Speaker 1: Greetings and welcome to wok F with me Danielle Moody.
Speaker 1: This week marked the beginning of the murder trial from
Speaker 1: Minneapolis police ex officer Derek Chauvin, who killed George Floyd
Speaker 1: in broad daylight nearly a year ago by kneeling on
Speaker 1: his neck for close to nine minutes, setting off a
Speaker 1: renewed wave of protests against police brutality and white supremacy
Speaker 1: across the country. I'm joined every week with my friend
Speaker 1: and MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirshner, who for thirty years
Speaker 1: worked as a federal prosecutor. This week I asked him
Speaker 1: to break down the numerous aspects of the Chauvin pre
Speaker 1: trial process that have been troubling me. Glenn's explanations were
Speaker 1: so in depth and so informative. We ended up talking
Speaker 1: for almost a half hour about this pivotal trial. To
Speaker 1: hear our full conversation, which is one I think is
Speaker 1: essential listening for anyone that will be following this trial
Speaker 1: in the coming weeks, head over to patreon dot com
Speaker 1: slash woke F and subscribe for just five dollars a month.
Speaker 1: I'm sure this will not be the last time that
Speaker 1: Glenn and I talk about this particular trial, and I
Speaker 1: talk with so many other experts and thinkers five days
Speaker 1: a week on my show. But for now, I do
Speaker 1: want to share with you Glenn's breakdown of the lesser
Speaker 1: included third degree murder charge, which has since been restored,
Speaker 1: how the jury selection process works, how Chauvin's defense might
Speaker 1: use George Floyd's autopsy against the prosecution, and ultimately whether
Speaker 1: he thinks Derek Chauvin will be convicted of the murder
Speaker 1: of George Floyd. The feeling here for me with regard
Speaker 1: to the second degree murder charge and a third degree
Speaker 1: murder charge and having both of those stand, is that
Speaker 1: I don't want him to get the lesser charge right,
Speaker 1: And the understanding is that one I'm not hopeful. The
Speaker 1: pattern that we have seen since the murder of Trayvon
Speaker 1: Martin has been the same, has been consistent. There's been
Speaker 1: no deviation, except for I believe in one case where
Speaker 1: the young man and I'm forgetting his name because there
Speaker 1: have just been so many was shot to death in
Speaker 1: a car because he was playing loud music. The older
Speaker 1: white man who shot him went to jail. But in
Speaker 1: every case and every other case, these people get off,
Speaker 1: whether you are a white vigilante or a white police officer.
Speaker 1: My question though, with regard to how we are looking
Speaker 1: at these drawers, some of the questions to me seem
Speaker 1: incredibly problematic, which is, do you support Blue Lives matter?
Speaker 1: Do you support Black lives matter? Have you been to
Speaker 1: a protest? If you were at a protest, did you
Speaker 1: bring a sign. If you brought a sign, what was
Speaker 1: on that sign. The idea that we can't even in
Speaker 1: this country say that black lives matter and make that
Speaker 1: into something that is somehow conspiratorial, somehow violent, when in
Speaker 1: fact everything you've seen is to the contrary of that
Speaker 1: is incredible to me. And we also seek to look
Speaker 1: for people that are what unbiased or are impartial. And
Speaker 1: I don't understand how everyone in the world saw that
Speaker 1: video of George Floyd taking his last ust everyone in
Speaker 1: the world. So how do we look for impartiality when
Speaker 1: something went viral? So okay, there's a lot to unpack,
Speaker 1: so many great questions. First of all, when we talk
Speaker 1: about the judge getting rid of the third degree murder charge,
Speaker 1: he did that because he thought, legally speaking, that was
Speaker 1: not an appropriate theory of liability, as the Minnesota law
Speaker 1: is drafted, so when I said it might be perceived
Speaker 1: I should have said it might be misperceived by chauvin
Speaker 1: or by some as Hey, this judge threw out a charge,
Speaker 1: Maybe that's good for us. He was doing what he
Speaker 1: thought was right. I believe based on the law, So
Speaker 1: it's and it may not. I don't want to get
Speaker 1: down on the lead weeds. It may not technically be
Speaker 1: a lesser included offense under the law because you need
Speaker 1: to have elements in common as you work your way
Speaker 1: down to lesser included offenses, and the theories of liability
Speaker 1: are kind of different, so it may not be a
Speaker 1: lesser included. Let me talk about lesser included every time
Speaker 1: I try to first degree premeditated murder case. You bet
Speaker 1: I wanted the lesser included a second degree murder to
Speaker 1: go to the jury. Why Because if I didn't persuade
Speaker 1: all twelve jurors beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
Speaker 1: actually engaged in premeditation and deliberation before killing the victim,
Speaker 1: then if I didn't give them second degree murder, the
Speaker 1: jury would have to find him not guilty, and I
Speaker 1: will take a second degree murder conviction all day, every day,
Speaker 1: rather than a not guilty on first degree with no
Speaker 1: opportunity for the jury to hold them accountable. Then let
Speaker 1: me talk about the problematic juror questions that you refer to.
Speaker 1: I don't see them as problematic. Here's why I want.
Speaker 1: First of all, you're absolutely right, we get to protest.
Speaker 1: I was down at the Black Lives Matter protest in
Speaker 1: DC right in the middle of it. I felt strongly
Speaker 1: about that we need to protest. It's an important part.
Speaker 1: It's our civic responsibility, frankly to protest. Right, it's the
Speaker 1: only one of the only ways we can hold our
Speaker 1: government accountable. But as a prosecutor or as a criminal litigator,
Speaker 1: I want to know what the preconceived notions and beliefs
Speaker 1: and passions are of each juror. So, for example, I
Speaker 1: want to know if somebody is all about Blue Lives Matter,
Speaker 1: and you know, but Derek Chauvin, whatever he needed to do,
Speaker 1: he needed to do because he was protecting us, right.
Speaker 1: I need to know that as a prosecutor because I
Speaker 1: need to be able to exercise a strike for cause
Speaker 1: against that person. Because I welcome your right to express
Speaker 1: and to protest. Whether you're on the Blue Lives Matter
Speaker 1: the Black Lives matter, both neither. But I need to
Speaker 1: know it so I can make informed decisions as a
Speaker 1: prosecutor about who I want and about who has no
Speaker 1: rights sitting on this jury because they have such strong
Speaker 1: preconceived notions that they can't put them aside and base
Speaker 1: the case only on the evidence they here in court.
Speaker 1: So that's my view of what sound to be intrusive
Speaker 1: questions that sound like they trample on our right to
Speaker 1: expect right, it sells freely, okay, because that's how I
Speaker 1: felt when I when I heard it, I said, well,
Speaker 1: that just doesn't seem right to me. The entire country
Speaker 1: was at protest. We were seeing them in all fifty states, right,
Speaker 1: And so when I when I saw that question, I'm
Speaker 1: thinking to myself, well, we're just now going to throw
Speaker 1: people out and assume that if you've sat on your
Speaker 1: couch for the past year, right, didn't involve yourself in
Speaker 1: any which way in these uprisings or calling your representatives
Speaker 1: or anything that, then that makes you impartial. And I
Speaker 1: think that I equate it to when we talk about
Speaker 1: media and journalist not having opinions right, and there is
Speaker 1: no way that you don't have an opinion in this
Speaker 1: day and age, in what we are seeing. There's no
Speaker 1: way that you didn't have an opinion about kids being
Speaker 1: snatched from there from their mothers right and locked in cages.
Speaker 1: There's no way that you are reporting that and saying
Speaker 1: you're you're reporting it in an impartial way. We're human beings,
Speaker 1: and so I thank you for that clarification. What are
Speaker 1: you anticipating as this unfold? Where are you anticipating that
Speaker 1: the defense goes here? I know where the defense is
Speaker 1: going to go. I've studied the autopsy report, and so
Speaker 1: two things about the autopsy. The first one was performed
Speaker 1: by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner, as is ordinarily the
Speaker 1: case in all jurisdictions, your state or your county medical
Speaker 1: examiner performs the autopsy. And then George Floyd's family hired
Speaker 1: doctor Michael Boden, whom I know, and he had a
Speaker 1: fellow forensic pathology do the second autopsy with him. They
Speaker 1: reached two different conclusions. The first one said he experienced
Speaker 1: a heart incident that was a product of the restraint
Speaker 1: being applied to him by police officers, but he wasn't
Speaker 1: suffocated and I'll talk about that in a minute, and
Speaker 1: that's an important finding. And Michael Boden and his associate said, no,
Speaker 1: this was an asphyxial death. He was asphyxiated. Here is
Speaker 1: the issue that we have to contend with. The prosecutor said,
Speaker 1: I'm calling the Hennepin County Medical Examiner to testify, but
Speaker 1: I'm not calling the medical examiner that was hired by
Speaker 1: George Floyd's family. That's a perfectly appropriate tactical decision. And
Speaker 1: he thinks he can prove criminality based on the findings
Speaker 1: of the Hennepin County Medical Examiner. But here are some
Speaker 1: of the challenges with those findings. The Hennepin County Medical
Speaker 1: Examiner found no injuries to his neck, either externally or internally.
Speaker 1: When you resect the neck. I've seen so many strangulation cases.
Speaker 1: There are telltale signs of strangulation. There's a broken highoid bone,
Speaker 1: which is a very delicate bone right here. And I
Speaker 1: can tell you, Danielle, in every manual strangulation case or
Speaker 1: significant pressure that's put on the neck, you're gonna have
Speaker 1: a fractured highoid bone. You're gonna have fractures. They call
Speaker 1: it to the cartlete. You're gonna have bruising internally, you're
Speaker 1: gonna have and you're gonna have what's called peticial hemorrhaging.
Speaker 1: Those are pinpoint hemorrhages in the whites of the eyes
Speaker 1: and in the gums that are a result of your
Speaker 1: brain being deprived of oxygen. The blood vessels begin to pop,
Speaker 1: telltale signs. He had none of that. Okay, none of that.
Speaker 1: So what they're going to argue is it may look
Speaker 1: bad that all this pressure seem to be applied to
Speaker 1: his neck for eight minutes and forty six seconds, but
Speaker 1: there's no injuries and there's no hemorrhaging that would that's
Speaker 1: associated with the brain being deprived of oxygen because there's
Speaker 1: away is being cut off. So he wasn't strangled. What
Speaker 1: he was is he had pressure being put on all
Speaker 1: parts of his body and his body was under duress.
Speaker 1: He couldn't get enough air in, which is right different.
Speaker 1: It's different than a strangulation death. It's called positional asphyxia
Speaker 1: where pressure is being put on the body here and
Speaker 1: here and here, and he can't breathe and he can't breathe,
Speaker 1: which is different than strangling. A guy out not to
Speaker 1: get graphic right. So here's what the defense is going
Speaker 1: to say. They're gonna say, you know what, maybe the
Speaker 1: guy who was putting pressure on his torso was really
Speaker 1: the bad guy. I can't. I can't. I just just
Speaker 1: hang with me, though, hang with me. I know I
Speaker 1: can't either. And it's not a winning argument. I'm just
Speaker 1: trying to set out you for your listeners where I
Speaker 1: think Chauvin is going with this right, but hold fast
Speaker 1: because it's a losing argument for him. So, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe my knee on his neck looked bad, but there
Speaker 1: were no injuries and there was no deprivation acute deprivation
Speaker 1: of oxygen to the brain. Sony didn't strangle him. Here's
Speaker 1: the other thing they're gonna say, and you're not gonna
Speaker 1: like this either. Do you know how long it takes
Speaker 1: if you're strangling somebody. Do you know how long it
Speaker 1: takes for somebody to lose consciousness? The first apologists will
Speaker 1: tell you eight to ten seconds, and then it takes
Speaker 1: less than four or five minutes to kill somebody by
Speaker 1: manually strangling that person. They're going to embrace the eight
Speaker 1: minutes in forty six seconds and say, see he didn't
Speaker 1: lose consciousness in ten seconds. He didn't wasn't strangled to
Speaker 1: death in four minutes. Therefore, my knee on the neck
Speaker 1: was not the bad actor is. Here's my concern. Anytime
Speaker 1: you have multiple people involved in a murder, co defendants
Speaker 1: and you begin to sever them out and try them individually,
Speaker 1: you know what happens every flipping defendant makes this argument, Oh,
Speaker 1: I'm not the one who always the other guy. The
Speaker 1: other guys who aren't in court, they're the bad guys.
Speaker 1: I'm not the bad guy. Look at me. I've got
Speaker 1: a suit and a tie and I'm wearing my college
Speaker 1: boy glass. Look at me, I'm you know. And they
Speaker 1: put on an act and I saw for thirty years.
Speaker 1: And the defense attorney will put everybody in a suit
Speaker 1: that's too big for them to make them look meek,
Speaker 1: and put fake glasses on them to make them look bookish.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, it's the place defense attorneys. And I'm not
Speaker 1: critic I love my brother and sister defense attorneys, I
Speaker 1: really do. Most of them are good, honest, ethical, zealously
Speaker 1: representing their clients, and we want that. But here's the
Speaker 1: good news. As I watched this as a career homicide prosecutor.
Speaker 1: I know how I would try this case, and I'm
Speaker 1: pretty dang sure I could win a conviction based on
Speaker 1: the evidence I've seen and what I've seen from this prosecutor.
Speaker 1: Is he's strong, he's thoughtful. I haven't. I've only seen
Speaker 1: what I can see on court TV, right right. I
Speaker 1: also think the defense attorney is very strong. I think
Speaker 1: the judge is very thoughtful. I'm thrilled with the civility
Speaker 1: and the professionalism that I'm seeing. I don't think it
Speaker 1: will be a circus because they've allowed cameras into the courtroom.
Speaker 1: Sometimes that can devolve into an absolute mess. At the
Speaker 1: end of the day, my prediction as this jury will
Speaker 1: hold Derek Chauvin criminally accountable for what he did. The
Speaker 1: biggest question in my mind is at what level of homicide.
Speaker 1: In the days and weeks to come, we will be
Speaker 1: following the Derek Chauvin trial across the country as it unfolds.
Speaker 1: In Minneapolis, the city, with its Operation Safety Net, barbed
Speaker 1: wire and boarded up businesses, is already preparing for the
Speaker 1: worst possible outcome, a presumed not guilty verdict and justifiable
Speaker 1: civil unrust over yet another killer cop walking away without
Speaker 1: justice being served. But I will continue to have these
Speaker 1: conversations with Glenn, whose illegal optimism gives me much needed hope,
Speaker 1: and other sound legal minds every week on woke af Daily.
Speaker 1: If you want to follow this trial along with me
Speaker 1: and the rest of the woke a F nation, join
Speaker 1: us at patreon dot com slash woke a F for
Speaker 1: just five dollars a month. We are steadily growing this
Speaker 1: community and an effort to make our world a woker place.
Speaker 1: Power to the people and to all the people. Power,
Speaker 1: get woke and stay woke as fuck.