tv CNN Newsroom With Poppy Harlow and Jim Sciutto CNN April 15, 2021 7:00am-8:00am PDT
very good thursday morning to you. i'm jim sciutto. the breaking news this hour. president biden just signed an executive order imposing a wide range of new economic and diplomatic sanction onz russia. this in response to russia's solar winds hack of several federal agencies. it's interference in the 2020 election, and its on going occupation of crimea and eastern ukraine with a big buildup along the border there. kylie atwood joins me from the
state department. tell me what's new in the sanctions. you know, i can't count how many rounds of sanctions there have been against russia. this has new elements. >> it does, jim. as you pointed out there, one of the things that this executive order and sanctions by treasury are doing today are seeking to go after russia economically, to target their sovereign debt. now their actions being taken today, financial restrictions on american companies that are going go in effect in a few months here. and then there is also the possibility that this administration could actually use this executive order to then put into place more restrictions that are going to target russia economically. it's clear here they're going to try to go after russia economically if they continue to carry out malign actions against the united states. the other thing they're doing is expelling ten russian officials. the bottom line is they're saying that these are russian spies. they have 30 days to get out of the country.
the other thing that the biden administration is doing for the first time is that the russian intelligence service, their intelligence arm, was responsible for the solar winds hack. now that is that hack against nine u.s. government agencies and about 100 u.s. companies that was carried out last year. and so they're putting a finger on who was responsible and then they're going further. they're sanctioning those companies that were involved with the hack. and they're also sanctioning individuals and entities that were involved in the interference, the attempted interference of the 2020 presidential election. one thing i want to point out here is biden administration is saying they want a stable and predictable relationship with russia. and so national security adviser jake sullivan said earlier this morning on cnn that when president biden had a phone call with president putin earlier this week, he gave him a heads up that actions were coming this week. but he also proposed the two
leaders meet together in a summit. it is clear the biden administration wants to keep open channels of communication. they're not holding back here with regard to where they're willing to go in fighting back against russian actions against the u.s. and against allies. of course, some actions -- some new sanctions on crimea as well today. jim? >> yes. geopolitical carrot and a stick, perhaps. thank you very much. joining me now, former assistant secretary for intergovernmental affairs for the department of home land security. julia, you followed russia's malign activities in the u.s. including interference in the elections for some time as well as the u.s. response to this. and this is very familiar. expel diplomats, impose economic sanctions. what does appear to be different here is going after russia's access to bond markets. why does that matter? because it affects their ability to borrow money. countries need to borrow money. do you see that as a significant step forward in the new
sanctions? >> yeah, i do. and i see a couple aspects to this that are significantly different. one, is of course, as she just said, the at btribution. and the second is as you said the financial sanction that's we should really view as political. i mean, in other words, for putin, if the oligarchs are unhappy, they're unhappy with him. and that is the point of this. the oligarchs for a long time supported putin. he made them very, very rich. and our sanctions in the past have not really impacted them or they have not been sustainable. so the dufifference now is, of course, we're impacting or hoping to impact putin's strength among the very rich class in russia. he real zwrly does not have see popular support. so this is different.
and it is significant. >> yeah. because they store the money overseas, right? they steal it from the country and buy expensive stuff overseas, right? you've seen some of putin's properties overseas. >> they have a good life here, yes, that is true. >> they do. there is a property element of this in the executive order, appearing to block russian individuals from access to property assets in the u.s. i know they're more active in europe. you can see very wealthy homes in london, for instance, owned by some very wealthy russians pt but is that something that is also a pressure point on the oligarch who's support putin? >> yes. >> their ability to live well and their ability to also remember for their children to live well which they like to do both in europe and the united states. and i think what is important is this is not simply a statement to russia. i think it is also a warning to u.s. financial institutions about how much they play with russia and this -- and their assets and debt market here. so this will probably -- this will impact banks and financial behavior. but we shouldn't forget the
other point to this, of course, which is the solar winds, you know, solar winds, people -- solar winds is not significant. their clients are significant. the hack into solar winds was impacted national security because solarwinds clients included major companies as well as the u.s. government. so recognizing that is part of the sanctions is essential at this stage. that had that dratmatic impact n our internet and homeland security. >> they called russia out, unlike the previous administration. despite they showed the same thing. russia did it. the president tweeted, maybe china. and by the way, had had his political appointees kind of skew the intel, right, to make it seem like, well, china, iran, russia, they're all in the same category here. just briefly, how important is it for the u.s. to speak with one voice and say we know you did it and we're going to hold you to account? >> it's essential. you see the intelligence
agencies yesterday testified so russia's impact and influence on the u.s. elections and what we should do to stop them. so what i like about this is that it's so normal. i know we are not used to normal anymore. your intelligence is telling one thing. policy people at the white house and the national security team respond to it. and that is -- it's no longer personal. i think that is what is significant here is that president biden is with one hand saying, okay, we have a u.s. interest which is stopping russia from meddling. but i also have an interest in having relationships with russia for a variety of reasons. and i will continue to do that. it has nothing to do with biden's personality or whether he likes or doesn't like putin or whether putin likes him. this is how superpowers act. and it's sort of nice to feel after a while to be honest. >> yeah. that's how you handle the difficult friends. i know what you're up to but let's sit down for dinner.
keep your friends close but your enemies closer. >> it's not about me. that feels good. >> julia, thank you very much. in just hours, former police officer kim potter will make her first court appearance in the death -- shooting death of dan d daunte wright. she shot and killed wright on supd sunday after she mistakingly pulled her fire arm when she meant to pull and shoot her tazer. adrian, what do we expect to happen today? >> she will appear before a judge later this afternoon for her first initial court appearance. keep in mind, it will be via zoom. we're still in the middle of a pandemic. potter spent a great deal building her career right here at the brooklyn center police department. and when she was booked into jail yesterday, that jail where she was is about eight miles from the police department where she built her career.
but she bailed out yesterday evening about six hours after she was taun ken into custody. it's likely the judge will read the criminal complaint during that court proceeding. we have our eyes on the criminal complaint yesterday. in it we learned that the former officer, kim potter, pulled her .9 millimeter handgun and pointed it directly at wright with her right hand firing one round. immediately after she fired that round, wright, daunte wright can you hear him say, he shot me. we know it wasn't a man that shot wright, it was potter. so she'll hear about the charges in that criminal complaint. the charge of second degree manslaughter. >> adrian, we know you'll continue to follow it. thanks very much. we're just moments away from
what could be the final day of the defense's case in the trial of derek chauvin. we all saw the video of chauvin kneeling on george floyd's neck for 9:29. but yesterday a medical expert for chauvin's defense team told jurors that chauvin did not kill floyd. instead, he said it could have been a heart problem, perhaps floyd's drug use or something we didn't hear before, carbon monoxide from the squad car's exhaust. josh campbell joins me do. we expect today is the last day of the defense case? >> it could come as soon as today. we're expecting at least one more expert witness to take the stand. the judge, court has not been telegraphing in advance who the witnesses will be. but we're expecting at least one more and there could be an end to the defense's case. and then we move into the prosecution rebuttal phase. now yesterday as you mentioned, the defense brought in this
medical expert to review some of that damming testimony that we heard from so many of the prosecution witnesses. and this medical expert in an attempt to show it wasn't chauvin at fault, rolled out a series of other possible theories and contributing factors. take a listen to what he said. >> we have a heart that is vulnerable because it's too big. there are certain drugs that are present in his system that make it -- have a risk of arrythmia. we have the carbon monoxide which has potential to rob some of that additional oxygen carrying capacity. >> it is your opinion that mr. chauvin's knee in any way impacted the structures of mr. floyd's neck? >> no, it did not. none of the vital structures. >> okay. >> were in the area where the knee appeared to be from the videos. >> so talking about heart disease, talking about potential drug use by george floyd and
cash on monoxide and the comment is that possibly the exhaust from the running squad car may have contributed to george floyd's death. of course, as our colleague laura coates pointed out yesterday later, the prosecution was able to illicit from the very same witness that assessment, this opinion, that exhaust may be to blame is based on no scientific basis, jim. >> and i don't believe on the stand he was able to confirm the car was running at the time, at least if his point of view. josh campbell, thanks very much. we're going to take you inside the courtroom as soon as testimony resumes in the derek chauvin murder trial just moments from now. plus, the future of the johnson & johnson vaccine is in temporary limbo. the cdc held an emergency meeting on the vaccine yesterday but again did not make a decision. the impact, the waiting game could have ahead. hi sabrina! hi jen! hi. so you're the scientist here. does my aveeno® daily moisturizer really make my dry skin healthier in one day? it's true jen. really?! this prebiotic oat formula moisturizes to help prevent dry skin. impressive! aveeno® he[woman] what is that?e.
[man] uh, mine. why? it's just that it's... lavender, yes it is. old spice, it's for men. but i like the smell of it. [music playing] ♪ ♪ [ engines revving ] ♪ it's amazing to see them in the wild like th-- shhh. [ engine revs ] for those who were born to ride, there's progressive. stay restless with the icon that does the same. the rx crafted by lexus. lease the 2021 rx 350 for $439 a month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer.
my plaque psoriasis... ...the itching ...the burning. the stinging. my skin was no longer mine. my psoriatic arthritis, made my joints stiff, swollen... painful. emerge tremfyant™ with tremfya®, adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis... ...can uncover clearer skin and improve symptoms at 16 weeks. tremfya® is also approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis. serious allergic reactions may occur. tremfya® may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. tremfya®. emerge tremfyant™ janssen can help you explore cost support options.
[sfx: psst psst] allergies don't have to be scary. spraying flonase daily stops your body from overreacting to allergens all season long. psst! psst! all good it's lawn season. and i need a lawn. quick. the fast way to bring it up to speed. is scotts turf builder rapid grass. rapid grass is a revolutionary mix of seed and fertilizer that will change the way you grow grass. it grows two times faster than seed alone for full, green grass in just weeks. after growing grass this fast, everything else just seems... slow. it's lawn season. let's get to the yard. download the scotts my lawn app today for your personalized lawn plan. listerine® cleans virtually 100%. helping to prevent gum disease and bad breath. never settle for 25%. always go for 100. bring out the bold™
there will be at least one more witness from derek chauvin's defense team after that. today, it's possible they wrap up. let's speak more about what we have seen from the defense and where we stand. laura coates along with law enforcement analyst charles ramsey. thanks to both of you. laura, we may be ending near the trial. but we're getting into the final days here. i wonder based on what you have seen from the defense, have they succeeded in their threshold, right, which is really to raise a reasonable doubt about what caused george floyd's death?
>> i don't think they have. it's the key word that they've been harping on, reasonable. the same way the prosecution is focused on whether the actions of derek chauvin were reasonable or unreasonable, is the same essential burden that the jury has to be able to meet in terms of thinking what is a reasonable level of doubt here? and you have to have expert analysis and testimony and other things that raise the questions about what about this particular seed they're trying to plant is reasonable? if all they have is the discussion on cash on monoxide, you don't have any evidence that counters the very strong testimony of the pulmonologist, cardiologist, forensic pathologist, medical examiner who performed the autopsy and, again, you got this star witness here, the 9:29 video. all the defense has shown if you recall several days ago was a body cam footage from a fifth officer. >> hold your thought, there is
activity in the courtroom. >> we had several discussions throughout the representation of you relevant to your right to testify or to choose to remain silent, correct? >> that's correct. >> and during the course of our representation, it's fair to say that you and i have had this conversation multiple times, correct? >> correct. >> you understand that you have a fifth amendment privilege to remain silent? do you understand that? >> yes. >> you understand that if you choose to exercise that right to remain silent, neither the state nor the court can comment on your silence as a sign or indication of your guilt. meaning, they can't say he didn't get up and defend himself, so equate your silence with guilt. do you understand that? >> yes. >> all right. now you also understand that you can waive that right and testify. you understand that? >> i do. >> you understand if you chose not to -- if you did in fact choose to testify you would be subject to cross-examination by
the state of minnesota? >> yes. >> you understand that if you were cross examined by the state, we could not limit the scope of the testimony. they could give broad latitude to ask you questions. do you understand that? >> yes. >> we had this conversation repeatedly, correct? >> correct. >> i repeatedly advised you this is your decision and your decision alone? right? >> correct. >> i have advised you and we have gone back and forth on the matter would be kind of an understatement, right? >> yes, it is. >> but after lengthy meeting last night we had some further discussion, agreed? >> right. >> and have you made a decision today whether you intend to testify or whether you intend to envoek your fifth amendment privilege. >> i will invoke my fifth amendment privilege today. >> mr. chauvin, i'm going to ask you directly, because the
decision whether or not to testify -- let me take this off. is entirely yours. it's a personal wright. mr. nelson makes a lot of the decisions in trial. but one he cannot make for you is whether or not you testify. and he can give you advice. and you can take that advice or reject that advice. but the decision ultimately has to be yours and not his. is this your decision not to testify? >> it is, your honor. >> all right. do you have any questions about your right to remain silent or testify in your own behalf? >> not at this time i don't. >> did anyone promise you anything or threaten you in any way to keep you from testifying? >> no promises or threats, your honor. >> do you feel that your decision not to testify is a voluntary one on your behalf? >> yes, it is. >> now in addition to that, i'm convinced then that this is your personal decision and that you're aware of your rights. but there is a jury instruction
that may be read to the jury. this again is a one that you get to weigh in on. it's not for your lawyer to make the decision. again, he can give you advice. i don't want to know what the advice is. but you can accept the advice or reject the advice as to whether or not to give this instruction. if you would like, i can read this instruction to the jury. it's titled, defendant's right not to testify. the state must convince you by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. the defendant has no obligation to prove innocence. the defendant has the right not to testify. this right is guaranteed by the federal and state constitutions. you should not draw any inference from the fact that defendant has not testified in this case. do you understand that instruction? >> yes, your honor. >> you would like that read to the zblr. >> jury? >> yes. >> have you discuss wld that is a good idea or not? >> yes, your honor. >> all right. i'll read that to the jury on
your request. all right. anything regarding the defense case before we proceed to talk about rebuttal? all right. we'll have you rest in front of the jury then and we can actually take the microphone back. thank you. thank you. we'll have you rest in front of the jury, mr. nelson. >> thank you. with regard to the state's rebuttal, it's my understanding that the state is going to call a rebuttal witness, is that correct? >> it is, your honor. >> okay. whoever is going to speak to us, if we can outline the topics and if you want to address formally the decision regarding this newly discovered evidence. [ inaudible ] >> defense is going to call rebuttal witnesses ?
>> laura coates, momentous events. one, derek chauvin will not testify. he will invoke his fifth amendment rights and the prosecution will call rebuttal witnesses and there is new evidence. laura, to your reaction to chauvin's decision there not to testify. >> well, you know, it's not all that shocking to think that he would not want to open himself up to the cross-examination. excuse me. of the prosecution. this case, remember, a whole -- a lot of things can come in when you take the stand including your past, prior, bad acts and
any allegations and misconduct that have been cleared by the judge and, of course, you risk the very, you know, foreseeable aspect of it that you cannot defend your actions. and all you leave to the jury is this impression of you as somebody who has committed this crime. so it's one in which they have to go back and forth on. as a prosecutor, i would have thought they would have loved to have been able to cross. but as the defense, does he not have the burden as the judge has just said, he never had the burden to prove his innocence. it always remained with the prosecution. and now the jury will be instructed per his request that they are not to draw any inference from his decision not to testify. jurors often do though because they often want to have an explanation for why the person has not taken the stand. but they will be -- they cannot do that. but now all the defense has is that officer who testified with the bod y cam video that didn't show the actual event. all they have is the use of force expert that said did he
not believe having someone handcuffed and prone on the ground was a use of force. and they could have used more force against george floyd. >> this is the prosecution now taking the stand as we noted. the judge said earlier, the prosecution intends to call rebuttal witnesses here. but also referenced possible new evidence. let's listen in. >> from hen pirom hen pinnepin d blood results that would have the carbon monoxide levels. >> why was it not discovered earlier? >> it was discovered yesterday by dr. baker. and what precipitated it, your honor, was a piece of new evidence. it was a disclosure that came from the stand during the testimony of dr. fowler. i want to show your honor what it was. it was in one of the slides.
that your honor can see here if i adjust the camera. and what i'm referring to, judge, is this very last reading here on the bottom. where from the stand and the slide in a mr. nelson prepared was a statement and the discussion that in seven minutes mr. floyd's hemoglobin could have increased by 8 to 10%. the word carboxihemoglobin does not appear and it does not talk it in his blood. now the word -- the concept of cas carbon monoxide was raised in the report but not blood gas. it was discussed in the same context of sort of taking drugs through the rectum and other things that were raised generally but not a specific
reference to the gas content in mr. floyd's blood. dr. baker heard the testimony. he had not himself ever requested this nor had the er physicians. they explained that when somebody is brought in and blood gases are taken, there is a panel of them taken. the ones that get generated in the records is the ones that the er physicians actually request. nobody requested cash rbon monoe readings because they didn't see how that was relevant, frankly. and no one had until this testimony yesterday that was specific to the gas content of the blood and set it at 10 to 18%. what everybody did have access to would be the flip side of the equation. there was information on the blood gas content that showed
the oxygen saturation content in mr. floyd's blood and the oxygen saturation was at 98%. which meant necessarily to the extent there was any carbon monoxide in the blood it would be most 2%. this was the take away that a dr. tobin had yesterday from this new disclosure and that -- we disclosed that to counsel that there is something that dr. tobin could address based on information that everybody did have available. dr. baker simply then addressed the flip side of it, was there a reading or measurement specifically on the carbon monoxide in lite of this testimony from dr. fouler from the stand yesterday on the gas content and the slide which mr. nelson introduced. >> well, let me clarify one thing. when was the test actually run? >> it was run the night of may 25th. when george floyd was brought in. and did you subpoena all the records? >> we did subpoena all the records. >> and what they provided to you did not have that in it?
>> that's right, your honor. >> did dr. baker's spontaneously call you to tell you that there might be something deep within the computer records? >> yes, your honor. >> or did you seek him out and ask him -- >> we did not seek him out and ask anything. he heard the testimony. and he thought that this record might exist. because he thought -- well, he's aware that there is a panel of the tests that are run by the machine. and then those that would go to the e.r. physicians would be the ones that they request to see the values on. so -- >> and -- >> but we did not contact him. it was the other way around. >> and we're talking about carboxihemoglobin readings. is any of that part about carbon monoxide concentrations? >> it would show the carbon monoxide concentrations, your honor, in the record which has
my markings on it. but it would return a value for the carbon monoxide content and show whether or not that result is in the normal range or not. en that isand that would be in e reading from the readout from test results. >> all right. >> and so as you say, carbon mo monoxide? >> it gives the letter symbols. >> what specifically does it say? if you can just read it off the record? >> it says specifically in the values, it says fco and then hb 1.5% and then it gives the normal range of 0 to 2.0% as the normal range.
>> it indicates on the record also a name for mr. floyd for this record, it would be, last name bronze and tennessee because at the time the test, they didn't know that it was george floyd. >> i know in dr. fowler's report disclosed to the state in february that on page 15 at the top, it says if there say defect in the vehicle this gas will be prentz or if a person's close to the exhaust. for completeness mr. floyd's blood co level should be tested. so the state received that part of dr. fowler's report back in february. is that correct? >> that's correct, your honor. >> all right. anything else mr. blackwell before i turn to mr. nelson? >> no, nothing further. >> all right. mr. nelson? mr. nelson? >> thank you, judge. yes, for the record in terms of
rebuttal, a couple things i would like to address. this information was received for the record. it would indicate that i received the test results and at 7:53 this morning. as i understand it, dr. fowler is on an airplane and having some difficulty reaching hum at this particular moment i have spoken from other people from the forensics panel. they're looking into these things. nevertheless, your honor, the point of this is that this issue was specifically raised as the court points out back on february 22nd. some 20 days ago. or 60 days, i don't know how long it's been. i'm a little time deprived at this point. the point being is that the state has had more than sufficient notice. dr. fowler is opining that this could have played a role in his report. he says and suggests that for completeness it should have been
tested or should be tested. the state retained and continues to retain any blood samples. they're not within the control of the defense. the state has had ample opportunity to rebutt any suggestion. as far as the -- as far as the information relevant to mr. blackwell references in terms of the oxygen levels, the 98% ox oxygen levels, what dr. fowler testified to yesterday is how you can't rely on the oxygen levels because the carbon monoxide binds to the oxygen and kit give a false reading. you need this hyboxi oxygen testing. so the bottom line is that this is information that has been within the state's control. the state has had ample notice that this could have played a part of dr. fowler's testimony.
it is incredibly prejudicial to the defense at this point now that dr. fowler testified and left the state to bring forth evidence. again, the jury being the trier of the fact, dr. fouler is pretty clear. he was not saying that this was the cause of death. he simply opining that it wasn't considered by the state. and apparently it was considered to be a ridiculous concept by the state of minnesota that didn't -- they didn't think to test it. since this trial has started in addition to this new evidence, the state has had multiple conversations with the city employee about the vehicle itself. they have gone and taken pictures of the vehicle. again, all of this they've had ample opportunity to do. but this is what they're doing in the middle of trial. even though they have known for a long time that this was an issue. i do have -- i did receive also last evening summary of dr.
tobin's anticipated rebuttal points that i -- three of the four points i do not -- i do not see as proper rebuttal. but question address that later. >> well, let's address that now as long as i'll ask the state to respond. >> sure. >> something other than your ca c carbon monoxide issue. >> last night i received a one page memorandum referencing a conference that they had with dr. tobin. 50147 bates stamp. dr. tobin will testify regarding the significance of the hypoxic changes from a physiology and clinical standpoint including his conclusion that the inoxic seizure is not indicative of a
cardiac event based on the time line of significant events. i believe that dr. tobin has already extensively testified as to his opinion of the significance and of the inoxic seizure. that formed large basis of his testimony and how he concluded that. now the fact that there is a differing opinion that it's a cardiac event instead of a hypoxic event is -- that's the nature. again, state has had ample notice. this is not rebutting. t it's simply reintroducing what intere dr. tobin testified to extensively. >> my recollection of dr. fowler's testimony is that he agreed it is a hypoxic reaction. but just the mechanism. i think we're talking about the mechanism, was it due to positional asphyxia versus
cardiac arrythmia. they agreed it was a seizure, reaction to hypoxia. >> agreed, your honor. but the mechanism being the point of what dr. tobin has already extensively testified to. >> right. >> and the fact that there fowler had a different opinion this is not proper rebuttal. it's already been testified to at length. what the mechanism of the seizure was has already been opined by dr. tobin. >> okay. >> the second area that dr. tobin has indicated is he said dr. tobin will testify regarding the scientific research supportive of his analysis that showed how the hypopharynxes can be narrowed. again, i believe he already extensively testified to his position as to the narrowing of the hypopharynxes. whatever this additional
research is, i have been provided with a single journal article relevant to the treatment of covid-19 patients that was provided to me last night as well. if it's limited to that single article, i guess that could be construed to be additional evidence. but again, dr. tobin extensively testified as to his view of the narrowing of the hypopharynxes. the third area is written as follows, dr. tobin has reviewed and will testify as to his analysis of the two studies of dr. -- that dr. fowler cited regarding outdoor exposure to carbon monoxide. dr. fowler received that mr. floyd could have had a level of 10% to 18% carboxihemoglobin and in his opinion this level could have contributed to mr. floyd's cardiac induced death.
he'll rebutt this analysis and provide his opinion that based on lab tests done at the emergency department dr. fowler's analysis does not hold. so this e-mail being sent at 4:53 p.m. last night, or approximately 5:00 last night, suggests that dr. tobin may have seen these test results or the test results done at the emergency -- there's no indication that it is new test results or some other test result. nevertheless, it's our position that these new test results should not go in front of a jury, first and foremost. and second, if they were, i would be moving for a mistrial. based on this. because again, the state has had ample notice. finally, your honor, the fourth reads in his report regarding the size of mr. floyd's heart,
dr. fowler cited two studies. however, dr. fowler did not cite the mayo study that i referenced in direct-examination and did he not offer an opinion that mr. floyd had an enlarged heart. he'll clarify the fact underlying the study and application to mr. floyd. again, this is the very nature of our system, right? there is an opinion and there is a counter opinion that we both dr. tobin has already cited this study. he has talked about this study. he has talked about -- he acknowledged the existence of the other studies. so these -- this is not proper rebuttal because it's simply -- it's already been testified to. they're trying to re-create and trying to get dr. tobin in front of the jury again to talk about things he's already talked about. the co-2, fair enough.
to some limited extent based upon, you know, dr. fowler's testimony. >> all right. mr. blackwell. let's talk about those other -- aside from the lab tests, the four points that the state is seeking to present rebuttal. >> obviously, your honor, we wouldn't be having any discussion it's there were not new opinions from dr. fowler raised from the stand. one of those opinions, one i think was objecting to at the time was his discussion of the mayo study. this had to do with the whole issue of the enlarged heart. the cardio megaline. he disclosed to his reliance on molina and the mayo and also the northwestern study that was in this report. and as he knows, the whole point of having reports and disclosures for both sides is so
both sides have notice for what is going to be testified to on stand. so he testified about the mayo study anyway. he expressed his opinions about the mayo study. a free kick at the goal. we didn't know that he was going there. >> and what study again? could you sfelpell that one? >> yeah, the mayo study. it is though it should be pronounced mayo. >> okay. >> and what dr. tobin would talk about would be that particular study and the fact that in the opinions that dr. fowler had presented in his report, he didn't offer the nopinion that e had an an enlarged heart. he offered it on the stand, no the in the report. had we known from the disclosures that is what he was going testify to, we have wo have addressed it during his
testimony during his direct when he was here before. >> let me ask you this. what specifically do you want dr. tobin to testify to regarding an enlarged heart. >> he will simply testify that if you then look at the overall studies and concluding that the mayo study that we've been talking about that mr. floyd's heart weight does not fall within a range that is abnormal. so he'll talk about the broader sort of pool of studies in the framework of discussing the mayo study that we had learned about at least that dr. fowler was going to rely on in his testimony. >> i guess one question i have is he's the pulmonologist. he's not the cardiologist. you are recalling your cardiologist to talk about the enlarged heart and give an opinion about an enlarged heart? >>, no just the pulmonologist.
that is a cardiopulmonary system and they both operate hand in glove. so we felt frankly in the interest and respect and your honor's admonition that we try to be focused to simply call one person to talk about this and not multiple ones. >> right. >> okay. >> what about the other -- >> on the issue of the hypoxia, for the first time from the stand, we heard from dr. fowler that an anoxic seizure was evidence of a primary cardiac event. your honor is right in which your honor had understood that both sides do understand kind of what happens when you have a hypoxy event and how one pass as way. what we didn't hear is why fowler attributing it to a primary cardiac event. that was not this this report
and it was disclosed for the first time from the stand and as well as it relates to the hypopharynxes that, is crustal clear, i haven't heard dr. tobin testify, i went out to canvas literature and founding in there supportive of his theorys for somebody who has studied the science of breathing for 46 years. so what dr. fowler will testify there is what is the nature of the research? in that respect and direct response to the new statement from dr. fowler from the stand. >> let's talk about the opinion regarding the carbon monoxide effect and dr. tobin's opinion which would appear to be within the scope of his expertise as a pulmonologist. but is it going to be solely talking about the lab tests? >> it is solely talking about
the carbon mocnoxide of his blood, your honor, i want to answer as clearly as i can. it isn't just talking about the test results. the test results are assumed in it. but the bottom line what he is talking about is when what is the evidence as to whether or not the carbon monoxide content of his blood could have been in the range of up to 15%? and he is saying that based upon the medical evidence available, it was available to everybody, looking purely at the oxygen levels -- >> what is available to everybody? >> the oxygen saturation of his blood. >> okay. >> and in contrary to counsel's comment on the science, the way that the oxygen saturation works, we have hemoglobin. you can't have an oxygen
saturation of 98%. >> i understood the testimony. >> so that is what he will speak to. the test results are merely corroborating that. they show a specific testing for carbon monoxide itself and is not derived from looking at the oxygen saturation content which is at 98% and therefore the carbon monoxide is 2%. it is addressing the same issue from two different perspectives, oxygen saturation versus actual testing and test results of the carbon monoxide of itself. >> i agree with you. if if the tests had been disclosed earlier before dr. fowler testified, there would be no problem with putting that in his rebuttal. probably would have been no need. dr. fowler would have been advised of the results and testified accordingly. so there would have been no need for rebuttal. but other than that, so are those the four topics though that counsel set those out pretty clearly? >> yes, your honor.
>> all right. thank you. >> all right. first of all, in dealing with the lab test results. i find that the dr. fowler's report gave sufficient notice to the state that carbon monoxide, the carbon monoxide that potentially was in george floyd's blood could have affected cause of death. i read page 15 of his report which i don't have at my finger tips at this point that basically, they said dr. fowler came right out and said it should be tested. that gave the state notice with sufficient time in february to either test the samples that are still there or to dig a little deeper. just by serendipity that dr. baker calls the state and says oh, by the way, it does exist. it should be in there. it seems to me very odd. i'm not claiming any bad faith on the state's part.
but it seems odd that the medical center when asked to turn over all the records dhoent include records that maybe are just buried a little deeper. i think their response to the subpoena was insufficient in and of itself. and they should check their standard operating procedures so that in the event this happens again, that they will supply all the information they have. but in any case, the defense gave notice was going to be an issue and specifically talked about testing the sample. the state had sufficient time to investigate and disclose to even if it's just because dr. baker called the state and said we can actually find this at 8:00 this morning when the state -- or the defense expert is done testifying, has left the state. it's untimely to give the notice. and it prejudices the defense by
the late i did closure even if it's not due to bad faith. the late disclosure prejudice the defense. it's not going to be allowed. so dr. tobin is not allowed to testify to the lab results. if there is anything he wish to add about carbon monoxide as far as environmental factors. but if he hints there is test results that the jury has not heard about, it will be a mistrial, pure and simple. this late disclosure is not the way we should be operating here. in that case, dr. tobin may testify as to carbon monoxide if he sticks to the environmental factors and pulmonologist and seeing mr. floyd's location and not knowing whether the vehicle is even on or not which the state brought out in cross-examination. all those factors you can talk about environmentally and what the likelihood is that it would
affect his carbon monoxide concentration in mr. floyd's blood, that's fine. but nothing about the lab test results that were just disclosed 8:00 a.m. this morning after the defense expert is done. with regard to the mayo, i will allow -- i have a little concern that we're having a pulmonologist opine whether it's an enlarged heart or not. but given his background which as i think mr. blackwell appropriately stated is a cardiopulmonary system, it is a system. i think he has some expertise in the function of the heart and its relation to the lungs and so i think it is appropriate that he be allowed to opine whether or not the heart was enlarged or not based on those studies. and specifically responding to those studies.
as far as the scientific research, the defense did bring up as a new issue whether or not narrowing of the hypopharynxes is supported in literature and dr. fowler said he did a check and he didn't find anything. i you this it is permissible that dr. tobin come and say since then, since dr. fowler's testimony, he has done his own search or he relied on this and there is literature and he can talk about the literature, in a summary fashion. with regard to the hypoxic seizure, sit was clear from dr. tobin's testimony that there was movement of george floyd's legs, those were seizures due to the lack of oxygen. dr. fowler did not really dispute that. he also indicated that it was a lack of oxygen to the brawn that causes such seizures. the only dufifference between t two is the mechanism. did the lack of oxygen, was that
caused by positional asphyxia versus cardiac arrythmia? as i recall, dr. tobin excluded cardiac arrythmia or cardiac vent as the cause of the laoss f oxygen. as he concluded, he already -- that evidence is already in the record. i don't have to remind both sides the purpose of rebuttal evidence is not to restate what is already been testified to. it's to bring up new evidence to rebutt something that came up in the other side's case. accordingly, as to the hypoxic seizure that, is not allowed. the scientific research supporting the hypopharynxes can be allowed and the lab results are not allowed, he can testify
about environmental factors because that was going into great extent. and finally, the reports and he may owe p may opine in his opinion if george floyd's heart is enlarged or not do. we have the ground rules set? >> your honor, one question for clarification. on the carbon monoxide. there were test results that existed before the ones that are at issue from last night/this morning. what dr. tobin. these are the ones that relate to the oxygen saturation. that was known before last night. and so i haven't talked to dr. tobin this morning about what he's going say or when. i might ask the court for a few minutes before we start. but what he was able to come to last night without seeing anything at all related to the test results at issue is we had the results already. both sides do.
on the oxygen saturation in his blood from may 25th, 2020. >> let me ask you this. is his opinion going to be that when the oxygen saturation levels are this high that precludes high co? because a high cashrbon monoxid reading deprepress the oxygen. >> exactly. >> that that would indicate a low carbon monoxide? >> mr. nelson? >> your honor, as i understood dr. fowler's testimony, lower levels of carbon monoxide, because the pulse does not -- it's not going to differentiate based on the color of the blood between oxygen or carbon monoxide? >> i think that is appropriate cross. if that is dr. tobin's opinion
that this oxygen saturation readings which have been disclosed earlier would indicate a low carbon monoxide reading because they are inversely proportional and it's appropriate, however, to say those readings are based on pulse xox, color of the blood, finger nail and did you -- the bright cherry red confronting hum with that testimony. i think that is appropriate cross. it does not preclude the state recalling dr. tobin. >> all right that, is permitted. do you want a few minutes to talk to dr. tobin? >> if i may, your honor. >> why don't we start up at 10:00. i assume he is close by? you can do it quickly, mr. blackwell. >> it's only for a few moments. >> i think since the defense is going to rest and you'll proceed directly to dr. tobin, are we calling anybody else? >> no.
no one else, your honor. if we can have until 10:15. >> 10:15 it is. >> 10:15 we'll reconvene. thank you. >> hello, everyone. we've been listening to really interesting developments in this kind of pretrial conversation in the murder trial of derek chauvin. let's bring in laura coates and charles ramsey for what we heard. laur laura, talk to me about what we saw play out in the courtroom? >> prosecutors have to provide all information in advance of trial. they can use their case in chief when they present all the witness testimony to really drive home the point the prosecutoral strategies that they want to pursue. once that happens, the defense takes the stand. they are now in control. the defense. so what this is all about is now the prosecution has an opportunity to do what is called a rebuttal case. meaning, they can now try to undermine the strategies and theories that have been promoted by the defense.
but there are some constraints there. you can't use your rebuttal case as a prosecutor to introduce what you're calling new evidence. but there are things you could have raised in your own presentation of evidence. unless the defense has some basis to say it was a brand new theory and now you're doing this. the reason why, judges don't want to give prosecutors two bites of the apple. they don't want redundant testimony. if you could have raised it earlier, you should have. you had your chance. sit down. when dr. fowler raised the issue of the carbon monoxide theory, you presented new theories. we're not asking for a second bite at the apple. we want a first bite of the apple based on this new theory. the problem is the prosecution made a mistake. they did not take seriously the thought of carbon monoxide poisoning as being a viable claim to be raised by this doctor. and they may have overlooked the data and did not present it
through their own witnesses to rebutt and preempt this. the judge is saying, look, you had your bite at the apple. if you even mention what you failed to disclose in a timely fashion, it will unduly prejudice this defendant and i will declare a mistrial. what you just saw is the prosecut prosecuting attorney having a compromise. fine, we won't present the new evidence we have seen of the carbon monoxide levels of being normal. but his oxygen levels were askew which means the higher the oxygen levels there were, the lower the carbon monoxide. can we at least tell the jury that? the judge said yes. make no mistake about it. this judge is in no mood, it seems, to allow the prosecution several bites of the apple. >> chief, the judge went as far to say if dr