Outcome reached in Kim Potter trial over Daunte Wright's death

Jurors collectively asked the judge what the date was of Kim Potter's interview with Dr. Laurence Miller, a psychologist who served as a defense witness.

"All the evidence is in," Judge Regina Chu told the jury. "So you should rely on your collective memory as to what the evidence is."

Miller interviewed Potter after the April 11 fatal shooting of Daunte Wright. 

Prosecutors wanted to question Miller about the interview, but Chu sustained the defense’s objection against the line of questioning. 

The interview was brought up by the prosecution in the cross-examination of Potter on the witness stand.

Prosecutor Erin Eldridge asked Potter about the differences between her answers in her interview with Miller and her testimony on the stand.

Eldridge asked Potter why she told Miller she didn't know why she decided to use her stun gun, when she testified before the jury that she used it because she saw fear on an accompanying officer's face.

Eldridge also asked Potter about telling Miller that she saw her gun in her right hand during the incident, though Potter testified that she did not remember much about the incident.

 "I was distraught," Potter responded. "I wasn't in a good place."

Eldridge also asked Potter about her resignation following the shooting, in which Potter told Miller that she did it to "protect her police family."

Judge Regina Chu has read the instructions to the jury and they will now deliberate on the charges of first- and second-degree manslaughter against former Brooklyn Center officer Kim Potter.

Included in the instructions are reminders of unconscious bias: "We all have feelings, assumptions, perceptions, fears, and stereotypes about others," Chu read to the jury. "Some biases we are aware of and others we might not be fully aware of, which is why they are called 'implicit' or 'unconscious biases.'"

"The law demands that you make a fair decision, based solely on the evidence, your individual evaluations of that evidence, your reason and common sense, and these instructions," Chu read from the instructions.

In closing arguments, the defense said that Kim Potter was within her rights to use deadly force against Daunte Wright because he could have hurt another police officer with his car. 

The defense claims Wright could have driven off, dragging Sgt. Mychal Johnson.

"What would have happened to Johnson? The worst would be death if he took off like he did -- like a jet," defense attorney Earl Gray said. 

"[Potter] said she saw Johnson, that she saw him and he had a look on his face she'd never seen," Gray added. "That was right before she said 'Taser, Taser.'"

The prosecution argues there is no evidence that shows Potter was using force for Johnson's protection or that Johnson was afraid for his life. 

"Johnson was clearly not afraid of being dragged," said prosecutor Matthew Frank. He never said he was scared. He didn't say it then. And he didn't testify to it in court."

Prosecutors said Johnson wasn't halfway into the car at the time of the shooting, and that he was "all the way over to the passenger side securing Mr. Wright's right arm." 

Prosecutors also pointed to Potter's reaction after the shooting, when she sobbed on the ground and said she would be going to jail in the body camera footage.

"When Sergeant Johnson said 'he was trying to drive away with me in the car,' which isn't even true, but he offered that to her and she didn't even bite on it," Frank told jurors. "She was so caught up in recognition of the wrongfulness of her own conduct."

Defense attorney Earl Gray told the jury to remember that "your constitutional duty is to presume Kim Potter innocent. And before you can find her guilty, you must find each and every element of the charges is proven beyond a reasonable doubt."

It is on the prosecution to prove Potter is guilty. It is not the responsibility of the defense to prove her not guilty, according to Gray and prosecutor Erin Eldridge. Gray argued throughout the trial that it was within Potter's right to use deadly force against a fleeing subject.

"The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's use of deadly force was not authorized by law," Gray said. "You must presume that she had a right authorized use of deadly force, that she had a right to do it."

"This is the most important affair in the client's life," Gray said.