Transcript for Lawyers for Derek Chauvin deliver closing arguments
Before I begin my review of the evidence in this case. I would like to address two very crucial points of law and they were touched on my mistake. The presumption of innocence. And what proof beyond a reasonable well. The presumption of innocence. The defendant is presumed. Innocent. That's the starting point he's presumed innocent of these charges and this presumption. Remains where her. Through all the course of the trial the presentation of the evidence. Through all the course of your deliberations. Until and unless misty has proved its case beyond a reasonable don't. The defendant does not have to prove his innocence. We talked about this in jury selection. We talked about. Just starting points to defend it doesn't have to trying to catch up. He starts at the presumption of innocence. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Here's the definition that the judge just strategy. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt is such proof as ordinary prudent men and women would act upon in their most important affairs. Be reasonable doubt is you don't that is based upon reason. And common sent us. It does not mean they fanciful. Or capricious style. Nor does it mean beyond all possibilities out. The law recognizes. Three standards of hundreds of the evidence. Is the first and more standard. Clear and convincing evidence is the next standard and there is standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And the way and we lawyers sometimes illustrate. What these three standards mean. Is through blues scales of justice earning the scales of justice equally balanced. When you apply that standard. The preponderance of the evidence. It's also called the scintilla of never. He single grain of sands. Tips the scales. In favor of one party or the other. And this burden of proof is used in many civil cases. Somebody if the state wants to take away your driver's license for an example. That is a burden of proof that this Steve Harris in that type of case. They have to just ever so slightly convinced the finder of fact. That here. Evidence supports their action. This standard is clear. And convincing parents and that's pretty. Self explanatory right. It is clear let us. And it convinces. You. The finder of fact that the action is correct. This is the standard of proof that is used at the state wants to take away your children. Clear and convincing. Evidence. It tips the scales more than one. The favor of one party over the other. The highest standards. In this country. Is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof beyond. A reasonable doubt. Essentially what the Statehouse to convince you. Is that they're the evidence in this case. Completely. Eliminates. Any reasonable doubt. Or in other words leaving only on reasonable doubt. Appreciate us. Fanciful. Capricious style. Capricious means unpredictable. Fanciful. Space aliens flew in. Inhabited the bodies. Of dear true. And positive stuff that's Vincent. Beyond. The reasonable. Doubt it is the highest standards in the law. Doesn't mean we are no possibility of doubt because I suppose BC aliens may have been. And having his body that's obviously fanciful appreciates. So this means to standards. The presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt we're in concert with each other. You start. With the proposition. That mr. Schuermann is innocent of these charges. The state house to advance substantial. Evidence. To convince you that the only doubts that our remaining. Are among the reasonable doubts. You analyze the evidence in this case. You would simply have to find. A defense that has been advanced is unreasonable. That's me that's what this standard is all about. Take this opportunity also to talk to you about the importance of Reading the entire construction. Because. I've seen. You know and lawyers and I'm gonna do to right we pick and choose those things that. Help us make our case and help us argue our case that's our job is lawyers. Is 2.0 words and phrases within the instructions that cut me. The difference in the case and to take that evidence and presented it to you in such a way. That it supports our proposition that's what we do that's why you are instructed. That if your memories of the evidence is different. And if you are. Judges law is one of plots. But tastes good time to carefully. Read the entire instructions. Throughout the course of this trial you've seen us do this right. Little snippets. Second here a second bear a screen shot here a screen shot there. You'll have to review the entirety. Of the evidence in this case it during the course of the deliberation tomorrow. And I can tell you that some of the videos that we've seen. There's much longer than what was presented in court there's additional information and you're going to see some of that. As we go through this case today. So take that time and conduct an honest assessment. Facts of this case. Compared to a boom law. The judge instructs you. And the entirety of the the law that's going to be instruction so you. Consider the instructions as a whole. I'm so I told you that lawyers. Like to present evidence that favors are. But we have to beat. Intellectually. Honest about the evidence we have to present in an honest. And intellectually cohesive and coherent manner. To address something. And I think is important. And I think it is a prime example of what I am asking you and what is your obligation. To do. To look at the evidence in light of all of the other pieces of benefits and so you heard during the testimony of doctor Fowler. That one of the things that he considered is the possibility that carbon monoxide. Was present. And it could have contributed to an environment that created an oxygen deprivation. You've you've heard accessible. In rebuttal to the tufts. The state run doctor Tobin backhand and he told you. We can completely. Disregard. That we know as if we know conclusively. That mr. Floyd did not have carbon monoxide because his oxygen was saturated to 98%. And you just heard the states say. Just like I am right here. So. It's history is I couldn't get up in front of you and I could argue to you. We know this wasn't asphyxiation. Because George Floyd had a 98%. Oxygen level. How could he have been asphyxiated. At the hospital. With a 98%. Oxygen. That's not intellectually. Contest. It doesn't stack up against them rest of the confidence because of what we know. Right we heard the testimony of Sarah brown and her. And Derek Smith of paramedics. We've heard the testimony. Of doctor wouldn't shop. They came in and they said they began resuscitation efforts are first to introduced oxygen. Oxygen supply. We that are either manually and breathing for him there really oxygen needing his blood. So when you. Peace and it's when you look at a piece of evidence like that you have to compare against all of the other evidence. Because. You can't come and say George Florida on one hand George Floyd died of asphyxiation. But he hasn't 98%. Oxygen well. Blood is oxygenated. Then it is the CS three isn't the opposite is true and as well. You can't come in and say. I can conclusively. Prove that mr. Floyd didn't have carbon monoxide in his blood. Because he had this high oxygen saturation. You tell us once. Against the evidence of other people and you compare. That is what you as jurors are obligated to do and what I am asking to do. Comparative evidence against itself. Task. Challenging. Comparison wal reading the instructions in their entirety. Starter for McQueen. Of the presumption of innocence. And seeing how far in the state can get. I submit to you that the state has failed. To meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable. Mr. Schoen has been charged as a C. Indicated what these three charges and the judge's instructions to. Paraguay is second degree murder while committing a felony. Also called a felony murder rule in Nassau. Kind of textbook example is I run into a liquor store are pulling a gun I'm intending to rob a liquor store. My gun goes off I shouldn't show the teller I didn't intend to go in and murder that person but my. That teller. Occurred while I was committing a felony counts the felony murder. He's been charged with murder in the third degree. For corporate ordering an intentional act that is imminently dangerous. And he's seen the instructions you heard. And manslaughter in the second degree. Again the law passed all the words that defines the words you need. And these instructions should be considered and their entire. Whenever I meet with the client. I'm trying to explain. What that elements are and this is the analogy that I use. I see that. Criminal case is kind like baking chocolate chip cookies. You have to have the necessary ingredients. You've got to have flour and sugar and butter and chocolate chips and whatever else goes into those chocolate chip cookies. If you help all of the ingredients. You can make trucks chip cookies. Put if you're missing any one single ingredient. You can't make Charles Richard Kurtz. The simple kind of analogy. With the criminal law works the same way. We say you really call the ingredients the elements. The state has the burden of proving each and every element. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Just some global proposition that they've proved their case beyond a reasonable. They have to prove each of these elements beyond reason. And if you determined that he had done so you can guess what if they're listening at any one single element. Anyone listen elements. It is not guilty for us. And if you saw the spreadsheet to stay put up. Bryant the elements are a little different in each of these cases. And some of these elements will take a lesson your consideration. You'll have to look at the evidence and you'll have to for example determine. This cub foods in the city of Minneapolis is Minneapolis on account of happiness haven't been counting in the state of Minnesota. Did this happen on May 25 2000 part. It can take lesser consideration but nevertheless you have to do that if you're north through that process.
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.