Thread by @samanthajhendr

The defense is now closing. #ChauvinTrial Attorney Eric Nelson is reminding the jury that Chauvin is presumed innocent, per the law. The burden is on the prosecution.

This is in stark contrast to the prosecution beginning with a narrative.

Defense is emphasizing "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and that the proof in the prosecution's case must "eliminate" doubt as a whole.

Chauvin has his mask off while the defense presents his case.

"Take the time to carefully read the entire instructions."

"You need to review the entirety of the evidence... some of these videos are much longer than what you have seen. Take some time... compare it to the law as the judge instructs you... consider the instructions as a whole."

"We know this was not asphyxiation... that's not intellectually honest. It does not stack up against the rest of the evidence."

"Compare the evidence against itself. Test it. Challenge it. Start from the point of the presumption of innocence."

"The state has failed to meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

Defense is saying that if you are missing one ingredient from chocolate chip cookies, you cannot make chocolate chip cookies. The law works similarly, the ingredients are "elements."

I'll be honest, we talked about aliens first, now cookies, and I'm a little lost on those.

Defense says that the two elements of his closing argument today are the (1) authorized use of reasonable force and (2) the actual cause of death.

Defense is reminding the jury about what their witnesses told the jury about authorized use of force, and emphasizing "what facts were known" to the police officer as reason for action.

"A reasonable office wants to keep his fellow officers safe, a reasonable police officer takes into account the safety of the civilians... and the safety of the person they are arresting." Defense emphasizing how much a reasonable officer must think about.

"A citizen... called for assistance. They told the police officers... this subject is under the influence. A business is requesting help, the perpetrator is still there, he's large and he's under the influence." Defense emphasizes that "things can change in an instant."

The defense is played a video, but didn't see it on the live feed.

Or was this a phone call recording? Unclear. I'm not sure what we just heard.

The defense is now playing body camera footage of when Chauvin pulled up to the situation outside of Cup Foods.

The defense is now defining active resistance, and explaining Chauvin's thought process upon arriving at the scene. Chauvin is watching him intently.

The defense continues to refer to Chauvin as a reasonable officer, and presenting the body camera footage and the situation from, seemingly, Chauvin's perspective. Chauvin denied his right to testify last week.

Defense notes that the struggle between officers and Floyd's in the car, lasted about a minute. "Now that doesn't seem like a long time."

It definitely doesn't in comparison to 9 minutes and 29 seconds.

"The officers clearly understand the intensity of the struggle... A reasonable police officer would understand this situation, that Mr. Floyd was able to overcome 3 police officers, handcuffed."

"Reasonable police officers continue to assess and reevaluate... this is not a singular cycle. We literally make millions of decisions in a day. But in the policing context... it's constantly rotating."

Defense shows footage of officers discussing their next actions during the 9 minutes and 29 seconds, to back up the "evaluate and assess" argument.

The defense is laying out the expectations of a reasonable police officer based on how long ambulances and assistance would take to arrive. "A reasonable police officer will take into consideration, again, his training, his experience."

The defense continues to play body camera footage of the arrest. It's hard to focus on what the officers are saying at times, to be honest. George Floyd's voice, begging and pleading, stands out the most.

The defense is arguing that lived experiences and the perceptions from those experiences should be assessed.

Defense appears to be arguing that Charles McMillan who "has a third grade education" and Darnella Frazier " a high school student" whose "first instinct was to start recording" had the wrong perception of the situation based on their set of experiences.

The defense is arguing that the crowd posed a "potential" threat, and a "reasonable police officer has to be aware and alert to his surroundings."

The defense says that two things are happening at the same time: (1) George Floyd took his last breath & (2) that Chauvin threatened to mace one of the bystanders, which is "authorized" use of force.

He is arguing that due to danger posed by crowd, Chauvin couldn't perform CPR.

He is arguing the crowd changed Chauvin's perception of the situation, causing him to act as he did as a "reasonable officer."

Defense circles back to the argument that Chauvin did indeed use force according to MPD training.

"Sometimes the use of force is just not that attractive."

The defense is once again urging the jury to take in the entirety of the situation, and that this was an authorized use of force, and therefore reasonable doubt is valid.

The defense is saying that what happened is "tragic," which is the first time the defense has referred to it this way in the trial.

We are close to the two hour mark for the defense's closing statements. "You have to be sure that the defendant's actions caused the death of Mr. Floyd."

The defense is arguing that the state has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it was only asphyxiation that killed Floyd.

"If you add the drama, and make all of the assumptions..." He is targeting Dr. Tobin a lot here. "You have to analyze the evidence in the broader context."

"Do not let yourself be mislead by a single still-frame image."

The judge has ordered a 30 minute break for lunch for the jury. The defense will wrap up after.