WELL
WELL ,
WELL , AS
WELL , AS LAUREN JUST WENT OVER TODAY, HAD A FEW WITNESSES
SAYING THINGS OR DISCUSSING
THEMES, THE STATE ALREADY HAS
GONE OVER WITH SOME OTHER
WITNESSES. JOINING US NOW AS
FORMER US ATTORNEY RACHEL
POLLOS, NOW A VISITING LAW
PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY
OF ST. THOMAS TO GIVE HER LEGAL
OPINIONS ON THE DAY.
>> THANKS FOR JOINING ME, MISS
PAULOSE. THANK YOU. LET'S START
WITH THAT.
WITH THAT. >> THAT PART OF HEARING WHAT
SEEMED TO BE REPETITIVE
TESTIMONY FROM STATE WITNESSES
SAYING THE FORCE MR. CHAUVIN
USED WAS TAKEN TOO FAR OR SHOULD
HAVE STOPPED OR WAS AGAINST
POLICY. WHY IS THE STATE KEEP
CALLING PEOPLE TO TALK ABOUT
SIMILAR THINGS? WELL , I'LL SAY
TWO THINGS IN RESPONSE TO THAT.
FIRST OF ALL, THESE WITNESSES
ARE SAYING DIFFERENT THINGS
AND THEY'RE ILLUMINATING
DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE
TESTIMONY. AND SO
CHIEF ARRODONDO PURPOSE WAS
REALLY TO PUT THE IMPRIMATUR
OF THE GOVERNMENT BEHIND HIS
CONCLUSIONS AND PARTICULARLY
THE CHIEF OF POLICE SAYING THIS
IS NOT A CULTURE OF THE
MINNEAPOLIS POLICE DEPARTMENT
THAT WE VALUE SANCTITY OF LIFE.
AND THAT IS WHAT IS KEY
IN THINKING ABOUT REASONABLE
FORCE.
FORCE.
FORCE. >>
FORCE. >> THERE WAS ANOTHER EXPERT
TODAY TO TALK ABOUT
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ANGLE AND HOW
YOU DEAL WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE IN
DISTRESS AND TRAUMA. AND SO
THAT WAS HIS PARTICULAR
EMPHASIS. ANOTHER OFFFICER
OFFFICER BLACKWELL TALKED ABOUT
,PARTICULARLY THE TRAINING
THAT DEREK CHAUVIN ATTENDED
AND WHY A KNEE ON THE NECK WAS
NOT CONSIDERED PART OF THE
OFFICIAL TRAINING, NOR WAS IT
EVEN CONSIDERED INAPPROPRIATE.
>> IMPROVSISED POSITION.
>> AND SO THERE'S A LOT OF THE
WORK THAT LAWYERS DO
THAT INVOLVES PAINSTAKING
ATTENTION TO MINNEOTA. IT IS NOT
AS GLAMOROUS IN REAL LIFE AS
TELEVISION PORTRAYS IT. AND OF
COURSE, THIS IS THE FIRST TRIAL
IN MINNESOTA HISTORY TO BE
BROADCAST ON TELEVISION.
>> SO WHAT PEOPLE ARE SEEING IS
REAL LIFE AND IT'S NOT AS FAST
PACED OR AS INTERESTING AS
HOLLYWOOD WOULD HAVE YOU
BELIEVE. THE OTHER THING I'LL
SAY IS THAT USE OF FORCE IS
CRITICAL TO THIS CASE. AND NO
ONE WOULD WANT TO ACCUSE
THE STATE OF BEING LESS THAN
COMPLETELY DILIGENT TO ITS
RESPONSIBILITY TO THE JURY
TO ILLUMINATE ALL ASPECTS
OF WHAT IS REASONABLE FORCE
IN THIS, YOU MAKE PERFECT
POINTS.
POINTS.
POINTS. >> IT MAKES SENSE FOR THOSE
OF US WATCHING AT HOME OR AT
WORK LIKE MYSELF WERE NOT
ATTORNEYS.
ATTORNEYS. >> WE ARE USED TO WATCHING
SOMETHING LIKE LAW AND ORDER,
NOT AN ACTUAL TRIAL.
>> SO I GUESS I WOULD ASK YOUR
ADVICE FOR US WATCHERS, NOT
ATTORNEYS OR JURORS.
>> HOW CAN WE BE GOOD WATCHERS
OF THIS CASE? WHAT SHOULD WE PAY
ATTENTION TO OR WHAT SHOULD
WE NOT MAKE A BIG DEAL OUT OF ?
>> WELL , IT MIGHT BE NECESSARY
AT SOME POINTS TO TAKE A BREAK
BECAUSE THIS IS EMOTIONALLY
WRENCHING.
WRENCHING. >> I CAN ONLY IMAGINE WHAT
IT'S LIKE FOR MR. FLOYD FAMLY
IS, AS YOUR COLLEAGUE POINTED
OUT JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO,
AND SO THIS MIGHT BE SOMETHING
THAT'S DIFFICULT TO TAKE
IN LARGE PORTIONS AND EVEN
FOR LAWYERS, IT IS EMOTIONALLY
EXHAUSTING. WHEN I WAS IN TRIAL,
I DIDN'T EAT, I DIDN'T SLEEP
AND IT WAS VERY ARDUOUS. AND SO
FOR TRIALS THAT WENT ON FOR
A LONG TIME, YOU CAN IMAGINE IT
CAN BE VERY DIFFICULT
EMOTIONALLY, PSYCHOLOGICALLY
EMOTIONALLY, PSYCHOLOGICALLY AND PROFESSIONALLY. DESPITE ALL
THE TRAINING THAT WE'VE HAD.
>> I THINK FOR PEOPLE WHO
ARE INTERESTED IN WATCHNING
DAILY, JUST REMEMBER THAT THERE
HAVE BEEN WEEKS, MONTHS,
SOMETIMES YEARS THAT GO INTO
A CASE THAT YOU'RE WATCHING. SO
THIS MIGHT SEEM DIFFICULT,
BUT WHAT I WOULD SAY IS REALLY
DIFFICULT IS SPENDING MONTHS
ON END WITH HUNDREDS
OF THOUSANDS DOCUMENTS IN A
DUSTY WAREHOUSE OR SPENDING ALL
DAY EVERY WITH THE SAME WITNESS
FOR WEEKS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND
THEIR TESTIMONY OR SORRY. NO,
THAT MAKES SENSE. I MEAN,
THE ATTORNEYS FOR BOTH THE STATE
AND THE DEFENSE HAVE A BODY
OF KNOWLEDGE THAT THEY'VE SAT
WITH FOR TEN MONTHS AND STUDIED
IT AND WE'RE JUST SEEING MUCH
OF IT FOR THE FIRST TIME.
>> SO WE'RE NOT COMING IN AT
THE SAME LEVEL HERE . THAT MAKES
PERFECT SENSE. I WANT TO GET
TO THAT LAST WITNESS, THAT USE
OF FORCE EXPERT SERGEANT
WITH THE LAPD.
>> HE WASN'T ON THE STAND
FOR VERY LONG, BUT SOMETHING
CAME UP IN IS QUESTIONING AND IT
WAS ABOUT WHAT A REASONABLE
OFFICER WOULD DO. CAN YOU TALK
ABOUT WHY IT'S PHRASED THAT WAY,
WHY THAT'S IMPORTANT TO THIS
CASE?
CASE?
CASE? >>
CASE? >> WAS A LEGAL STANDARD HAS HAS
COMES FROM A SUPREME COURT CASE
CALLED GRAHAM VERSUS CONNER.
>> AND IT ALL FOCUSES ON WHAT
A REASONABLE OFFICER WOULD DO.
>> AND SO THAT IS WHY YOU'RE
HEARING THAT PHRASE AGAIN
AND AGAIN IN THIS COURTROOM. IT
SOUNDS LIKE A DRY LEGAL CONCEPT,
BUT THE JOB OF THESE WITNESSES
IS TO MAKE IT COME TO LIFE
AND SAY IN REAL LIFE, WHAT DO
YOU DO WHEN YOU HAVE A WITNESS
WHO MAY BE IN MEDICAL DISTRESS,
WHO MAY BE NONCOMPLIANT, WHO MAY
HAVE OTHER ISSUES THAT YOU NEED
TO DEAL WITH IN REAL TIME?
AND SO THAT'S A PURPOSE OF OF
USING THAT PHRASE AND THEN
TRYING TO ILLUSTRATE WHAT IT
MEANS IN REAL LIFE.
>> OK, LAST QUESTION. JUST ABOUT
TWENTY FIVE, 30 SECONDS, THEY
STOPPED AN HOUR EARLY AND AGAIN
TO THE DOCTOR WHO'S NOT AN
ATTORNEY, IT WAS KIND
OF JARRING, LIKE WHY DIDN'T THEY
JUST STOP ALL OF A SUDDEN?
>> EVERYBODY'S TRYING TO GUESS
WHAT IT MEANS.
>> BUT MAYBE IT GOES TO YOUR
POINT THAT WE JUST DON'T
UNDERSTAND WHY A JUDGE MIGHT
HAVE DONE THAT .
>> MAYBE THERE ARE OTHER THINGS
GOING ON . WHAT DO YOU SAY ABOUT
THAT ? THERE COULD BE ALL SORTS
OF REASONS, SOME FROM THE VERY
INNOCENT, INCLUDING HE HAS MANY
OTHER CASES ON HIS DOCKET
AND SOMETIMES URGENT CASES
TO THE ATTORNEYS WANTED
A PRIVATE SIDE BY SIDEBAR
TO TALK ABOUT THIS VERY CRITICAL
EXPERT WITNESS WHO IS THE FIRST
WITNESS UP TO FURTHER
DEVELOPMENTS ON THE
MOTIONS HEARING THAT THEY HAD
THIS MORNING ON THE WITNESS
WHO'S CLAIMING THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT. >> SO THESE SORTS OF BREAKS,
AGAIN, ARE NOT UNUSUAL