Skip to main content

tv   CNN Newsroom With Poppy Harlow and Jim Sciutto  CNN  November 18, 2021 6:00am-7:00am PST

6:00 am
anymore. >> i want to know, it is video, it is videophone, right? you can have a zoom, too many zooms. i would like to have one with the dog, though. that's an improvement, i think. i love it. i think it is -- i think it may have some glitches. >> all right. cnn's coverage continues right now. good morning. i'm erica hill. >> i'm jim sciutto. busy morning this morning. moments from now, prosecutors in georgia will continue the cross examination of one of the three men charged in the shooting death of ahmaud arbery. three defendants are accused of chasing down and killing arbery while he was out jogging in february 2020. travis mcmichael taking the stand claiming he shot arbery in self-defense. >> he had my gun. he had struck me. it was obvious that he was -- it
6:01 am
was obvious that he was attacking me, that if he would have got the shotgun from me, it was a -- it was a life or death situation. >> also today, jurors in wisconsin begin the third day of deliberations in the kyle rittenhouse double homicide trial. the panel spent part of the second day reviewing video evidence including a drone video that the defense claims is grounds for a mistrial. we'll have more on that in just a moment. meantime, also following developments in virginia, closing arguments expected today in a federal civil trial over the deadly violence that took place in charlottesville in 2017. this coming after fiery testimony in court from white supremacists involved in the so-called unite the right rally. we are live in charlottesville ahead. let's begin with our martin savidge, live in brunswick, georgia, where he's been following the trial of the three men accused of killing arbery. martin, the state prosecutor expected to pick up the cross
6:02 am
examination today. central to this is the question of self-defense. the legal standard for it. do we know how the prosecutor will pursue that? >> reporter: well, you can anticipate it is going to be an extremely aggressive cross examination by prosecutor linda donakowski. the prosecution had about a half hour to start their cross examination so you can expect plenty more to come. it is not just the self-defense, the prosecution is going to point out, you had no legal justification to begin the pursuit that led to the altercation. in other words, if you hadn't chased, nothing else would have happened. one of those watching the testimony yesterday was attorney ben crump. he represents the father of ahmaud arbery. here's what he had to say about what he heard. >> if this was your child, how would you be able to keep
6:03 am
composure after you see these people lynch him and then you see them offer this self-defense? and people are actually taking this as if it is credible. and in the moments later, they actually killed their son and they're talking about self-defense? it is just asinine intelligence. >> the judge has just taken the bench. we know the three defendants are also inside of the courtroom, gregory mcmichael and his son travis mcmichael and william "roddie" bryan, the man who took the cell phone video. outside the courtroom today, we're expecting to have a prayer vigil of black pastors that felt a calling as a result of defense attorney kevin gauff who said we don't need any more black pastors here. there is going to be a vigil of sorts. we expect a number of high profile religious leaders and then there is going to be a
6:04 am
march as well on this community. so key day inside and outside the court, jim and erica. >> will be. martin savidge, appreciate it, thank you. also with us now, criminal defense attorney page. good to have you back with us this morning. we heard from martin about what we heard on the stand yesterday, travis mcmichael as we know said he was acting in self-defense. i want to play more of one of the exchanges. >> >> i didn't know why he was at. i knew that he was on me. i knew i was -- i was losing this. i knew that if i was getting tripped, if i would have tripped or if he would have got a lucky strike on my head or if i would have had lost that grip on the shotgun, that i would have been shot or i would have opinion in serious trouble at that point. i knew he was -- i knew he was overpowering me. i didn't know which direction or what mechanics he was doing to overpower me. >> so, ahmaud arbery isn't alive
6:05 am
to tell us how he felt in that moment or the moments leading up to it. we do know he didn't start this encounter. so when we look at the facts here, the fact that there was mcmichael went after arbery first, and had that gun, how does that impact the self-defense claim. >> erica, i think it is going to be difficult to prove that self-defense is an appropriate defense here. i think it is going to be difficult to prove that they had a legal justification for citizens arrest. but i think travis mcmichael did a very good job on the witness stand. i think he was well prepared. i think this was well rehearsed. and i think he caught the prosecutor flat footed. i do not think she was expecting him to take the stand and i think her initial cross examination was weak. it was unfocused. she has got to come back this morning and focus in on the key points, your training and experience, what training and experience? did you really have a reason to believe that ahmaud arbery had committed a felony offense?
6:06 am
she has got to be aggressive. otherwise this jury is going to be left with the impression that this was a reasonable person, doing something to protect the neighborhood, because right now given the makeup of this jury, i think that's what they believe. she has a huge challenge ahead of her today. >> remarkable analysis. central to this, of course, is the question of the legal standard for self-defense. i wonder, does yornlg georgia's citizens arrest law, ap appealed but was the law of the land at the time, does it change the standard as jurors aapproach t this question of self-defense? >> the citizens arest law never talked about deadly force one way or another. it is a two-step process. if travis mcmichael and greg mcmichael had a legitimate legal reason to pursue ahmaud arbery, if they were conducting a legitimate citizens arrest, in other words, if they saw him commit a crime or had direct
6:07 am
knowledge he committed a felony, then they could pursue him and detain him. and if they were legally doing that, and there was a struggle, and travis mcmichael felt himself in imminent danger of being killed by ahmaud arbery, he could use self-defense. those are two huge obstacles that the defense will have to convince the jury that they were legally authorized to take. >> and just weigh in on that, if you could dig deeper on that point for us. in terms of that being a huge an stockle, why do you think it is such a huge obstacle for them to say, yes, this was legitimately a citizens arrest. >> because if the judge instructs the jury at the end of the trial like i expect him to that a citizens arrest is not legal unless you actually see the person commit a crime or you know this was a felony offense. it is a two-part analysis as well. there is insufficient evidence right now. we have seen the videos. we have seen surveillance. we have heard from neighbors. he was hanging around this house
6:08 am
under construction. but no one accuses him of committing a crime. so even if they saw him that day in the house, they didn't have a legal basis to pursue him for citizens arrest. >> question of probable cause there. page, great to have you on, thank you for sharing your experience. well, other big trial we're following, less than an hour from now, jurors will begin day three of deliberations in the homicide trial of kyle rittenhouse. as the jury presses forward, though, a major development now threatens potentially to derail the trial. >> on wednesday, the rittenhouse jury requested to view drone video evidence introduced by prosecutors. the video sparking the defense to renew its push for a mistrial. cnn crime and justice correspondent shimon prokupecz is live in kenosha this morning. what can you tell us about this video the jury wanted to see and why it has the defense now pushing once again for a mistrial?
6:09 am
>> reporter: some context, for the prosecution, this was a key piece of evidence for them. they made a big deal of it, they had it enhanced, they had a forensic imaging specialist come in and enhance this video. video was graphic. but it is important to see because it gives some context. and it shows the first initial shooting in the parking lot of the car dealership, but warning to viewers that it is graphic, and what it shows is in the moments that kyle rittenhouse has this encounter with joseph rosenbaum, kyle rittenhouse turns around and fires, here is that video now, kyle rittenhouse turns around and fires at rosenbaum. the prosecution making a very big deal of this video. what happens here is that the defense is arguing that they got an enhanced version of this video, hd video, they got it late. and so because they got it late, it should have been thrown out, and now they're calling for a
6:10 am
mistrial. here is the defense and the prosecutors arguing over this yesterday. >> we would have done this case in a little bit different manner if that was the situation. we didn't have the quality of evidence that the state had until the case had been closed. i'm going to be asking the court for a mistrial. >> but their client lied about this on the stand, is the state's position. there seems to be evidence to support the position that he llie ed on the stand about raising the gun. he was confronted with the exhibit. he denied it. the jury wants to see the exhibits. >> and that's the other key point there, you heard the prosecutor there talking about kyle rittenhouse raising the gun. that drone video the prosecutors believe captures the moments of that where kyle points the gun at protesters, they say rittenhouse lied about that on the witness stand and that's why the jurors should see it. what happened yesterday was that
6:11 am
the jurors came into the courtroom, they viewed that video for 45 minutes, this morning we do expect to hear more from the defense. we'll see what happens. and also keep in mind the judge has yet to rule on another mistrial motion that the defense has submitted, that is still to be determined, what happens, so we wait for the jury to get here. we'll see what the defense does this morning. >> yeah. all right, shimon, appreciate it, thank you. up next, the republican congressman who was stripped of his committee assignments for tweeting a violent video, we'll talk about why two republicans were willing to hold himi accountable. > we are keeping a close eye on the trial of the three men accused of killing ahmaud arbery. as soon as the cross examination
6:12 am
begins of travis mcmichael, the man who pulled the trigger, we'll bring it to you inside the courtroom live. ♪ ♪it's a most unusual day♪ ♪feel like throwing my worries away♪ ♪as an old native-born californian would say♪ ♪it's a most unusual day♪ ♪it's a most unusual sky♪ ♪not a sign of a cloud passing by♪ ♪if my heart won't behave in the usual way♪ experience the power of sanctuary
6:13 am
at the lincoln wish list event. ♪ ♪ there are beautiful ideas that remain in the dark. but with our new multi-cloud experience, you have the flexibility you need to unveil them to the world. ♪ is struggling to manage your type 2 diabetes knocking you out of your zone? lowering your a1c with once-weekly ozempic® can help you get back in it. oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! my zone... lowering my a1c, cv risk, and losing some weight... now, back to the game! ozempic® is proven to lower a1c. most people who took ozempic® reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. and you may lose weight.
6:14 am
adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. in adults also with known heart disease, ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as heart attack, stroke, or death. ozempic® helped me get back in my type 2 diabetes zone. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. looking to get back in your type 2 diabetes zone? ask your health care provider today about once-weekly ozempic®. oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! you may pay as little as $25 for a 3-month prescription.
6:15 am
sustainability is essential to creating a better tomorrow. that's why cisco is committed to achieving net zero emissions by 2040. and we believe our smart buildings solutions can help. providing power to reduce emissions, intelligence to eliminate waste, and collaboration tools that help the workplace and the planet. between meeting human needs and a sustainable future, there's a bridge. cisco, the bridge to possible.
6:16 am
republican congressman paul gosar remaining defiant after becoming the first lawmaker in more than a decade to be censured by the house, just a little over an hour after being stripped of his committee assignments for tweeting an anime video depicting him killing congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez as well as attacking president biden. what did gosar do? retweeted a tweet that praised his actions and includes that very same video. >> indeed it did. just two republicans, liz cheney and adam kinzinger, crossed party lines voting to punish
6:17 am
gosar. let's get to lauren fox who is live on capitol hill this morning with the latest. there are also calls for an edge uck ethics investigation into gosar's actions, saying it should warrant attention from law enforcement, lauren. >> reporter: that's right, erica. and really a stunning moment yesterday, the defiance from representative paul gosar retweeting a tweet that included that video that got him in trouble, lost him his committees in the first place. and it also ran counter to the fact that gosar's defense on the floor was that he self-censuore and made sure he took down the tweet. we should note that when he was standing in the well of the house of representatives, he was surrounded by fellow conservative colleagues. he wasn't standing there alone. he had others defending his
6:18 am
actions. and, yes, as all of this is taking place, the ethics committee is going to be investigating what happened here. they are go to be looking into this, and, you know, their work is usually shrouded in secrecy. we may not know the results of that work for many weeks or months, but another thing to keep in mind here is that house speaker nancy pelosi told me yesterday that this warrants law enforcement attention. she said any time someone threatens not just a member of congress, but anyone and in this case including the president of the united states, she says she hopes this does get law enforcement's attention. that's another outstanding question. i do want to give you a sense of what the mood was like yesterday on the house floor as this was all unfolding. here's what representative alexandria ocasio-cortez said about what was at stake yesterday before this vote. >> what is so hard, what is so
6:19 am
hard about saying that this is wrong? this is not about me. this is not about representative gosar. this is about what we are willing to accept. >> reporter: in the end, only two republicans joining with democrats here to censure and strip representative gosar of his committee assignments, really a striking moment yesterday. and really a commentary on what the culture in the house of representatives is at this moment. >> lauren fox, thanks so much. joining us now cnn political commentator scott jennings, special assistant to former president bush and worked a bit for mitch mcconnell. good to have you on. there used to be red lines in congress, right? we saw how the gop treated steve king with his racist positions, and so on. that red line clearly moving here. some of that, it seems, about mccarthy making sure he's got
6:20 am
the votes if republicans get the majority in 2022 to become speaker. tell us as someone like yourself, a lawoyal member of t party how you see this. are you disappointed? there are limits for your old boss mitch mcconnell, right? we saw his speech after january 6th calling out the president for his involvement there. have we dipped farther than even you would have imagined? >> well, i mean, there are people in the house, including in my own party, who have said and done things that most of us don't condone or approve of. i think the issue here for republicans was when the democrats decided to take the step of stripping him of his committees, when as republicans see it democrats have not policed some of the more extreme elements in their own party, and so i think ultimately the -- what is going to happen here is they did what they did to gosar, when republicans take the house, which i believe by the way is a mortal lock in the next election, you're going to see
6:21 am
retribution and kevin mccarthy, he laid it out on the floor yesterday of all the members that they think have crossed the lines. and the system that has been set up here is you got one party policing the conduct of the other party, and not just saying they're wrong, but saying now we're going to take action against you. we're now sort of in this spiral where the two parties are punishing each other, you know, depending on the charge. >> two republicans did vote along. kinzinger and cheney aren't exactly left leaning republicans, but erica, i'll leave it to you. >> you make a good point, jim. it does raise the question, scott, of revenge politics, which is what really has been promised and what to your point is a very good chance we could see play out depending on the outcome of the 2022 elections. but the reality, i think, as you look at that for many americans is that what they see is a failure of governance. right? and that's across the board here. they're looking for real action in washington, they're not seeing it. republicans may jump on that and say that's great for us, they're
6:22 am
seeing democrats can't lead, but the bottom line is if you're coming into office, on revenge politics, it is the american people and it is democracy that loses. how do republicans push forward, do what they want to do in terms of punishing the opposition, but are they going to get anything done, be so focused on that? >> i don't think the -- this is going to be a central issue in the election candidly. we have much larger macro issues going on in this country. that people are more focused on and frankly a lot of this seems like to the average casual observer or somebody who doesn't pay that close of attention to politics, they see this as more fighting between the parties, which we all have come to expect. i don't expect this to be a leading issue. there is a number of democrats that i think republicans are going to come for, and that ergoinergo in they're going to say, you made
6:23 am
this bed, you're going to lay in it and we're enforcing the rules you set up when you had the majority. for the average person, i don't think it is going to make that big of a political difference to them. no one is going to walk to the polling booth and say, well, i was going to vote this way, but now i'm going to vote that way because of some inner party warfare over some house rule that i don't understand. >> i do think you're right. it would be nice if we set qualicall tate qualitative distinctions, i don't know. subtlety is not a big game on capitol hill right now. scott jennings, thank you so much as always. >> thank you. we want to take you inside the courtroom in georgia, where -- there he is, travis mcmichael, the man who pulled the trigger against ahmaud arbery has now taken the stand for cross examination by the prosecution. let's listen in. >> you thought first that mr. arbery, the man on february 11th, may be the one who --
6:24 am
>> yes. >> and then you said that you thought maybe matt had seen him. >> that's correct. >> and matt is mr. aldenti? >> yes. >> then you said he may have broken in. >> correct. >> and then you said maybe larry english is over on his property? >> yes .
6:25 am
>> and later you indicated you thought that maybe mr. arbery had been caught? >> yes. >> and then you said that thought maybe he was trying to get away from the police. >> yes. >> you hadn't heard any sirens or anything in the neighborhood? >> not yet, no, ma'am. >> so i want to talk to you
6:26 am
about some of the legal terms that you used yesterday. okay. all right. so first i want to talk to you about probable cause. all right. and you testified yesterday that you had been trained in the military, the coast guard, that even when you had arrest powers, before you could arrest somebody, you needed probable cause, correct? >> that's correct. >> all right. and you gave the jury the definition of probable cause, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> you said it was a level of suspicion by a reasonable and prudent person given the overall circumstances to believe that crime has been committed. >> yes, ma'am. >> all right. but that's really only half the definition, isn't it? >> that's what i was -- that's what i was taught, in my training, was that definition right there. >> so isn't it correct that -- let me ask this way -- didn't you learn from your training you need two parts? >> reasonable suspicion first, and then probable cause. >> so isn't it true from your
6:27 am
training you need two parts of probable cause. probable cause that a crime has actually been committed and that the person you're arresting is the one who committed the crime? >> that would be correct. >> all right. but you left out the second part, that you actually have to have probable cause that the person you're arresting is actually the one committing the crime. >> that makes sense. i mean -- that was the person i assumed that was committing the crime. the probable cause was him. >> you assumed he was the one committing the crime.
6:28 am
>> yes. >> so you would agree that as law enforcement, when you were there in the military, as a boarding officer, that even if you know a crime is committed, when you have several suspects, you can't just go and arrest the first suspect, you have to actually have evidence that that person is the one who committed that crime, correct? >> that's correct. and at i believe i had it with the videos that i have seen, with him with mr. arbery being the one that has been there multiple times, and then what i witnessed on the 11th, with him sneaking through those yards, through that yard and then the way that he reacted to me when i put the lights on him, reacting like he was going for a gun and then went into that house after we had our altercation. and then mr. albenzi being there
6:29 am
the same evening and verified he's -- on the videos, the same guy he's seen and then seeing mr. albenzi pointing down the road led to probable cause and then dad saying that was the same individual, the probable cause that it is the same guy that has been at the house that has been breaking into and stuff has been stolen. overall, the totality of everything led me to go down there and see if that was him. >> so the totality of all of that led you to go see if that was him. >> yes. >> meaning the guy you see on the 11th? >> correct. >> all right, so you used the word totality of the circumstances a whole bunch here, haven't you? >> yes, i guess.
6:30 am
>> all right. so let's go ahead and back up for a second. you had your gun stolen, correct? >> i did. >> january 1st, 2020. >> yes, ma'am. >> and you had a suspect in mind for that, correct? >> yes, i -- when i got the videos from miss perez diego, looking through there is a truck that came through that i haven't seen in the neighborhood before. and after looking at the truck i thought it might have been some teenagers i would see on that part of the county and it turned out it was a neighbor on the other side, and that was as far as that i went with that. >> who is david serals? >> i have no idea. >> really? he's not a facebook friend of yours? >> not that i believe. >> would it help to refresh your
6:31 am
recollection if you looked at your facebook posts that you exchanged with mr. serals? go ahead and take a look at this . thank you, ma'am. [ inaudible ]
6:32 am
>> look at the yellow highlighted part . >> yeah. >> all right. do you know who david serals is? >> i do not. he must have been on the neighborhood page. i do remember the message now, and i believe he must have saw it on the neighborhood facebook page. >> all right, so on january 1st, he says he's sorry about your gun being stolen out of your car. right? >> yes, that's what he wrote. >> all right, and then you indicated you had a pretty good feeling about who stole it. >> yes, ma'am. >> and you found out where he lived, is that correct? >> yes, and you have been watching him for several days. >> yes. >> that was not mr. arbery? >> no, that was the truck i was
6:33 am
telling you about. >> and you then indicated this may be the same individual who has been causing trouble in the neighborhood. >> yes, ma'am. >> okay. but that's not mr. arbery? >> no, ma'am. >> so why, in your written statement, two hours after the homicide, do you put down the very first sentence, on january 1st of 2020, approximately between 9:00 and 10:30 i had my vehicle broken into and my smith & wesson gone stolen out of my truck? >> because i was aware of things -- of burglaries and vehicles being broken into in the neighborhood and then on top of seeing what i saw on the 11th, that there are things being broken into. i was under concern that mr. arbery could be a suspect in this, or he could not be. look like i said, prior, he's the one i had seen and saw in the house
6:34 am
several times, of course i'm thinking he's a suspect. i don't know if it was him or the other people they have seen or heard . so you don't know who stole your gun. there was no probable cause to arrest mr. arbery for the theft? >> no, ma'am. >> you also didn't know who had stolen the items out of the boat, mr. larry english's boat, did you? >> no, but i had a probability. i was thinking the probability of who was doing that was the one that continued to go into
6:35 am
this house, has been caught in this house several times, which was mr. arbery. >> you had no evidence he ever had taken anything off of mr. english's boat? >> other than that there has been stuff stolen out of that house, and that he has been in that -- in that house several times. >> so you have stolen items on boat, and you got that from your mom. >> yes. >> and then you got him inside the construction site, right? inside 220? >> yes, ma'am. >> and at the point in time on february 23rd, you knew about ob october 25th? >> yes. >> november 18th? >> yes.
6:36 am
>> and february 11th? >> yes. >> you also knew the white couple had gone in on november 17th, right? >> i did. >> you also knew there was a shady looking guy under the bridge, correct? >> i did. >> and you also suspected this guy in the neighborhood with the truck being the one that stole your handgun. he may have been someone stealing things in the neighborhood, as you said to mr. -- >> after a couple of days, they decided that was not him. that was not the person that had
6:37 am
the truck that i thought it was a different truck, so that's not -- >> is that rob way? >> i don't know who rob way is. >> so kim ballesteros didn't tell you she suspected rob way in the neighborhood as the one who stole her purse out of her car january 30th? >> not that i recall, no, ma'am. >> you're telling this jury that your mother never told you that larry english suspected his contractors? >> no, ma'am. >> all right, so about february 11th, i want to make sure yesterday, yesterday when you testified, did you testify that mr. arbery actually came toward you and started lifting up his shirt? >> yes, ma'am. >> but you never said that before to anyone, did you? >> i put it in the statement.
6:38 am
>> the statement, your handwritten statement? >> the red statement, i believe i did. >> can i hand you a copy of your handwritten statement? >> all right . >> i said i reached into his pants. >> right, so your statement you indicated that i was getting out of my car to ask him what he was doing -- >> this is the written
6:39 am
statement? >> correct. >> okay. >> and he turned toward my vehicle, and reached into his pan pants which led me to think he may have a weapon. >> yes, ma'am. reached like that to his pants? >> no. that's -- and then you indicated i immediately put my car in reverse and the individual went into the house under construction, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> and that was -- [ inaudible ] >> oh, i am -- okay, can
6:40 am
everybody see now? okay. and that was the publishing of state's exhibit 120, the video clip entitled video mp 4. is that your car pulling down? >> it is, yes, ma'am .
6:41 am
n >> now right here, mr. arbery have anything in his hands? >> not that i could see, no, ma'am. >> have a backpack with him? >> he did not. >> any sort of bag with him? >> not at that time, no.
6:42 am
>> wearing a big long t-shirt, isn't he? >> yes. >> and shorts cut off at the knees. >> i think they were cargo shorts. >> and he's got running shoes on. >> i can't tell. >> you see the nike logo swish in the reflection? >> no, ma'am. >> okay. see it then? >> no, ma'am. >> that was state's exhibit 117 that i just published. now that particular evening, you have seen the body cam video of
6:43 am
officer rash, is that correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> and officer rash told you and told your father that larry english said mr. arbery had never taken or stolen anything from the open unsecured construction site, is that correct? >> my understanding is never seen -- saw him take anything from there, yes, ma'am. never saw anything taken. >> okay. and larry english had never had anything stolen from the open unsecured construction site? >> yes, he had stuff stole be out of his boat, that was inside that house, yes, ma'am. >> but you didn't investigate that crime as a law enforcement officer, correct? >> no, ma'am. >> because you weren't a law enforcement, were you? >> that's correct. >> all right. and your father wasn't a law enforcement officer either? >> he was not. >> so you're basing your probable cause on something that was rumor that your mother told you about things being stolen off the boat?
6:44 am
>> i was basing it on the 11th, seeing him in there again, and hearing that the stuff was stolen off that boat, and then hearing it from the other neighbors and then from seeing on the 11th. so, yes, it happened, and then seeing him come in multiple times and then everything that followed up on the 23rd, yes, that's -- >> you were here when officer rash testified, right? >> i was. >> and you heard officer rash under cross examination answer the defense attorney's question about if mr. larry english had filed a police report about items stolen off of his boat, correct? >> yes. >> okay. and he said the officer assigned would have investigated it, right? >> yes. >> all right. and that means interviewing larry english, correct? >> yes. >> and so an officer who is investigating the theft of items off the boat would have found out from larry english that the boat had been moved back and forth to douglas, correct?
6:45 am
>> objection, speculation. she's sasking him to assume wha officer rash would have done had he been asked to make a report about thefts by larry english and then how he would follow up on that. this is all speculation on the witness' part. >> what rash would have done, sustained. >> i'll ask a better question, your honor. on cross examination, do you remember officer rash testifying that the officer assigned, if mr. english had filed a report, would have investigated that? >> yes. >> okay. and that officer rash, you heard him testify that that would have included interviewing larry english, correct? >> yes. >> all right. and you heard larry english testify that the boat had been moved back and forth between douglas, correct? >> he learned that, yes. >> he didn't learn that. he knew it. he moved the boat back and
6:46 am
forth? >> are you talking about rash -- >> i'm not sure about what the relevance is what he heard people testify in court that he didn't know with his own personal knowledge on particular dates. hearing what people later come and testify about in court is asking him to comment on the testimony before the jury and doesn't seem to be a relevant inquiry. what he did, what he knew at the particular times, sure. but what they testified about in court and how that may change his thoughts about dates in the past doesn't appear to be relevant. >> overruled. go ahead. >> okay. and you heard larry english testify that he suspected his subcontractors, yes? >> that -- >> that larry english suspected his subcontractors of stealing the items off his boat, you heard him testify to that here? >> yes. >> and you heard officer rash
6:47 am
testify he told that to your father? >> yes. >> all right. so let's go ahead and talk about what was happening on february 23rd. so you first saw -- you personally first saw ahmaud arbery as he was running ahead of you on buford. >> that's correct. >> and you were driving behind him in the white f-150 pickup truck. >> yes, ma'am. >> all right. and at that time when you first saw him, he didn't have a bag, did he? >> no, ma'am. >> didn't have a backpack. >> he did not. >> wasn't carrying a box. >> he wasn't. >> okay. and you could see his hands as
6:48 am
he ran. >> yes. >> okay. and you could see that he was wearing the cargo shorts and the t-shirt. >> yes, ma'am. >> all right. and you didn't know who he was. i mean you didn't know him personally. >> i didn't know him personally, no, ma'am. >> you didn't know his name? >> no, ma'am. >> didn't know anything about him? >> nothing. >> he didn't know you? >> not that i'm aware of. >> you just knew that he was the guy who was on video at the open unsecured construction site. >> and that i saw on the 11th. >> and at this point in time, when you first see him, he's not reaching into his pockets. >> no, ma'am. not running, no, ma'am. >> and he never yelled at you guys. >> no, ma'am. >> never threatened you at all. >> no, ma'am. >> never brandished any weapons? >> he did not threaten me verbally, no, ma'am.
6:49 am
>> didn't brannis ishbrandish a? >> no ma'am. >> didn't pull out any zbhunz. >> guns. >> no, ma'am. >> didn't pull out a knife? >> no ma'am. >> didn't reach for anything? >> no. >> he just ran. >> he was just running. >> so at this point in time you catch up to him on buford by pulling up next to him, is that right? >> yes, pulling a-long side, keeping with my window right there, i did. >> so as he's running down the street, say this is the street, he's on this side of the road, consistent with someone driving forward or on that side of the road looking at oncoming traffic? >> on ccoming traffic. >> he's on the side for oncoming traffic. >> that's correct. >> you pull up next to him, right? >> yes. >> you startled him. >> no. >> are you a mind reader? >> i'm not. but i could see his actions, the way he didn't veer, he didn't run off, i came up to him
6:50 am
slowly, just luike i would anybody else and i never startled anybody doing that before, anybody walking or jogging or running. i've running. i've never had anybody be startled on that. >> how many times have you pulled up on strange erps that you don't know next to them in a pickup truck to ask them what they're doing in your neighborhood? >> i don't think i have in that situation, but itch pulled up on people that are running behind -- coming up behind them. but, i mean, if you could be startled with somebody coming up behind you, one thing or the other, you could tell somebody is. but i didn't startle him. i didn't come up on him hard or fast or blowing the horn or anything. i just pulled alongside him on my side of the road right at the yellow line. once he acknowledged me and saw that i was there is when i came a little closer and stayed with
6:51 am
him. >> so,
6:52 am
6:53 am
6:54 am
>> let me do this. do you remember telling the police, "i pulled up to him and said, hey, you know, what's going on? "he's running, he won't stop. i said, that's him, stop right there, on the bottom of page 8, top of page 9. "stop right there, stop where you're at." do you remember telling the police that's what you said? stop right there, stop where you're at. do you remember telling the police that's what you said? >> do you want me to read it?
6:55 am
>> i'm asking if that's what you said. that's what you said. you said, "what's going on, he won't stop. i said, that's him right there, stop where you're at." >> that's part of it. >> at this point you're ordering him to stop. >> yeah, that's part of it. >> all right. so at this point you're ordering him to stop. >> i wouldn't say ordering. i was asking him. >> is that correct? nicely, politely? >> at first. hey, could you stop? >> like nicely and politely and -- >> yes. stop for a second. >> and this is at the time that he's already decided that he doesn't want anything to do with you and he runs back towards
6:56 am
satilla. >> yes. >> all right. and then we see what happens, right? is that what happens next? >> no. right. yes. >> let me find it.
6:57 am
>> i can't find my document. i know it's there. okay. i apologize, your honor. something is not right, and i either missed it or somehow it is not there anymore. >> your honor, we have no objections if the state would like a recess. >> thank you.
6:58 am
wanted to make sure it's on there. publishing state's exhibit 194, the first video eeneding in -- ending in 261. is this what we have? >> yes. >> you're backing up, and then he's running away from you. >> yes, ma'am. >> and then is this your truck pulling forward after him? >> it is. yes, ma'am. >> so at this point in time, you could have just stopped, right?
6:59 am
>> i could have. >> you could have just let him run. correct? >> i could have. but i also wanted to make sure that everything was okay down the road. i wanted to ask him, at least ask him what was happening and see what he would say. >> despite the fact you know about the 5th amendment, you know that no one has to talk to anyone they don't want to talk to, right? >> that's correct. >> all right. and you said that you wanted to know what happened and that you saw him out in the street when you came out with your shotgun from your house, right? >> yes. you didn't ask him what was going on, right? >> i did not. >> at one point in time you said somebody might have been hurt or something broken into or larry english was down there.
7:00 am
right? >> that's correct. >> but you didn't head that way to see exactly what happened, did you? >> i did not because mr. alben di was pointing down the road. i took it as whatever happened, you need to go that way. you need to go that way. something has happened. then trying to ask him to see what was happening, what happened. >> something had happened. >> something has happened. >> all right. so at this point, right here, where he's running, you're still running at him, "stop, i want to talk to you, stop." >> no, ma'am. once i watched him run and pull aid long side him again is when i engaged with him again. >> all right. so we're talking about going all the way down the road. >> it was only another 100 feet from there, maybe, maybe 200 feet. there was a wooded -- it was a wooded are


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on