Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Former President Donald Trump liked to brag about the conservative
Speaker 1: imprint he left on the Federal Judiciary, appointing two hundred
Speaker 1: thirty judges to the bench who were mostly white men,
Speaker 1: who percentage wise has done better than me with judges.
Speaker 1: Tell I'll give you a hit. He appointed one hundred
Speaker 1: percent of the federal judges and one hundred percent of
Speaker 1: the United States Supreme Court George Washington. Now President Joe
Speaker 1: Biden is moving faster than any modern day president to
Speaker 1: reshape the judiciary, announcing a slate of racially diverse nominees
Speaker 1: with a wide range of professional experience. Not a single
Speaker 1: white man made the list, composed entirely of women and
Speaker 1: people of color, and more than a third who served
Speaker 1: as public defenders. Joining me is Professor Leah Littman of
Speaker 1: the University of Michigan Law School. Lea tell us about
Speaker 1: the list of nine women and two men. I think
Speaker 1: that the nominees are exceptionally diversed along several acts. I
Speaker 1: think one of the most important metrics of diversity is
Speaker 1: professional diversity. What type of career they've had thus far,
Speaker 1: it's no secrets that the federal courts contains this number
Speaker 1: of public defenders, and that it's where it has public
Speaker 1: defenders appointed to the federal courts. Two of the three
Speaker 1: presidents nominees to the federal courts of the fields are
Speaker 1: former public defenders, so that by itself is just huge.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's something like less than eight percent of
Speaker 1: currently serving Court of Appeals judges are formal public defenders,
Speaker 1: less than three percent of district judges who are currently
Speaker 1: serving our former public senders, and two of the seven
Speaker 1: nominees to the district courts for former public defenders. So
Speaker 1: the professional diversity is quite striking. In addition to the
Speaker 1: public defenders, you have people who have worked for the
Speaker 1: city and local governments, and so that is also notable.
Speaker 1: The nominees are also demographically diverse. Nine at the eleven
Speaker 1: nominees were women. Thirty percent of all federal judges are
Speaker 1: currently women. There have only been eight black women to
Speaker 1: ever serve as Court of Appeals judges. All three of
Speaker 1: the President's Court of Appeals nominees were black women, including
Speaker 1: judges who would be the first and only black judges
Speaker 1: on that Court of Appeals. So the Court of Appeals
Speaker 1: for the Federal Circuit has never had a black judge.
Speaker 1: Tiffany Cunningham would be the first black judge on that circuit.
Speaker 1: There are currently no black judges serving on the Seventh Circuit,
Speaker 1: a jurisdiction that it's crude Wisconsin and Illinois, and so
Speaker 1: Judge Campus Jackson of the Lulalu would be, you know,
Speaker 1: the only black judge on that court. So I think
Speaker 1: that you know, the nominees would diversify in a lot
Speaker 1: of ways, integrate the courts of appeal, and also add
Speaker 1: considerable professional diversity as well. Former President Trump was quite
Speaker 1: successful in helping to make the federal judiciary more conservative.
Speaker 1: This is just the first strike for Biden, but doesn't
Speaker 1: even make a dent in diversifying the federal bench. I
Speaker 1: think these nominees alone won't make a huge dent just
Speaker 1: because they're small number. But it will make a dent
Speaker 1: because it will integrate several courts of the field that
Speaker 1: don't currently have black judges. So it's significant for that reason.
Speaker 1: It's also significant that several of the district court nominees
Speaker 1: will be the first. It will result in you know,
Speaker 1: the first musclim American federal judge anywhere, the first Asian
Speaker 1: American woman to serve on the DC District Court, the
Speaker 1: first Black woman to serve on the Maryland District course.
Speaker 1: So I think that those are significant achievements and milestones,
Speaker 1: even if numerically speaking, these eleven nominees are not going
Speaker 1: to make a huge dent given the two hundred plus
Speaker 1: Trump nominees. Progress of the activists had been pushing for
Speaker 1: more judges from non traditional backgrounds, as you mentioned, explain
Speaker 1: why that's important. It's important for a few reasons. One
Speaker 1: is it provides for a very different perspective on legal system.
Speaker 1: If you have spent time representing people against the government,
Speaker 1: then if you're someone who has spent representing the government
Speaker 1: and arguing for more government power, if you're someone who
Speaker 1: has seen let's say, less salutary uses of government power,
Speaker 1: then you might be more rightfully skeptical about some exercises
Speaker 1: of government power, or more understanding about different kinds of
Speaker 1: litigants who come before the federal court. There has also
Speaker 1: been some very important empirical research that suggests judges who
Speaker 1: formally represented corporate interests are served as prosecutors are most
Speaker 1: likely to rule against employees and against workers, and so
Speaker 1: we know that some of the professional experience is some
Speaker 1: indication about how they are actually going to decide in
Speaker 1: view pieces in the federal courts. Do you think that
Speaker 1: President Biden was thinking of the evenly split Senate when
Speaker 1: this list was approved. Is there a possibility that any
Speaker 1: of these will be difficult confirmations? So, I don't think
Speaker 1: there's any reason to think that any of these nominees
Speaker 1: will be difficult confirmations. They are all exceptionally well credentials,
Speaker 1: very well regarded, So there's no reason to think that
Speaker 1: these nominees will have difficult confirmations. You know they are
Speaker 1: different and that they have different professional backgrounds, but I
Speaker 1: don't think that should be a cause for a difficult
Speaker 1: Senate confirmation when it seemed like the Democratic Party and
Speaker 1: the leader of the Democratic Party indicated that's something that
Speaker 1: they value. Do you think that progressives will be happy
Speaker 1: with this list? I think that foreign initial lists they
Speaker 1: are and they should be very happy. Um, I don't
Speaker 1: you know. I'm sure that we all have things that
Speaker 1: we would like to see in the next batch of nominees.
Speaker 1: I think I personally would like it if more of
Speaker 1: the District Court nominees had more similar profiles to the
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals nominees as far as their professional background,
Speaker 1: um and age. But it's it's a list that I'm
Speaker 1: very happy with as an initialist is that I hope
Speaker 1: other progressives are as well. Under former President Trump, there
Speaker 1: was an effort to get judges who were very young
Speaker 1: who would be on the bench for decades. Are these
Speaker 1: judges young? So that is part of what I was
Speaker 1: alluding to when I said I hope that the District
Speaker 1: Court nominees in the future more closely resemble the Court
Speaker 1: of Appeals nominees. The Court of Appeals nominees are in
Speaker 1: their early forties or their fifties. The District Court nominees
Speaker 1: are actually on the older side. That still makes for
Speaker 1: nominees that are substantially older than most of President Trump's nominees.
Speaker 1: He was nominating many judges in their thirties and many
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals nominees in their early forties. Very few
Speaker 1: judges were appointed while they were over fifties. So I
Speaker 1: think that perhaps future batches could involve judges who are
Speaker 1: more close resembling the age brackets from which President Trump
Speaker 1: was drawing. But still the Court of Appeals nominees from
Speaker 1: this batch are trending in that direction. Former President Obama
Speaker 1: insisted on having the A B A the American Bar
Speaker 1: Association review the judicial candidates. Biden is not requiring that.
Speaker 1: Do you think that has any impact at all? It's
Speaker 1: not clear that it will or that it should, given
Speaker 1: patch at least one prior administration discarded the A B
Speaker 1: A rating system, and given that there's again some evidence
Speaker 1: of that rating system have historically operated to the detriment
Speaker 1: of groups who are not historically represented in the federal judiciary.
Speaker 1: And I think there are all, you know, good reasons
Speaker 1: by the administration is not requiring abi A setting. Federal
Speaker 1: Judge Katangi Brown Jackson was on the short list for
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court even before Biden put her on this
Speaker 1: list for the DC Appellate Court, which is considered a
Speaker 1: feeder court to the Supreme Court. I think she has
Speaker 1: one very possible future Supreme Court nominee. Her background is
Speaker 1: everything that the President has been. You know, he's interested
Speaker 1: in someone who has served as a public defender. Some
Speaker 1: senacing commission would add some needed demographic diversities to the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. So she's going to be one of several
Speaker 1: candidates I'd imagined, but likely one of the fronts. Tell
Speaker 1: us a little more about her background, So, Gootanti Brown
Speaker 1: Jackson graduated from Harvard College and Harvard Law School. She
Speaker 1: was an editor on the Harvard Law Review. She clerked
Speaker 1: for judges on every level of the federal court, at
Speaker 1: the District Court where she currently serves on the Court
Speaker 1: of Appeals, and then for the U Supreme Court. She
Speaker 1: clerked for Justice prior Um. She's also clerked for both
Speaker 1: Democratic appointees on the courts and Republican appointees on the Court.
Speaker 1: After clerking, she worked as a public defender. Since becoming
Speaker 1: a judge, she has served on the United States Sentencing Commission,
Speaker 1: which creates rules and regulations defering all federal sentences. So
Speaker 1: she has really worked in a bunch of different areas.
Speaker 1: In addition to public defense and as the judge of
Speaker 1: Defense Commission, she also worked at the law firm Morson
Speaker 1: and Forester her So she's really worked in many different
Speaker 1: sectors of the legal profession and has really achieved much
Speaker 1: of what there is to chieve in the legal profession.
Speaker 1: As well as a d C. District Court judge, Judge
Speaker 1: Jackson has been involved in a lot of high profile cases.
Speaker 1: She's ruled against the Trump administration several times, including in
Speaker 1: the case involving former White House counsel Don McGann, where
Speaker 1: she wrote that presidents are not kings. I wonder if
Speaker 1: that might cause her any problems during confirmation hearings. I
Speaker 1: don't think that it should cause her any problems. I mean,
Speaker 1: her opinions are very well regarded, you know, in the UH,
Speaker 1: in legal circles, and so even though she's been involved
Speaker 1: in some high profile cases, the way that she has
Speaker 1: resolved them, you know, has garnered her a lot of respect.
Speaker 1: Is it helpful to have out there the names of
Speaker 1: the people who are likely to replace a justice. I
Speaker 1: think it's a complicated question. I think we, on one hand,
Speaker 1: don't really want to turn presidential elections into judicial elections
Speaker 1: as well. You know, federal sends are supposed to be
Speaker 1: appointed as confirmed, not running for office, and putting them
Speaker 1: off the ticket I think might struct people as not
Speaker 1: a great way to run a constitutional democracy. Um. You know.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, I think that, uh, it's probably
Speaker 1: good for people to understand that the two parties are
Speaker 1: appointing very different people to the federal court um, and
Speaker 1: so having people understand who are possible contenters, you know,
Speaker 1: under one party is then the other um. It might
Speaker 1: be helpful in that respect, But I think it's a
Speaker 1: really complicated question. In announcing the list, President Biden emphasized
Speaker 1: that this was the earliest batch of court picks by
Speaker 1: a new administration. Is there a reason why he's emphasizing that.
Speaker 1: Is it because the President Obama was criticized for acting
Speaker 1: too slowly? Yeah? I think not only was Pugnent Obama
Speaker 1: criticized for acting toe slowly, but he was criticized because
Speaker 1: he didn't place enough emphasis on appointing federal judges. We
Speaker 1: saw Presidents Trump and Senate Majority leaders and Senate Majority
Speaker 1: Leader Mitch McConnell places a lot of emphasis on confirming
Speaker 1: as many judges as they could, And I think people
Speaker 1: wanted to see a democratic administration values the federal courts
Speaker 1: to the same extent and with the same seal as
Speaker 1: the loss repulplicate administration is. Mitch McConnell had said at
Speaker 1: one point, I'm not leaving any vacancy open, and they
Speaker 1: really packed the courts whenever they could. Well, Joe Biden
Speaker 1: have enough vacancies to be able to to change the
Speaker 1: courts to you know, to flip the courts back to
Speaker 1: more liberal rather than more conservative. I think that that
Speaker 1: remains to be seen. UM. A lot of it depends
Speaker 1: on whether federal judges who are currently eligible to take
Speaker 1: senior status or retired do so. UM. Some of its
Speaker 1: depends on whether you know a Congress might explore adding
Speaker 1: additional judge ships to district judges, as the judiciary compics
Speaker 1: have called for. UM. But I think whether you know
Speaker 1: President Biden is able to make uh, you know, huge
Speaker 1: talk on the federal courts in the same way the
Speaker 1: President Trump does depends UM on those things which are
Speaker 1: a little bit outside of his control and also that
Speaker 1: we just don't know about yet. Thanks for being the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show. Leah. That's Professor Leah Littman of the
Speaker 1: University of Michigan Law School. In a downtown Minneapolis courthouse
Speaker 1: that has been fortified with concrete barriers, fences and barbed wire,
Speaker 1: Testimony began this week in the trial of former police
Speaker 1: officer Derek Chauvin on charges of murder and manslaughter in
Speaker 1: the death of George Floyd, a death that ignited months
Speaker 1: of protests for racial justice and against police brutality. The
Speaker 1: prosecution began its opening statement with the video seen around
Speaker 1: the world of Chauvin pressing his knee into Floyd's neck
Speaker 1: for nine minutes in twenty nine seconds. Prosecutor Jerry Blackwell
Speaker 1: said that Chauvin didn't let up eve and after a
Speaker 1: handcuffed Floyd said twenty seven times that he couldn't breathe.
Speaker 1: You will learn that on May Mr Derek Chavin betrayed
Speaker 1: this badge when he used excessive and unreasonable force up
Speaker 1: on the body Mr George Floyd. But defense attorney Eric
Speaker 1: Nelson said that Chauvin was not to blame for Floyd's death.
Speaker 1: The evidence will show that Mr Floyd died of a
Speaker 1: cardiac arrhythmia that occurred as a result of hypertension, his
Speaker 1: coronary disease, the ingestion of methemphetamine and fentanel, and the
Speaker 1: adrenaline throwing flowing through his body. Joining me as former
Speaker 1: public defender Krista Groschek, managing attorney of Groshek Lawn, Minneapolis, CHRISTI,
Speaker 1: what do you think of the prosecution strategy of not
Speaker 1: waiting playing the entire video during the opening statement. It
Speaker 1: was a great strategy for the practice custion. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's the most compelling piece of evidence that they have,
Speaker 1: and the way that they sort of encapsulated that center
Speaker 1: piece was with colorful language, like the word play. They
Speaker 1: talked about how Chauvin betrayed is badge. He wouldn't let up,
Speaker 1: he wouldn't get up. We heard that over and over again.
Speaker 1: We talked about how bystanders called the police on the police,
Speaker 1: we heard about the blood choke. That video, you know,
Speaker 1: ensconced with that word play was very effective. It's a
Speaker 1: hard video to watch, no doubt. What about the defenses
Speaker 1: opening statement and does it show the strategy ahead? Well,
Speaker 1: I think it was a foreshadowing, as most opening statements
Speaker 1: are about where the defense is going to go, and
Speaker 1: we really haven't heard much about that in some of
Speaker 1: the pre trial motions. So what we were able to
Speaker 1: learn is that the defense plans to push on this
Speaker 1: idea that because of where the bystanders who did the
Speaker 1: filming were positioned, you couldn't see what was happening on
Speaker 1: the other side of the police car. You couldn't see
Speaker 1: what was happening with his legs. He couldn't see what
Speaker 1: the officers were doing. You just see, you know, sort
Speaker 1: of his head and shovin around her about his neck
Speaker 1: and back. The defense also talked about the whole part
Speaker 1: of the story being the fifteen minutes before bystanders started
Speaker 1: filming with Floyd in this position. They talked about the
Speaker 1: whole story being captured on a city camera perched atop
Speaker 1: a high pole. They talked about the whole story being
Speaker 1: floyd longstanding use of drugs, his medical conditions, and they
Speaker 1: talk about how, you know, use of force is something
Speaker 1: that even police officers don't like, but it's a necessary
Speaker 1: podfit job. It was a very netered, I think, and
Speaker 1: mindful opening. And you know, really what I think Nelson
Speaker 1: was doing was he's trying to step back the emotion
Speaker 1: that that video certainly caused hers to feel and get them,
Speaker 1: you know, thinking in their brains about common sense, the
Speaker 1: whole story. You even use some legal terms like totality
Speaker 1: of the scumstances. And then he focused a lot on
Speaker 1: causation as to those medical issues, as to being diagnosed
Speaker 1: with COVID, having heart issues, us for the opioids. He
Speaker 1: talked about the County medical examiner's findings about how it
Speaker 1: wasn't a really clear cut case of cause of death,
Speaker 1: and he talked about how once that sort of tenuous
Speaker 1: finding was made, then prosecutors went out and shocked the case,
Speaker 1: if you will, to try to get more medical examine
Speaker 1: our opinions because they didn't like Bakers. And so I
Speaker 1: think it was a very like I said, a very needed,
Speaker 1: a very thoughtful approach about how jurors really need to
Speaker 1: get into their brains and get out of their hearts
Speaker 1: and emotions to decide this case. So, is the central
Speaker 1: question in the case going to be what caused Floyd's death?
Speaker 1: Something that the medical experts are going to testify about. Well,
Speaker 1: this case should be about causation. This case should not
Speaker 1: be about unauthorized use of force or or we heard
Speaker 1: over and over again on the productures opening nine nine,
Speaker 1: this case is sort of flip from the traditional case.
Speaker 1: So typically speaking, prosecutors are all about, you know, this
Speaker 1: is the law black, and why let's put the illegal
Speaker 1: questions out there and answer the illegal questions without emotions.
Speaker 1: Well it's not flips. Prosecutors are talking about all of
Speaker 1: the things that amount to making an emotional decision. Police brutality.
Speaker 1: They did say that it shouldn't be about race, but
Speaker 1: of course everybody in there is thinking that's what it's about.
Speaker 1: So we see the prosecution talking about a lot of things,
Speaker 1: but they didn't talk a whole lot about causation. They
Speaker 1: referenced it briefly and that he's been a drug user,
Speaker 1: but that's not what caused its death. The defense is
Speaker 1: arguing that that is in fact what you see here,
Speaker 1: and that's based upon medical evidence, based upon what was
Speaker 1: found during the course of the autopsy. One of the
Speaker 1: things that's interesting about Baker's autopsy is that his heart
Speaker 1: was so unremarkable. The pictures weren't even taken of George
Speaker 1: Floyd's heart, which again is like a causation factor there
Speaker 1: as well. So we should be talking about causation, and
Speaker 1: that's what the law said. If Derek Chavin didn't cause
Speaker 1: his death by the actions that he took, whether they're distasteful,
Speaker 1: whether we don't like it, whether we think that we
Speaker 1: have a broken, biased, racist system, he didn't cause the death.
Speaker 1: He's not guilty, and that's what this trial should be about.
Speaker 1: And the focus really should be on what the experts
Speaker 1: have to say and which experts the jury believes them one.
Speaker 1: So with the question of causation at the forefront, this
Speaker 1: is going to end up being a battle of the experts,
Speaker 1: right it should be. It shouldn't be about all this emotion.
Speaker 1: It shouldn't be about betraying the grade. It shouldn't be
Speaker 1: about a blood show cold in the number of minutes.
Speaker 1: It should be about causation. And the experts are the
Speaker 1: really only ones that can educate the jury about whether
Speaker 1: or not the state can prove that case. The defense
Speaker 1: in the opening statement said that Chauvin did what he
Speaker 1: was trained to do. Do you think he's going to
Speaker 1: try to make the argument that this was something that was,
Speaker 1: you know, an authorized show cold or whatever. Is he
Speaker 1: going to try to make that argument? I think so,
Speaker 1: And I think he's going to do that based upon
Speaker 1: a reference to that May arrest of flood, where he
Speaker 1: acted really similarly and you know, it was really out
Speaker 1: of control, based upon what seems to have been at
Speaker 1: that point his use of fentanyl, the very same fentinel
Speaker 1: till a year prior. So then yeah, I do think
Speaker 1: they're going to bring in information and testimony that the
Speaker 1: only choice in an officer has is to try to
Speaker 1: subdue that ARRESTI to avoid potential harm to direct and
Speaker 1: or others. So I do think that's exactly where the
Speaker 1: defense is going. Is that wise because if you look
Speaker 1: at that prior incident, in that incident, the police talked
Speaker 1: him down, they arrested him without any real incidents. So
Speaker 1: does that backfire on the defense. Well, I think the
Speaker 1: defense is duck with the fact that this is what
Speaker 1: children chose to do under the circumstances. Things that are
Speaker 1: different invent from the May nineteen event is that we
Speaker 1: do have video footage where there was fifteen minutes of
Speaker 1: back and forth not wanting to get in the car,
Speaker 1: the car I think, actually moving. It can be seen
Speaker 1: in the video that the police vehicle was moving because
Speaker 1: there was enough resistance comployd at that time. So I
Speaker 1: think there is a difference in how those two events
Speaker 1: played out. And it was at that point when things
Speaker 1: were starting to ramp up that Cholvin shows up on
Speaker 1: the scene. He's the senior officer. He decides that he
Speaker 1: could be safe in the situation where Mr Floyd is experiencing,
Speaker 1: you know, some kind of delirium and given his size,
Speaker 1: could be dangerous. So I think the defensive stuck with that.
Speaker 1: I think they have to work with that, and I
Speaker 1: think on cross examination they can deal with the police
Speaker 1: chief criticism of how Chauvin behaved from the point that
Speaker 1: of course the police are going to endorse it. Now
Speaker 1: to do so, would you know, implicate many others, not
Speaker 1: just Show, but everybody you know pushed that, and it's
Speaker 1: doing what they can do to distance and stuff from
Speaker 1: Show then right down to the use of force experts
Speaker 1: and to people in the Minneapolis Police Department. Nobody's aligning
Speaker 1: with him. And you know, I think Nelson can argue
Speaker 1: that those people did that strategically for themselves and for
Speaker 1: the department. Is there anything remarkable in the defense or
Speaker 1: is this the kind of defense that we've seen before
Speaker 1: in cases where police officers are defendants. I believe that
Speaker 1: in these cases that have come before, you know, we've
Speaker 1: seen a lot of not guilty verdicts, a lot He's
Speaker 1: seen a lot of officers not even charged, like the
Speaker 1: Eric Garner officers, they weren't even charged, and you know
Speaker 1: that's a similar case. And so yeah, I believe the
Speaker 1: defense finds themselves in a position where they have to say,
Speaker 1: given their specific training, given their experience, given what they
Speaker 1: know of the risks and dangers of encountering people under
Speaker 1: the influence on the street, that they need to take precautions,
Speaker 1: and they make these split second decisions. Now, the prosecution
Speaker 1: is anticipating the argument you heard in the opening statement, right,
Speaker 1: there was no split second decision here, And they break
Speaker 1: down the second and say there was of the five
Speaker 1: sections that were available for split second decision making, there
Speaker 1: was no split second to anything as a long sort
Speaker 1: of prolonged, continued decision. But to answer your question, I
Speaker 1: believe the strategy is un effective and I think it's
Speaker 1: what's allowed for officers to receive not jokey verdicts and
Speaker 1: no charges at all. The judge allowed prosecutors to add
Speaker 1: a third degree murder charge to the charges of second
Speaker 1: degree murder and manslaughter. Does that give the jury a
Speaker 1: compromise position or a middle ground if if they can't
Speaker 1: come to a decision on the more serious charge. It does.
Speaker 1: Third degree the prave mind murder is an interesting charge
Speaker 1: in that two months ago, it was not a viable
Speaker 1: charge based upon Minnesota's case law hundred year history of
Speaker 1: applying that charge. Generally speaking, that charge was only appropriate
Speaker 1: when a person drove a hundred miles three crowd of
Speaker 1: downtown streets, whether their actions were just the praved mind crazy,
Speaker 1: but they weren't directed at one person. There was a
Speaker 1: police officer, Mohammed Nur who was convicted all the depraved mind.
Speaker 1: When that happened, defense attorneys and in most people engaged
Speaker 1: in leave the work in the state felt that at
Speaker 1: the time he appealed it to the Pelot Court, that
Speaker 1: would have been overturned because it just didn't fit, didn't
Speaker 1: fit the definition of third degree. While our Pelot Court
Speaker 1: chastised a Hill for throwing that charge out, and even
Speaker 1: in light of that history, the court went to great
Speaker 1: lengths to they know what should apply, and they did
Speaker 1: that very close in time too. When Mr Schaubin was
Speaker 1: going to trial, they instructed Judge k Hill, essentially um
Speaker 1: that he must put that charge back into play, and
Speaker 1: he sort of the grudgingly did so, even though Mr
Speaker 1: Nura is appealing that to the Supreme Court, and we
Speaker 1: don't have an answer as to what will happen on
Speaker 1: that case. And then if there is a conviction here,
Speaker 1: what will happen on this case? And so yes, it
Speaker 1: becomes an easier charge for the jury to use um
Speaker 1: in terms of putting a conviction on Mr Chauvin. And
Speaker 1: that's because they don't have to find that he intentionally
Speaker 1: did anything to say he was out of his head,
Speaker 1: he was the praise, he was acting crazy, he wasn't thinking,
Speaker 1: and he did something that he shouldn't tell that. Still
Speaker 1: they self to prove that he caused the death though
Speaker 1: by those actions, but it does make the first part
Speaker 1: of their finding easier. The secondary charge requires that the
Speaker 1: state proved that Mr Chaubin had intense to assault, that
Speaker 1: he had intent to make it some Mr Foye couldn't breathe,
Speaker 1: and I think fact it's harder to do when you, you
Speaker 1: you know, start looking at Nelson's arguments. He was doing
Speaker 1: what he was trained to do. There was resistance of
Speaker 1: the arrest. So if the jury isn't of the mind
Speaker 1: to say he had the intent to assault, then the
Speaker 1: third degree murder charge becomes much more viable because the
Speaker 1: jury can just say, well, he was out of his mind,
Speaker 1: he was doing something you know was imminently dangerous to life.
Speaker 1: We know that, and it caused the death of Mr Floyd.
Speaker 1: Now again I stressed, they still have to believe that
Speaker 1: what he did cause the death, and and if in
Speaker 1: fact they can't make that finding, and even with a
Speaker 1: third degree, they should return with a verdict of not guilty.
Speaker 1: How effective are the prosecution's first witnesses, most of them
Speaker 1: people who were watching what happened. I think it's a
Speaker 1: good move for the prosecution. Is sort of this lumping
Speaker 1: up of emotion, right they started with the video, can't
Speaker 1: get any more intense than that, and then they're bringing
Speaker 1: the jurors to the scene to where this man died,
Speaker 1: and they are seeing that through the eyes of these
Speaker 1: witnesses who are obviously very emotionally moved, who still you know,
Speaker 1: are exhibiting emotion on the stand. I mean, their whole case.
Speaker 1: The centerpieces the video, and it's ensconced by the experience
Speaker 1: and the emotions of the people that were there. So
Speaker 1: I think it's a it's a very consistent and smart
Speaker 1: way for the prosecution to put their case in. It's
Speaker 1: very effective. Thanks Krista. That's Krista Grosseek, managing attorney of
Speaker 1: grossek Law. And that's it for the sedition of The
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always at the latest
Speaker 1: legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find
Speaker 1: them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot com slash podcast slash Law. I'm June grosse O.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for listening, and placed it into The
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show every week night at ten p m.
Speaker 1: Eastern right here on Bloomberg Radio