Thread by @EmbryEthan

I believe the State is about to begin their closing arguments in the lynching of Ahmaud Arbery by the two McMichaels and Bryan.

Beginning right now.

Linda explains why the state starts and closes the two arguments and how it’s her burden to prove beyond doubt the guilt of the three men.

Explains the law will be provided to the jury and they will have copies of the indictment as well.
They will consider “driveway decisions”
And the State believes the defendants made “assumptions” based on Ahmaud’s race.

They assumed Ahmaud committed a crime. Chased him for five minutes and all Arbery ever did was attempt to flee.
She now quickly goes over the only defense they have.
Self defense.
Explains that if you’re committing a felony, you cannot claim self defense.

She now explains the “self defense” law.
Explains that the citizen needs to be a witness to the crime.
Explains that the defendants didn’t witness ANYTHING.

Explains immediate knowledge and in their presence in the citizens arrest law is exactly the same thing.
Tells the jury that to make a citizens arrest a felony needs to have been witnessed.
Even if Arbery had committed theft, or trespassing, it would not have been a felony.

To legally make a citizens arrest the arresting citizen needs to have been a direct witness to a felony.
The three defendants witnessed nothing and no felony was committed. At most it was a misdemeanor and the defendants didn’t even witness it.

Linda’s killing it.
Defendance objects and says she is misrepresenting the citizens arrest law.
Judge says the jury will have the law.
Linda says the judge will present you “these exact words”
She’s gangster.

Linda explains defense will try to use a felony committed (by someone else) in 2019 was the reason for the citizens arrest.
She tells the jury that if they cannot decide this was a legal citizens arrest, then their actions were not justified.
If it wasn’t legal, they’re guilty.

After a quick layman’s explanation of the case, she will go into a detailed breakdown of what they can use to make that decision. What evidence they can use.
Tells the jury they decide what is fact.
They decide credibility of the witness.
They have the duty to deliberate.

She’s really good.
She’s been amazing with people on the stand building her case, but she’s REALLY good speaking to the jury.

“Everybody in this state owns a gun except Ahmaud Arbery”

Tells the jury they decide who is a credible witness.
What the motive of each witness is.
This witness is friends with McMichaels “team McMichael”
This witness is the father of “Team McMichael”

“The law allows you to disregard the defendants testimony if you don’t find it credible”
Defense objects
Judge allows
Linda repeats it.

Tells the jury to start at the lower crimes at the bottom of the indictment and work your way up.
“It’s easier”
Start with criminal imprisonment and find guilt or innocence.
Slowly work up to murder.
She breaks down false imprisonment. And why they’re guilty of it.

Defendant both said he was “pinned between the two trucks”
“Trapped like a rat”
Two defendants quoted.

Breaks down how using a pickup truck is considered a deadly weapon. How the defendant used pickup trucks as a deadly threat with the truck.
“Did they use their trucks to place Ahmaud in deadly fear? Yeah. They did”

Now breaks down activated assault with a deadly weapon used by Travis McMichael using the shotgun. Spells out all the steps from raising the gun to firing.

Breaks down what felony murder is.
Uses armed robbery as example.
Robber goes to rob a store with a weapon. Fight breaks out and robber kills. Robber cannot claim self defense.
Defendants already committed 4 felonies. They cannot claim self defense.

“Did the felony’s committed by the defendants directly lead to Ahmauds death? Yeah. Felony assault. Felony false imprisonment. Yeah.”

“If they hadn’t done this on Holmes, would Ahmaud still be alive? If the answer is yes, check that off. Guilty of felony murder.”
Lists off about three of these instances.

Gets to malice murder.
Explains that malice doesn’t mean ill will or forethought. Means a deliberate intention. An action meant to result in death. That’s malice. She explains implied malice. Explains abandoned malignant heart. “Don’t you just love lawyers” she jokes

Clearly explains why Travis acted with legal malice when killing Ahmaud Arbery.
She for the first time speaks with a different tone. Drops her voice when bringing up the complete lack of any resistance shown by Ahmaud.

Explains how the law in Georgia states that if you’re at all involved in a crime you’re guilty of all crimes committed by all persons.
“If you’re involved at all, you get a Super Bowl ring. If you’re on the bench, you get a ring. Anyone involved is guilty”.

“Cooperation after the fact does not erase what you have done”

She moves into what the law says in Georgia about self defense.
“Wow. That’s a mouthful. Ok let’s break it down”

Camera shows Travis watching for the first time.
He’s fucked. He knows it.

Linda explains that for self defense to apply Ahmaud would need to be currently engaged in unreasonable violent threat.
You cannot create the danger yourself, and claim to be defending yourself. Travis ATTACKED Ahmaud.

“If you use excessive force in your defense, you’re guilty! Travis used excessive force. Can’t bring a gun to a knife fight. Can’t tell a guy bigger than you to meet you outside and then shoot him cause he’s bigger”

Tells the jury even if they find the citizens arrest to be legal, they need to find that the force was not excessive. If it exceeded the threat, he’s guilty of murder.

Tells the jury that the defense lawyers are good and will try to confuse them on what the law states. But to keep in mind, if you’re committing a felony, you cannot claim self defense.

Runs down what the defense will try and use to explain their actions. But to keep in mind the bottom line, none of their actions were legal under the law. That’s why they’re on trial.

“Bottom line. This was an attack on Ahmaud Arbery. They can’t claim self defense under the law because they were the aggressors.
They are trying to justify their actions because they’re guilty.”

Explains again that for a citizen arrest to be legal they need to have WITNESS A FELONY. Must occur immediately after the offense.

Reminds the jury that on the witness stand Travis admitted he didn’t see any crime being committed making the claim of citizen arrest unlawful. If citizen arrest is unlawful it’s criminal imprisonment.

Linda ends her closing argument with
“Ladies and gentleman I give you the defense”

Ten minute break before defense begins their close.

She was amazing btw. Very clear. Well spoken. Likable. Made sense of legal language and the chaotic events of that day.

There’s a few things that should be the cement on the guilty verdict. It’s all about proving felonies were committed prior to the shooting, and one is false imprisonment. This was said at the scene by two defendants.

https://twitter.com/EmbryEthan/status/1462800756642308097

Also the law around citizens arrest states the “citizen” needs to have directly witnessed a felony. No felony was committed to witness, and Travis McMichael never saw Ahmaud till he jogged past him on the street.
If the citizen arrest wasn’t legal, those actions become a felony.

If even one felony was committed, then there can be no claim of self defense.

The entire defense depends on all actions leading up to the shooting being legal, and that Ahmaud was the aggressor. That’s basically what the whole case relies on.

Court is back.

Prosecutor says that defense was flipping through photos that were never entered into evidence and she wasn’t ever made aware of.

She has “grave concern about what the defense is about to show the jury”
Defense claims they are “demonstrative things”
They appear to be about the use of force training that the defendant learned in the Coast Guard.

Judge seems to agree that some of the information was not testified to.

State objects to a heading.

Judge grants objection in part.

State objects to hand written notes taken during the trial.

State walks back one objection after explanation.

Judge deals with objections in what seems like a fair and impartial manner following the law and not any personally held beliefs on the specific case.
Huge difference between the two major cases of public interest this past week.

The dispute is ended.
They decide to deal with it on a case by case basis during the defense arguments.
Jury is brought back in.

Quick discussion about a frozen court is better than a court in a sauna.
Noooow the jury is brought back in.

“Duty and responsibility and following the law, will always be entwined with heart ache and tragedy”
Is the defense opener.
Moves directly into the defendants history in the Coast Guard.

First line of defense is the history of Travis McMichael in law enforcement and his knowledge of the law. That he was very aware what was legal and illegal. And that deescalation always being the first goal.

This is a bunch of bullshit not worth repeating.

It’s the -black men are dangerous so they acted lawfully- defense.

Defense is now stating someone can infer when enters a property without invitation, they have intent to steal, therefore turning Ahmaud walking into an open construction zone a burglary.

We’ve entered the character assassination of Ahmaud part of the trial. Defense is explaining that a “good looking teenager in a crooked ball cap, can go astray.”
She’s not even trying to hide it.

“A teenager with a lot of promise can turn into a man in his twenties gone astray.”

She just called him dirty. There was an audible “wow” said inside the courtroom.

This woman is just disgusting.

She’s openly blaming Ahmaud for his death. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, it’s the only defense they have.

“Ahmaud was a recurring nighttime intruder. That is frightening. A burglary is any structure intended for residence. It doesn’t matter if it’s not finished.”

“Ahmaud is only a ‘lookyloo’ when it isn’t your neighborhood”

If the jury doesn’t convict, it’s because this woman succeeded in painting Ahmaud as a dangerous dirty black man to a nearly all white jury.

“I realize how much of an unpopular thing this is to say. But someone had to say it, and I’m proud to be the one to say it.”

“He died because of the illogical reason, instead of staying where he was to wait for police, his overwhelming reason to avoid capture, he chose to fight.”

She isn’t being very clear on the legal instructions. She has been VERY clear on the “Ahmaud was a danger to the neighborhood” part. But her legal instructions leave a lot to be understood.

This is why a jury that represents a community is so important. Her closing arguments wouldn’t work if the jury matched the county population. But she has 90% white jury so she’s got at least a shot.

She’s gotten to the part where Greg McMichael said to police
“Stop, or I’ll blow your motherfucking head off, or something like that.
Pay attention to the ‘or something like that” she says

“This is a small county. Many of the jury summoned knew the defendants. Some knew Arbery. You were chosen to do the impossible. To set aside opinions you held before court, and base your verdict on only what you heard in this court.”

“Compromise has no place in the jury room. Each of you will form your verdict on your own.”

She’s instructing the jury to not make a compromise between them. If you think he’s innocent but the rest think he’s guilty, slam on the brakes. And that there is no “lesser charge” each count will change the defendants life.

“You can’t wake up a couple of weeks from today and regret the decision you make, because you can’t take it back. Our town deserve no less, Greg McMichael is not a murder. He’s not guilty.”

Defense is arguing the Black Panthers have gathered outside carrying a coffin with defendants names on them. This is the same lawyer asking no black pastors be allowed in the court.
Claims automatic weapons are outside and again asks for a mistrial.

“This is no longer a figurative mob, it’s a literal mob”

Both other defense lawyers say if the jury is unaware of the gathering outside, they have no objection.

Judge denies the call for mistrial.

Judge says the events outside have not been brought to him as a security threat. And says he will do all he can to insulate the jury from the gathering outside.

Defense asks to have a juror removed for falling asleep. The state very strongly denies the juror fell asleep. Defense wants this juror gone. The state wants to keep her. It’s juror number 12.

The judge says he didn’t see anyone fall asleep.
Defense argues she may have a medical situation that needs attending. The defense hates juror 12. The state wants to keep her.
Who wants to bet juror 12 is the one black person on the jury?

I’m pretty certain juror number 12 is the only black person of the 15 in the jury pool. All three defense lawyers wanted her removed and claimed they each considered making loud noises like dropping boxes to wake her up.

Some people have said articles mentioned the one black juror is male, so it doesn’t seem juror 12 is the one person of color on the jury.

Court returns, I think there is one more defense lawyers closing, but I’m not sure.

It seems the lawyer calling to ban black pastors and hates the Panthers is up now. Should be interesting if it’s his crack at it.

Here he goes.

He’s defending Bryan. Claims his client didn’t know guns were involved and didn’t know it would lead to blood.

“Armed only with his cell phone. Isn’t it time we send Bryan home”

One thing I notice about the defendants. They have certainly not paid for this with their appetites. Just an observation.

Defense says on the scene Bryan didn’t have a lawyer. Invited the police to sit with him in his truck. Showed the police the video. The video that was withheld by the previous DA who is now under federal investigation.

He’s now painting Bryan as a saint who doesn’t swear. “Well he tries not to”
Bryan grabbed his cell phone, not a gun to join in the chase of Arbery.
“There is no evidence he is a wordsmith”
Are they using the Bryan is ignorant defense?

Defense plays a statement Bryan made to police.
They are focusing on his statement about wishing he hit Arbery. They are claiming he wished he hit him because it would’ve saved Arbery’s life.

Claiming Bryan never meant Arbery any harm. And that he never knew the McMicheals intended to harm Arbery.
They play a second statement made by Bryan.
“I cut him off pretty good, he was trying to get to the handle”

The striking part of these videos made on the scene is the lack of remorse or concern for the young man dead in the street. They may have well been talking about a stray dog.

Defense claims that because Bryan invited police to immediately watch his recorded footage at the scene means Bryan is innocent.

Defense lawyer says he wants to go back in time. Little does he know, he’s already back in what we call Jim Crow.

Calls COVID a “China problem” for good measure.

All I can think of is how many resumes his blonde co-counsel has submitted this past week.

Defense claims Bryan didn’t know either McMichael and the state objects because that was never entered in as evidence.

Defense is now claiming Bryan followed Arbery because of “divine providence”.

We’ve now reached the point where the two trucks pin in Arbery and he runs around the front of the white truck as Bryan closes the distance from behind.
You can see Travis blocking one lane and his truck blocking the other. He stands in the road with his shotgun.

The first shot goes off behind the white trucks open door.
You can only see Travis and Arberys feet. Then the second shot goes off and Ahmaud takes a few steps and falls.

I don’t understand what the defense is arguing here? I guess he’s claiming Bryan could never have known there would be shots fired. But I don’t think it matters legally because he had already committed felony assault and imprisonment.

I don’t understand what their angle is. Ok so he just said the defense is, he didn’t know what was going on, and it’s the states job to prove otherwise and if they can’t he’s innocent?

The defense lawyer seems to implicate the same video enhancement argument from Rittenhouse, that you can’t trust what the state says the video captured because it’s been enhanced.

The defense of Bryan sums up to
He’s an idiot. (Actually argued)
He was guided by god. (Actually argued)
And I haven’t heard anything else of substance.

It’s my understanding the reason the three men are being tried together in the murder of Ahmaud is because the state has charged them with collectively committing the felony of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (their trucks) and false imprisonment (also with their trucks).

If the jury decides they did commit a felony of assault with their trucks, they cannot decide Travis acted in self defense. Self defense cannot be used while in the act of a felony. And if they are guilty of one felony, they are all guilty of murder.

So the defense is aiming to first argue the aggravated assault never happened. The false imprisonment never happened. And the killing was done in self defense. Failing to accomplish that returns a guilty verdict on all three.

The only lawyer who has clearly explained that is the prosecutor.

The only clear point from any of the three defense lawyers was how desperately Greg’s lawyer wanted the jury to believe Ahmaud was a dirty dangerous black man. Everything else has fallen flat.

“Context is key. It’s not the words Bryan used that are important. It’s the meeeaaanning behind them.”
And claims the state has taken his statements out of context.

Argues that not a single local police took Bryans words to mean an act of aggravated assault or imprisonment had occurred. He says that should be taken as a reasonable amount of doubt.