn't make it under the Supreme court, the heck's his name, whatever. Well, anyways, he said that insurrection means when you're trying to interfere with

Speaker 5: 1:08:11

Government facility while it's operating, which it sounds

Speaker 1: 1:08:16

Like this was right. So by his own standard, then it's looking like this might have been an insurrection of the Brooklyn center police headquarters, I guess. I don't know. Maybe we'll see. Next story is that they fired tear gas at them. Of course, police fired tear gas Monday night as they protested protestors were launching bottles, bricks, and other projectiles at public safety officials. According to a tweet from operation safety net, the joint effort of local entities to ensure the safety of the public during the trial of Shovan it's being held 10 miles away. Second at a protest after Dante Wright was killed by a police officer, the officer was identified as officer Kim at Potter during a routine traffic stop curfew was in effect for Brooklyn center. Police arrested those in violation who ignored dispersal orders by 11:00 PM. Most protesters had left the scene around the police station. According to witnesses, here is one shot of what was going on. So shutting down the Manhattan bridge solidarity with Dwayne Wright and the Brooklyn center community.

Speaker 6: 1:09:34

[inaudible]

Speaker 1: 1:09:35

All right. So they're marching around. We got chemical irritants and flash bang starting now. So this is

Speaker 6: 1:09:59

[inaudible]

Speaker 1: 1:09:59

Saw that gal there sort of dual, uh, dual use mask dealing with COVID and preventing tear gas. So it's kind of a nice little dual use. They're pretty good. Maybe somebody should market a product for that summer, 2021. Now get your mask to functions for the price of one. Pretty good deal. So we also saw this, this was out of a local store. I think it was a dollar tree store. We can see here, dollar tree store. So, uh, this is going on,

Speaker 6: 1:10:51

Right?

Speaker 1: 1:10:51

So, uh, filming themselves, committing a bunch of crimes and apparently stealing for justice shoplifting for justice in this country really don't know what that's going to do to help anything other than agitate people on all sides. Absolutely useless. So thanks for doing nothing and setting back the justice reform movement for another decade. Again, we could use some more of that. So thank you. Keep going, great stuff. We have Biden now calling a full blown investigation into Dante right shooting. Hey Joe, it might have something to do with the entire structure of our federal justice system that you created in the eighties and nineties, but you're right. Let's look into it. President Biden urged a full-blown investigation into whether the officer who fatally shot Dwayne Wright on Sunday was acting intentionally or accidentally fired her weapon, which is just, this is just wild. We're even going down this road. But, uh, it, it seemed to me pretty obvious that it was an accident. We have some information and some, some, uh, some narrative that's going the other direction. That's showing that maybe this officer, I don't know, intentionally tried to shoot and kill this kid. But anyways, what he's saying, he says I haven't called Dwayne right's family, but our prayers are with their family. Really tragic thing that happened by and said, speaking to reporters on Monday. But I think we've got to wait and see what the investigation shows, the entire investigation. You all watched. I assume, as I did the film, the body cam, which is fairly graphic, the question is, was it an accident? Was it,

Speaker 5: 1:12:04

Is it intentional? So, I mean, I watched the video. It seemed

Speaker 1: 1:12:09

Pretty obvious to me that it was an accident, a boneheaded accident, but an accident, nonetheless, that remains to be determined by a full blown investigation. He said, but in the meantime, I wanna make it clear again, there absolutely no justification for violence, peaceful protests, understandable.

Speaker 5: 1:12:23

He said so,

Speaker 1: 1:12:26

Uh, so Joe needs an investigation into this thing. So that's good. Harris. What is

Speaker 5: 1:12:30

A top cop

Speaker 1: 1:12:32

Kamala Harris have to say about this stuff? Law enforcement must be held to the highest standards of accountability. Vice-president

Speaker 5: 1:12:38

Harris address

Speaker 1: 1:12:40

The police shooting on Tuesday saying law enforcement must be held to the highest standards of accountability. He should be alive today. She said, and to his family and loved ones, you must know that the president. And then I agree with you as a nation grieves, his loss, we all do. He shouldn't be dead. You're right. Our nation needs justice and healing and law enforcement must be held to the highest standards of accountability. At the same time, we know that folks will keep dying. If we don't fully address racial injustice and inequities in our country from implicit bias to broken systems. So once again,

Speaker 5: 1:13:10

Absolutely nothing. Racial

Speaker 1: 1:13:12

Justice inequities, highest standards, accountability says nothing. You're in charge. You

Speaker 5: 1:13:17

Can help craft new

Speaker 1: 1:13:20

Stuff. Can you give us some policy prescriptions? Can you tell us anything specific about this uncle? Joe wants a full-blown investigation. You want fixing racial injustice and high standards of accountability. How about some actual policy thoughts? Because you're in the white house and you control both houses of Congress. Can you come up with a proposal for us? Barack Obama is out now also trimming in of course our hearts are heavy over yet. Another shooting of a black man, Dante right at the hands of the police for him to conduct a full and transparent investigation, how badly we need to reimagine policing and public safety in this country. Hey, Barack, you were also in charge for eight years, along with uncle Joe Biden, who was second in command in your office for eight stinking years. Why didn't you do anything about this? He says, here has statement. Our hearts are heavy. Go to obama.com. Nationwide are so long overdue. You were in charge for eight years. If you want help, you learn about the issues and connect with other people, blah, blah, blah. So absolute nonsense. Again, more bloviating from a bunch of elected people who don't really give a rip of either way, but they have to come out and make these political statements so that they, so that, you know, they care about these issues, even though they don't, because if they did, they would have done something about it. They were in charge for a long period of time and they didn't do anything about it. Trump did way more than Biden did in eight years in four with the first step back and other modifications. Now they're in charge. They're going to come out and just puff up the death of another kid and not do anything about it. Dante is cause of death is a gunshot wound to the chest. According to the medical examiner, medical manner of death is homicide, obviously, right? He was shot in the chest. Manner of death is homicide. Now people, people jump up and down when they see homicide all the time. And I'm not sure where this came from, but homicide like that's akin to murder. One person killed another person that was involved in the death of that person doesn't necessarily mean that this is a murder charge, but it does indicate that a human being is responsible for the cause of death of another person. And so got to clear that up just a little bit. A lot of people are like up in arms, like she's going to get charged with murder. She's going to get charged with something. I would guess we are hearing now that the prosecutor is going to give us some indication about what's going on. Rashida Talib though, before we get there, it says it wasn't an accident. So this is the counter narrative that's developing. Now police in our country, policing in our country is inherently and intentionally racist. This is just, just, just outstanding. Dante right. Was met with aggression and violence. I am done with those who can don't government funded murder. So she's saying that the government, okay. No more policing incarceration and militarization. It can't be reformed. Okay. So yeah, that's going to be a winning argument. Tell everybody in America that we don't need any more policing. That'll be, that'll be good. That's a good policy. I think the Democrats should just run with that Republican stew. They should just get rid of all police. See how that works out for both of them. Then maybe both parties will be dead on arrival and we can get a new one. Here is the police Sergeant or the police chief talking about it.

Speaker 7: 1:16:20

And here the officer was struggling with Mr. Wright shots, taser taser several times. That is part of the officer's training prior to deploying a taser, which is a less lethal device that is done to make her partners aware as well as the subject that a taser deployment will be eminent during this encounter. However, the officer drew their handgun instead of their taser for informational purposes, we train with our handguns on our dominant side and our taser on our weak side. So if you're right-handed you carry your firearm on your right side and you carry your taser on the left.

Speaker 1: 1:16:56

Okay? Right. We talked about this yesterday and I was saying to you per here on the show, I was saying, listen, I don't know how you mistake the two. They don't feel the same. They feel different. One is pretty heavy. One is not. And so let's take a look. Taser is on the left gun is on the right taser only weighs roughly 10 ounces, Glock weighs 30 ounces, or so belts are designed. So you can't eff this up. This is gaslighting. The cops are doing, they knew what they were doing Dante right. Is dead because of this officer. So that's what it looks like. Right? Two totally different sizes. New York times is chiming in on this. How could an officer possibly mistake a gun for a taser? They look and feel different. They have standard precautions and protocols in place. They go through Glocks also have a trigger safety that can be felt when touching the trigger. Tasers do not grips on tasers are typically different from those of firearms as well. They may feel similar, but they're both made of a similar type of polymer. If you train enough, you should be able to tell and you, you, you really, you really should write hers. Obviously it was was, was black, I believe, but it's very different. They look different. They feel different when you rap. I, I I'm familiar with Glocks. If you ever handle a Glock, it's a very nice, hefty weighty feel on it. And your full grip, unless you have, uh, you know, sort of a smaller model. Well, your full hand will fit around the, the, the handle of the gun and on, uh, or it's much shorter stock there it's the, the grip is much shorter. So it just feels different. It looks different, different weights. Uh, you know, like a cat[inaudible] mistake, but from what we saw in the video, I think it was a mistake officer and police chief. They have both resigned after the death of Dante. All right. So officer's resigned resignation letter. We have a Brooklyn center, mayor. Mike Elliot said he wanted to fire Kim. He's not yet accepted her resignation. And so Kim Potter doing our own internal process to make sure we're being accountable and the steps we need to take. So the police chief also, and from the suburb Potter appeared to mistake or gun for a taser. They've turned into resignation letters. Prosecutor hopes to have a charging decision for the officer who fatally shot Dante right by tomorrow. So that's gonna be Wednesday charging decision regarding former Brooklyn police officer Kim Potter, Hennepin County attorney Mike Freeman sent the case over to Washington County to make a charging decision. Didn't want to do it locally. There Potter was identified as the officer who shot, right move was part of a new procedure, agreed upon by five urban County attorneys in Minnesota, concerning police use of force cases where they are moved to different counties to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest in handling such cases, which is a good idea. I hope to have a charging decision by tomorrow. He said, I just received voluminous documents. And with enough coffee, I have something tomorrow. So that comes from Washington County prosecutor, Pete, or put, who told CNN that maybe we'll see something tomorrow. Let's fly through some questions real quick. We've got soul under siege says, I will ask my first question of the day. What are people thinking by resisting arrest? We keep seeing this happen. As far as Dante jumping back into his car, what was he possibly thinking? You can't get away from police like a video game? I don't know. You know, I really don't understand. I don't, I don't, I don't really understand what he was thinking there and I'm not sure

Speaker 5: 1:20:10

Anybody can, can help button that up. Right?

Speaker 1: 1:20:15

It's not a logical thing to do,

Speaker 5: 1:20:17

But sometimes people do that. And this is

Speaker 1: 1:20:19

Sort of the nature of policing, right? You, you, you got to know that, that there's people that are not trained in dealing with law enforcement. So they're going to do stupid stuff. They're going to do ridiculous things. And the cops have to deal with that stuff. That's part of the job and they don't just get to shoot people. And I, and I don't think she wanted to shoot him either this narrative that she intended to shoot him. You could hear it in her voice. She couldn't believe what just happened. And I'm sure that she's a very nice woman, probably a very reasonable, decent officer and a good human

Speaker 5: 1:20:49

Who just did something catastrophic, really stupid. And I, and I

Speaker 1: 1:20:55

Kid is dead. It's tragic across the board. We have Besson. Manto says the definition of insurrection is not applicable to Antifa BLM or other Marxists organization. Everyone knows that. I know. I know. I know I was trying to,

Speaker 5: 1:21:09

I was trying to squeeze a fast one in there, but you're right.

Speaker 1: 1:21:14

Only applies to white mega racist. And why renal MD says at the protest, these so-called reporters shrieked in anger. When the city manager at a press conference said that all city employees are entitled to due process with respect to discipline. They did. And they also were, uh, or mad at him for saying that there were riots that were taking place. He said, Hey, Hey, there are the, the, the police chief who later resigned said, uh, there was a riot going on. They said, don't do that. No, no, those were peaceful protests. All right. He goes, Hey, they were throwing frozen soda cans at us pop. He calls him cause he's in Minnesota, they were throwing frozen cans of pop at us. It was a riot. All right. So yeah, he's a little bit irritated with them too. We have Matt Fox says homicide is basically enough to prove probable cause for murder charges though. Correct?

Speaker 5: 1:22:00

Uh, well you need a death.

Speaker 1: 1:22:02

Yeah. So you definitely need a death in order to prove murder charges. So yeah. So it's, we're talking about sort of,

Speaker 5: 1:22:10

Of sufficiency you in order for murder. Yes. Uh,

Speaker 1: 1:22:15

I'm making this more complicated than it needs to be in order for you to have a successful murder charge. You have to have

Speaker 5: 1:22:20

Death. Death needs to be

Speaker 1: 1:22:23

Caused by a person in order for that, for that chain of causation, to connect back through to the person in order to charge that person with murder, since you can't usually use affirmative defenses, when dealing, when dealing with charges themselves prior to trial, since you can't really, you can't usually use affirmative defenses when dealing with charges themselves prior to trial. So you, so you can use affirmative defense. So an affirmative defense is the type of defense that you say, I know that thing happened, but I did it. And I'm justified. I was justified in doing that thing. So like in a self-defense case, right, Kyle Rittenhouse is not on trial yet. He has probably notified the courts that he is going to be using an affirmative defense of self-defense saying yes, I know that I re I killed that person. That was a homicide Kyle Rittenhouse shot in and killed somebody. They're dead. That's homicide, but is it murder? You got to have the homicide in order to contemplate murder. Now there they are contemplating murder. And so he's being charged with murder obviously, but his defense is going to say, yes, I did commit homicide. Cause I technically killed those people, but it wasn't murder because legally it, it doesn't re re meet criminal liability because self-defense is an affirmative defense. I know I killed them, but it's not murder. All right, good questions. And those all came over from locals.com. Our community there is watching the Watchers. And so you can check us out, support the show and ask some questions. We've got one final segment folks. We're going to motor through this. Cause I got to get moving, but who cares? It's just Harvey Weinstein. Let's just check in and see what's going on with him before we get out of here. Shall we? Harvey Weinstein back in the news, hit with a new indictment by LA grand jurors. And they're gonna try to extradite him from a New York where he's currently ensconced in custody. And they're going to try to get them back over to the West coast so that he can appear for his arraignment and deal with 11 new charges from more women. So this story came over from deadline.com says he's hit with a new indictment by the grand jury. Extradition from New York is delayed. Again, new indictment is coming down in LA due to objections by the incarcerated producers, East coast lawyer, like how they type this East coast, capitalized, ISI speak status East coast, lawyer over the latest developments in the city of angels. Further discussion on the interstate transfer has been pushed to April 30th. So they're going to determine whether or not he can be brought out onto the West coast soon on April 30th, Weinstein's attorney Norman F F F man by April 20th and response by April 27. So they're hashing it out whether or not to extradite, of course, Harvey Weinstein mirroring the previous charges that the pulp fiction executive producer already faced. We have newly minted, 11 counts of sexual assault from the city of angels, grand jury presently under seal. So we can't see it. Although Los Angeles County district attorney's office had no comment on the grand jury proceedings sources tell deadline the purpose of the move by da George gas scones team is to fast track a potential Weinstein trial in LA. So they want that. They want that good Shovan publicity that they're getting over there as the new sheriff enacting justice, we have now confirming the secret indictment today, F men noted on camera during Monday's shortest hearing that he had read the sealed material just before the weekend. One of the charges has been changed somewhat. He said asserting. It was due to a fine tuning tuning of the timeline of one of the claims under the previous charges that could result in decades more behind bars, a found guilty 69 year old Weinstein faces four counts of rape. Four counts of forcible oral copulation. One count of sexual penetration by use of force two counts of sexual battery by restraint, sexual battery and incidents involving five women from 2004 to 2013, aiming for maximum medium exposure media exposure in an election year charges were first announced by Jackie Lacey last year. The date that Manhattan sex crimes trial started, yeah, everybody wants, everybody wants their 15 minutes. And the attorney is now saying, excuse me, we're not going to avoid what is going to happen in California. We're not trying to avoid that. We believe that there's not only a defense to these charges. We believe there is a very good defense to these charges. We believe there will be an acquittal. He added Mr. Weinstein. Isn't going anywhere because he's objecting to the extradition. Right now, he is being sentenced. He was sentenced to 23 years in prison and he's 69. So that may be a life sentence for him. They're seeking 11 new charges out of LA with another potential for 140 years in prison. Prosecutors have filed a sealed indictment and, uh, the attorneys arguing, I have nothing on the indictment level that shows a judge sign. This came, it came as a little bit of a surprise press conference. John Flynn accused FMN of engaging in a sandbag move, calling it a stalling technique. He wants to keep this guy here as long as possible and prevent him from going to California. So basically fighting over extradition, right? The attorney say, now we're not moving them to LA. You guys can indict him, do whatever you want over there, but he's not going anywhere. And he's saying, look, man, he's going to, he's going to come here one way or the other quit Stalin. Just bring him back over to LA so we can get on with the show. So that's it for this show, by the way, we are not going to jump in any questions cause I got to go and I'm so sorry. I mismanaged the time, but we all know what everybody has to say about Harvey Weinstein, not any good. So let's say thank you to everybody who supports us over on locals. If you want to support the show, check us out@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com want to thank everybody who helps make the show possible. Of course, miss faith, joy, Mr. Ma Fox and all of the other people out there who sign in and, and jump throwing questions like hack consulting like Virginia, Mary, like Joe's now. And no doubt like it's ed and be brave. And Sandy pause like these great new people who signed up to support the community. Welcome. I want to welcome all these outstanding people. Welcome Harley. The whippet. Welcome Robert Barnes. Robert Barnes joined up. We got Chris John in the house. Welcome to the Chris what's up stuff. Expert. Welcome to the community. We got Tara. Welcome Alanna piano. Welcome to the show. We got Jay Teeter in the house as well. Hello to[inaudible] WJ Landry, three WJ Landry, three. Love that we got ed green, who also joined over on watching the watchers.locals.com awesome community. You can come check us out there and get a free copy of my book. Get a free copy of the slides, everything we went through today. Download my impeachment party template. If you want to impeach anyone. And as well as a copy of my free personal development system called existence systems, you can get a template on our platform@locals.com, share links throughout the day and meet great. Great, great, great, great rate. Rate people over on our platform and that's it for me. One quick reminder. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group. So if you happen to know anybody in our state who has been charged with a crime, that's what we do. That's our day job. We offer free case evaluations. We love to help good people find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases and in their lives. And so we'd be humbled if you trusted us enough to send anybody our way, things like DUIs, drugs, domestic violence, felony offenses, misdemeanor offenses, quashing, old warrants, clearing up those old cases, restoring your rights. So you can vote and possess a firearm and go apply for federal benefits. Go apply for housing, not have to worry about any of that stuff or very good at what we do. We would appreciate a referral because we'll take very good care of them. We'll make sure they leave us better than they found us. And that's it for me, everybody. Thanks so much for sticking with us during this breezy show kind of sped through a lot today, but I think it was important. We're going to be back here tomorrow as always covering Shovan. You're going to see what Eric Nelson and the defense bring forward otherwise until then my friends get some rest, get some good sleep, get some good dinner in that belly. We'll see you right back here. Same time tomorrow, 5:00 PM, 4:00 PM. Arizona time, which is Pacific 5:00 PM. Mountain 6:00 PM. Central 7:00 PM on the East coast. And for that one Florida man out there, everybody

Speaker 5: 1:30:10

Be well, I will see you tomorrow. Bye bye.