Skip to main content

tv   Jose Diaz- Balart Reports  MSNBC  November 22, 2021 7:00am-8:00am PST

7:00 am
d.o.t., it's about seeking the truth. and it's not beyond all doubt or to a mathematical certainty. no, no, no, it's just beyond a reasonable doubt. and that's the burden that the state has. so the evidence. the first thing you'll want to do is determine what really happened based on the evidence, but a lot of the evidence isn't in dispute, right? we know dwhas larry english called the police. we know when we have videos. we know this was on february 23rd. the homicide is on video for the most part, okay? a lot of these things are not necessarily in dispute what's in dispute is were they making a citizen's arrest in committing these felonies against ahmaud arbery and then murdering him. the police arrived very quickly.
7:01 am
they're making statements and saying stuff to the police. and then the defendants are down at the police department saying things. but were these self-serving statements? think about it. the very first thing we showed you what this body cam video. it was hard. but you've got to realize, travis mcmichael was standing right behind him when he rolled mr. arbery over. that's what he saw. so then you've got to think to yourself, okay, what's going on in their heads? there's a dead man in the streets. travis mcmichael has just shot him, okay? the police are on the scene. there's now a video of it. so are there statements a couple of hours later, self-serving? you decide. the gpi did their investigation started on may 5th, 2020, followed by the arrests. so first off, the credibility of witnesses. that's for you to determine, who you believe and who you don't believe. so what that means is you're the
7:02 am
one who decides whether travis mcmichael was telling you the truth or lying to you. let's talk about some of the defense witnesses. and about beesley. what did she do when she got off the stand? she walked over here and waved at them and walked off the stand. so annabel beesley, team mcmichael. suvie lawrence, who is she? team mcmichael. even after this, they're going out in the boat with lee and greg mcmichael, still hanging out with them. team mcmichael. mark perez, team mcmichael. up until february 11th and then she tells you that her husband diego perez had had it with this. had had it with larry english not calling the police, with helping out larry english. he wasn't going to do it anymore, because this was not cool. why was it not cool? because diego perez went inside that house with his flashlight
7:03 am
and greg mcmichael came up and went in the house. what was brook doing? my husband's in there, my husband's in there! all right. well, greg mcmichael had his gun, travis mcmichael told you that. he had his gun, brooke had her gun. everybody had a gun. everybody in this case had a gun except ahmaud arbery. so what almost happened? come on, let's get real. it's a miracle diego perez and greg mcmichael didn't kill each other inside that house, pulling guns out. and that was it. what did brooke tell you? no more. i'm not doing this anymore. you determine the credibility of those witnesses. now, when you consider travis mcmichael and his testimony, there are some things you want to look at. the judge will tell you, these are things you consider. the manner of testifying. evidence of bias for or against a party. does he have bias for or against greg mcmichael? it's his dad, okay?
7:04 am
motive in testifying? yeah, he wants you to come back with a not guilty verdict. it's in his best interests. think about the probability or improbability of their testimony. i wondered why he was attacking that truck. on holmes, what are you talking about? i have no idea. do you understand what he was getting at? i guess we're back to ahmaud arbery is a carjacker. their interest or lack of interest in the outcome of the case means, do they have something to gain or lose by coming in here and making up a story for you? they personal credibility, as you observe it. that's for you to decide. not for the state to the decide, not for the defense to decide, for you to decide. did travis mcmichael have a motive to lie to you? did he have a motive to make up additional things that he had never said before? did he have a motive to embellish his testimony? did he have a motive to claim
7:05 am
that he now was confused on february 23rd, 2020. isn't that convenient. wow -- and i don't dispute that there was probably the most traumatic experience of his life. how did mr. arbery's day go for him? all right? most traumatic experience for travis mcmichael. so he's all confused. but did manage to write out a three-page statement and immediately put down on january 1st, my gun was stolen. had all sorts of contextual details in that statement. did he have a motive to use talking points? okay ladies and gentlemen, did he come up here? how many times did he say, totality of the circumstances to you? did he have his talking points down a year and nine months later? that's for you to decide. the defendant's story, the law allows you to disregard his testimony from the witness stand if you don't find it credible.
7:06 am
[ inaudible ] the law allows you to consider as the actual real evidence his actions at the time of the murder, if you don't find him credible. intent to commit a crime. well, ladies and gentlemen, you've got to find that they intended to commit these crimes. and how do you look at that? well, you look at the natural and necessary consequences of the act, right? natural and necessary consequences of an act. deadly force is the last resort. never point a gun at someone that you do not intend to shoot. so when you start pointing a shotgun directly at somebody, what's your intention? the natural and necessary consequence of the act, you're going to kill this person. you're pointing it at them. the defendant's not going to be presumed to have acted with criminal intent, but you may find intention or the absence of
7:07 am
intention upon consideration of their words, their conduct, what did they do out there? their demeanor, their motive, and other circumstances. so when you look at each defendant separately, because that's what you're going to do. you're going to get three separate verdict forms. when you look at mr. brian, what were his words? what was his conduct, what's his motive? what were the circumstances there for mr. brian? where what were they for travis mcmichael or greg mcmichael? so now we're going to talk about the charges in the indictment. i'm going to make a suggestion to you. this may help you. start at the bottom of the indictment, all right. in your deliberations, start with criminal intent at false imprisonment. it's just easier. work through that one, work your way on up, then to felony murder, then to malice murder. it's a suggestion. so what have we got? criminal attempt to commit a
7:08 am
felony. what's an intent? that's when you form an act that constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of said crime. mr. brian pulled out of his driveway and ran him into a ditch. mr. arbery was able to keep running, right there, criminal attempt to commit false imprisonment. criminal attempt to commit false imprisonment. this is actually what it says in the indictment. in violation of the personal liberty of mr. arbery, okay. guess what? we're citizens of the united states, right. question live here. we have personal liberty, because this is a free country. other people can't go up and stop us and hold us and detain us, okay? they have to actually have seen us commit that crime in order to effectuate a citizen arrest. and they unlawfully chased
7:09 am
ahmaud arbery through the public streets in pickup trucks and did attempt to detain and confine him without legal authority using an f-15 skpupt a chevy silverado pickup truck. false imprisonment. this is over on holmes, unlawfully confine and detain ahmaud arbery without legal authority. did not see him commit any crime, not a citizen's arrest. they are not law enforcement officers. they are not in a parked patrol car. they are not with badges on their arms. they are not in any uniform, without legal authority. said accused did chase ahmaud arbery and did confine and contain him on holmes. travis mcmichael said he was pinned between the two trucks.
7:10 am
greg mcmichael said he was trapped like a rat between the two trucks. the ultimate false imprisonment, he never left holmes, did he? never left holmes. ing ary vated assault. did make an assault upon the person of ahmaud arbery with a ford pickup truck and a chevy silverado pickup truck. i've got a legal note for you. you notice how it says and a, mr. bryan is driving the ford. then he's in the back of the truck. so of course, it doesn't mean and, it's or. okay? i know that sounds crazy. don't you love lawyers. don't you just love lawyers? and means or. so the way you should read this is with a ford f-150 pickup truck or a chevy silverado pickup truck, okay?
7:11 am
so what are pickup trucks. they are objects when used offensively against someone can result in seriously bodily injury or death. you hit someone with an f-150 pickup truck intentionally, hit them with a silverado intentionally, are you going to hurt them? break a leg? paralyze them? you could even kill them. we all know this. hit-and-runs. vehicular homicide. we all know this and the medical examiner told you so. actual injury to ahmaud may not be shown for aggravated assault with a pickup truck. you don't have to actually hit the person or injure them to be aggravated assault. what you have to do is place that person in reasonable fear of receiving a violent injury. this is really important, ladies and gentlemen. did the defendants commit acts with their pickup trucks that placed ahmaud arbery in reasonable fear of receiving serious bodily injury?
7:12 am
yeah. yes, they did. we know mr. brian did. he ran him into a ditch and then tried to go at him again and went at him another time, and then backed up toward him. now, oh, i just pulled up next to him. i didn't starlet him. no, he wasn't afraid of me. do you believe any of that stuff? >> just look at the night owl video. look at how mr. arbery tries to get away from him and look at him speed off after him. that's all you had to do and know that they put him in reasonable fear of receiving bodily harm, violent injury, aggravated assault with a pickup truck. aggravated assault, assault upon ahmaud arbery with a firearm, a deadly weapon, that 12 gauge pump shotgun with seven already in it. two steps, pull the trigger. that's all you've got to do.
7:13 am
the evidence is that the defendants attempted to cause a violent injury to the alleged victim by shooting him. that's aggravated assault with a shotgun. now, i want to be really clear, okay? travis mcmichael does this with the shotgun. we see it on the video. this is the beginning of the aggravated assault. beginning of the aggravated assault. the aggravated assault continues as he steps away from his car door and blocks the road. now, what did he say to you? oh, i was putting distance between me and mr. arbery? was he putting distance or blocking the road? you decide. then what does he do? he doesn't stay right there, does he? we can't see this, but what do we know? he makes it around that car door, right? makes it over here, right? he's in front of his truck and moving forward, closing the distance on mr. arbery, intercepting mr. arbery and is right here with that shotgun. it wasn't at port arms, like this, it was right like this.
7:14 am
and how fast does mr. arbery come around the corner and boom! shoots him. that is one continuous aggravated assault, ending in the shotgun blast to his torso, right here. came out right here. all right? so how was he when the shotgun hit him? like this. right. got it across the wrist, right in the torso, came out right here. so he's turned like this. according to the medical examiner. >> felony murder. felony murder is when you commit a felony and someone dies because of the felony. classic felony murder scenario. guy goes into a convenience store to rob the convenience store. he's not there to murder anybody. he's not there to kill the clerk. but he's got a gun.
7:15 am
pulls out the gun and is pointing it at the clerk, and the clerk is like, ah, and the clerk goes and tries to hit the gun away and starts punching at the armed robber, and what's the armed robber do? boom, kills the clerk. in committing a felony, you cannot claim self-defense. you've now murdered the clerk, because during the felony that you were doing, you pointed a -- you were doing an armed robbery, you were pointing a gun at somebody. you expect when you're commit ing felonies, people are going the fight back? imagine in armed robbers could come in and go, well, i had to defend myself against the victim of my crime. can you imagine that's the law? but isn't that what they're saying? how dare mr. arbery defend himself against their four felonies. isn't that what they're saying you? so felony murder. what is felony murder?
7:16 am
the state must prove that the defendant caused the death of another. check. by committing a felony. check. we've got four of them. do not need to show malice, okay? meaning, intent to commit the death of someone. now, the guy showed up at the convenience store, he's not there to murder the clerk. do not need to show that he intended the death with the felony. what we have to show is this. that the felony directly caused the death. you pulled the trigger on the shotgun, aggravated assault with a shotgun, yeah, immediately caused the death, right? that's a no-brainer. but what about the other three? you're sitting there thinking, okay, linda, what about the other three? did the other three felonies, aggravated assault with the pickup trucks, false imprisonment, criminal attempt of false imprisonment, did they play a substantial and necessary part in causing the death? the state's position is, yes, they did. in other words, but for this felony being committed, the death would not have occurred.
7:17 am
it's real easy. but for the felony being committed, this death would not have occurred. all right, so when does this really apply? the defendants are in the process of committing a series of felonies. they're doing it together at the same time. the defendants shoot mr. arbery during the commission of the felonies. did that felony committed against mr. arbery ultimately contribute and lead to his death? so how do we look at this? aggravated assault with a shotgun? yes. pointing that shotgun at him, having him run away around the side of the car, travis mcmichael intercepting him with the shotgun, and then shooting him. definitely aggravated assault, felony murder. aggravated assault with a pickup trucks. well, once again, what do we have? would he be dead if he hadn't been pinned between these two pickup trucks? think about this? if he had made it up holmes and over on zelwick, he would have run out, right? if he hadn't been pinned between
7:18 am
the two pickup trucks on holmes, with mr. brian running him towards the white pickup truck, would he still be alive? yeah. their use of the pickup trucks to go ahead and commit aggravated assaults on him put him in fear of them and their pickup trucks meant that they were running away from him, you saw it. running away. did their actions, were they such that they put him in reasonable fear of receiving bodily injury. and did that contribute to him ending up where he ended up and his death? yes, it did. felony murder. false imprisonment on holmes. that's what we're talking about. did they falsely imprison him on holmes? we've already gone over it. had him pinned on holmes, trapped like a rat between the two pickup trucks, according to greg mcmichael. he's still after five minutes running away from them. if they hadn't done this on holmes, would he be alive?
7:19 am
ask yourselves that. if the answer is "yes," felony murder. check it off. criminal attempt at false imprisonment. so you're thinking, oh, linda, seriously, okay, that was on -- yeah, they pulled up to him, hey, stop, we want to talk to you. he runs away. they pull forward. they go down to the end of burrfort. they're trying to falsely imprison him over there. did that contribute to it? yes. because that's when they began their attack. they're using the pickup trucks over on burrfort to put him in reasonable apprehension of receiving serious bodily harm. they're putting him in fear with their actions. what does mr. brian do? doesn't try -- actually runs him into a ditch. runs him into the ditch. aggravated assault. so what's mr. arbery doing? we know, he runs away from them. and runs away from them and runs away from them. because they have tried to falsely imprison him on
7:20 am
burrfort, and they used these pickup trucks to do it. in a manner that's likely to cause him fear. we don't know what was going through his head. nobody knows. that would be speculation. but you're allowed to look at it and go, were their actions such that it would put a reasonable person in fear of getting hurt. that's what you want to ask yourself. those are the felonies in the indictment. so malice murder. what's malice murder? well, cause the death of another person, unlawfully and with malice of forethought. now, malice of forethought is not ill will or hatred. it's not like what we think of. no premeditation is required, okay? rather, it's the unlawful intention to kill without justification. okay? well, what's justification? justification is self-defense. deliberate intention to kill is one way you see malice murder.
7:21 am
i'm deliberately taking your life. i'm killing you. how do we usually think about that? well, you're out to get somebody. you want the husband murdered for the insurance money. you're going to go ahead and execute somebody and you're mad at somebody, you're enraged at somebody, you intend to kill them. that's deliberate intention, but there's another kind of malice. and that's implied malice. you're allowed to consider this when looking at malice. there's malice when there does not appear to be significant provocation and the circumstance of a killing shows an abandoned and malignant heart. don't you love lawyers. what the heck is an abandoned and malignant heart, right? think about that, you just don't care. you just don't care. what you're doing, you want to do what you want to do. and boy, whoever you're doing it to had better be okay with it. i'm going to order you to stop and talk to me. and if you don't, i'm going to pull out a shotgun on you.
7:22 am
and hey, you're still going to run away from me? oh, yeah, i'm going to come at you. i'm going to intercept you over here at the corner. how dare you turn on me. bam! malice. right there. remember, mr. arbery had to have engaged in significant provocation. what did he do? what'd mr. arbery do? he ran away for five minutes. he ran away from them. he ran away from them for five minutes. that's what he did. with his hands out at his sides and those baggy shorts he had on, no weapon, no threats, no way to call for help. didn't even have a cell phone on him. he ran away from them for five minutes.
7:23 am
the state doesn't have to prove premeditation. the state does not have to prove motive, okay? not required to explain to you why they did what they did. you know what they did. some of you may know why they did it. but the state does not have to prove exactly why they did what they did. the indictment. so here's the thing, party to a crime, how in the world could defendant brian be held responsible if he was in the silverado filming all of this, right? how can greg mcmichael be held responsible if he's in the back of the truck finally on the phone with 911 when the shots ring out? well, it's called party to a crime. that's what it's called. so what's party to a crime? well, ladies and gentlemen, let me ask you this. do you think that everyone involved from the person who actually commits the crime to
7:24 am
someone who encourages or enlists someone to commit the crime to someone who helps commit the crime should be held responsible under the law in georgia? do you think that sounds reasonable? well, guess what, the law does. the law says that everybody involved is guilty. okay? the person is party to a crime only if that person directly commits the offense. driving the trucks. pulling out that shotgun, attempting to falsely imprison. helping to track somebody by pinning them between two pickup trucks. running someone toward a man with a shotgun. all directly committing or helping in the commission of the crime, or advises and encourages. well, what's advising and encouraging? hey, travis, get your shotgun, that guy is outside.
7:25 am
not, hey, travis, i need to call 911, that guy is outside. let's get our guns and let's jump in the truck. cut it off, cut it off, cut it off! is what greg mcmichael said. how do you think to think about this? everybody gets a spb ring, right? the quarterback gets a super bowl ring, the guys on the field gets the super bowl ring. the dude on the bench gets a super bowl ring, right? everybody is involved. everybody is responsible. that's what the law says. cooperation after the fact. now, this applies to the defendants, but especially mr. brian, because this has been brought up when he was talking to agent seacrest and other things. operation after the fact doesn't erase the crime you committed.
7:26 am
he gave the phone over and the video right away to the police. he made statements at the scene, goes and makes additional statements to the gbi in may of 2020. he consented to have his night owl video downloaded. guess what. doesn't matter? cooperation after the fact does not erase what you have done. okay? that would be like two teenagers shoplifting at walmart and one's filming the other. both of them are stuffing bikinis into their bag. the fact that one of them hands over her video of her girlfriend doing it, does that somehow make her not guilty of stuffing a bikini in her own bag? no, you still did the crime. so what if you were cooperative afterwards. you are still responsible for your actions. this is about responsibility. all right. we are going to transition right now and take a breath and we're
7:27 am
going to transition self-defense and citizen's arrest. the person is justified in threatening or using force against another person when to the extent that he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend himself or a third person against the others' imminent use of unlawful force. wow. that's a mouthful, right? yikes. let's break it down. travis mcmichael had to reasonably believe that it was absolutely necessary to defense himself, and of course, he threw in his dad, okay, which he never mentioned before at any point in time, but he threw him in on the stand, against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. that means that mr. arbery had to be right there, imminently using unlawful force against
7:28 am
travis mcmichael. okay? it's the doctrine of reasonable beliefs. and the judge is going to go ahead and charge you on this. in other words, the belief that you have got to defend yourself. that it's life or death, right here, right now, has to be reasonable. okay. guess who this standard applies to. take one guess who this standard applies to. everybody. it applies to you, it applies to law enforcement. it applies to military people. okay. it applies to jason bourne, secret service, fbi, cia, it applies to everybody. there is no special exception for, i was in the coast guard. there's no special exception for, i used to be a law enforcement officer. the reasonableness applies to retired law enforcement officers, just like it applies
7:29 am
to anybody. a manager of a store, okay? it applies the same way. in other words, the reasonableness standard is set by society. you all decide whether this was reasonable or not. travis mcmichael's belief that he had to defense himself with lethal force has to be reasonable. so we've got pointing a shotgun at mr. arbery when he was yards and yards we, had to be reasonable and necessary. but where was the unlawful force by mr. arbery. what's he doing? he's running away from mr. bryan's truck, mr. bryan who's already tried to hit him with the truck numerous times. he's trapped between two cars with no weapon, no way for anybody to help him, because there's nobody out there to help him. he's not threatening anybody. he's just running away from the man with the shotgun.
7:30 am
look at this. take a look at this. he's not even up to those mailboxes on the side. and that's travis mcmichael, pulling that shotgun up. what are they going to tell you? they're going to tell you, oh, he was running towards me. and i could tell, he was going to attack me. is that reasonable? who brought the shotgun to the party. who took the shotgun out of the car? the guy is running away from them for five minutes. here's the thing, you cannot create the danger to yourself. you cannot be the unjustified aggressor. you cannot create the situation and go, i was defending myself. you just can't do it. he moved to intercept.
7:31 am
he attacked him. i'm not talking about mr. arbery attacking travis. all right, here's the concept of excessive fofrs. and this is a big one. because if you use excessive force during your self-defense, guess what? you're not justified, you're guilty. not justified, you're guilty. if you use excessive force. because it's force that exceeded what was reasonably necessary. you guys ever heard of the term, that saying, you can't bring a gun to a knife fight? it's unfair, right? you can't bring a gun to a fistfight. it's unfair, right? you can't use excessive force you can't call someone out and go, hey, buddy, let's take it outside, you're starting it. and when that person starts to beat you up and you're better than fight at you, you don't get to pull out a gun and shoot
7:32 am
them. you're like, all of a sudden, i'm scared, i have to defend myself. that's not the way this works. excessive force. so first off, ahmaud had to be using unlawful force against them. remember, the guy running down the street right here? he's using excessive force -- he's using unlawful force against them right here, right? then travis mcmichael had to reasonably believe that he had to defend himself against mr. arbery. and they're going to get up here, and the thing is, ladies and gentlemen, they're good. these defense attorneys are good. they're going to get up here and make this seem like, oh, yeah, this is scary. and travis had to pull a shotgun out on him. they're going to make it seem so reasonable. put on your critical thinking caps. use your common sense when they're up here giving their closing arguments. now force has to be reasonable. unarmed man running with hands at his sides.
7:33 am
never pulled out a weapon. never threatened anybody. this is completely excessive force, even if you think, even if you go, hey, it was citizen's arrest. hey, he was really defending himself, you then still have to go, this wasn't excessive force, in order to find him not guilty. all right? what you didn't hear from the defense in their opening statement are the three instances when a person can't claim self-defense under the law in georgia. can't be the initial unjustified aggressor. this is important. you can't start it with your driveway decision, unjustified, because you didn't see a crime committed that day, and then claim, oh, i acted in self-defense. what's their justification? what are you going to hear? we wanted ahmaud arbery to stop and talk to us, and he wouldn't, so we tried to force him to
7:34 am
stop, and then we killed him. that's really what they're going to get up here and tell you. they'll probably make it seem much more palatable and okay, but that's really what they're going to tell you. you can't commit felonies against someone and commit self-defense. you can't be the armed robber in the convenience store pointing the gun, and when the clerk goes to defend himself by grabbing that gun, you can't shoot him. the law goes, not self-defense when you're committing felonies against someone. and you can't provoke someone into defending themselves against you, so you can intentionally harm them and claim self-defense. what's that about, ladies and gentlemen? think of your schoolyard bullies. think of the three boys walking behind the one, who's the target, you know, kid who's getting abused, right? you've got three on one, they're going down the hallway. they're menacing him, threatening him, and they get him up against a locker and he has nowhere to go. he's trapped, right? what does the kid being bullied do? he takes it and takes it and takes it. and that bully goes, bam,
7:35 am
punches the target child, right? what's the bully always say? he started it! isn't that what the bully always says? he pushed me, i was defending myself. yeah, three on one with one kid up against a locker. you're bullying him and he actually pushes you and you get to then claim that you were acting in self-defense when you punch him? the law knows people do this. this is the law. the law knows people will goad other people into defending themselves so they can claim, i was acting in self-defense. you can't do that either. three on one, three pickup trucks, two guns, unarmed. mr. arbery was unarmed. so what are you going to hear? i don't know what they're going to say. they're good. they're good defense attorneys. they're going to get up here and the state is so worried that they're going to make it seem so reasonable that everything that
7:36 am
travis did and greg did was just so reasonable. i'm going to ask you, use your common sense and put your thinking caps on. but this is what i anticipate or we anticipate that they're going to say. the victim started it. or you're going to hear that he was the aggressor, because he was running towards travis mcmichael. but he was running away from mr. bryan, who had already tried to hit him with a pickup truck. and greg mcmichael said it. he was trapped like a rat. he knew there was nowhere else to go. or they're going to tell you that ladies and gentlemen, this is really about the front of the pickup truck. forget everything else. it was all about the front of the pickup truck. and they're going to try to make it seem like, well, he attacked travis mcmichael. he very well might have. we can't see. what we know is his hand was like this, right? doesn't matter. you know why it doesn't matter? because they weren't committing a citizen's arrest, they weren't in fear, real fear, of imminent danger from mr. arbery.
7:37 am
they were committing the four felonies. that's what they were doing. you're going to hear, we weren't committing felonies, we were doing a citizen's arrest. we weren't trying to provoke him into defending himself. you're probably going to hear this. yes, we pointed a shotgun at him to get him to comply with our orders -- not sure why anyone should comply with their orders to stop and talk to us, but there was no reason for him to defend himself against us. because this was a citizen's arrest. this is the bottom line. this was an attack on ahmaud arbery. they committed the crimes. they committed the fourfulness. they attacked him. they shot and killed him. they can't claim self-defense under the law, because they were the initial unjustified aggressors and they started this and they were committing the felonies against auk mudd
7:38 am
arbery. they have to somehow justify their actions by claiming citizen's arrest. i'm going to remind you once again, evidence from the witness stand, they never, ever said on february 23rd, 2020, that they were doing a citizen's arrest or trying to arrest him it was all, we wanted him to stop and we wanted to question him, and we were going to hold him so the police could go back and figure out what crime it was that he must have committed, because he was running down the street. citizen's arrest. if the offense is committed within his presence or his immediate knowledge. if the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping, private person may arrest him. so what are they going to do? they're going to do this. oh, i'm sorry. i forgot to tell you this. a private person may not act on the unsupported statements of
7:39 am
others alone for their probable cause. what does that mean. no gossip. no hearsay. nothing along those lines. in other words, my mom told me about this, where she has no personal knowledge of it, doesn't count. that's unsupported, unreliable statements to somebody else. you have to have more than staley information from an unreliable source. private citizens must occur immediately after the offense. or in the case of felonies, during the escape. if the observer fails to make the arrest immediately after the commission of the offense or during escape in the case, his power to do so is extinguished. what does that really mean?
7:40 am
a citizen's arrest is for emergency situations when the crime really happens right front of you and you can take action right then and there to arrest somebody, because you know about it. you've seen it. you're taking action right then and there. if it's a felony, you can run after the person and chase them down. that's all this means. . so it's not a citizen's arrest. they never said it. none of the defendants saw mr. arbery commit any crime that day. they were detaining him for the police, so that they could investigate and find the crime that he must have committed that day, because what does he -- he's running down the street. that's not the law, ladies and gentlemen. not the law at all. travis mcmichael, remember all of his assumptions? he got up here, and i wrote them all down, he may have run by. he may have broken in.
7:41 am
maybe the owner's down there. he may have been caught. he may have been trying to avoid the police. that's testimony from the witness stand. he didn't know anything. absolutely nothing. so, where are we going to end up? this is where we're going end to up? travis mcmichael had probable cause to believe that ahmaud stole the stuff off the english boat in 2019, because his mother gave him some gossip about stuff being stolen, and he was escaping! use your common sense. how do you escape from a crime on an unknown date in 2019 on february 23rd, 2020. i'm sure they'll explain it to you. but use your common sense. and remember, what do you think? you think all of this was completely made up for trial, especially given no one ever said it on february 23rd, 2020? ladies and gentlemen, use your
7:42 am
common sense. put your critical thinking caps on. that's all the state can ask you to do. ladies and gentlemen, i give you the defense. >> all right. what we're going to do, ladies and gentlemen, is take a short recess. let's go ahead and take a 15-minute recess and we'll come back for the continuation of closing arguments. again, do not discuss this case amongst yourselves until all of the closing arguments have been made and you have received the final charge of the court. all right? so again, 15 minutes and we'll see you back. thank you. >> all rise for the jury. >> and good morning. i'm jose diaz-balart. we've just been listening to the closing arguments in the trial of the three men accused of killing ahmaud arbery. we're also closely monitoring the events in waukesha, wisconsin, where an suv plowed into a christmas parade, killing five people and injuring more than 40 others. but let's first go to nbc's cal
7:43 am
perry, live from the courthouse in brunswick, georgia, and maya wiley, an msnbc legal analyst. good morning. cal, what have we heard so far? and this was the prosecution wrapping up its case. what do we expect for the rest of the day? >> reporter: good morning to you, sir. so we expect to hear the prosecution sort of finish up those closing arguments. then the defense will take their turn. keep in mind, the prosecution will have a chance to rebuttal. now, prosecutor here, linda dunkinkowski has done a wonderful job with travis mcmichael testifying on thursday. and the prosecutor, as you've been hearing this morning, as she continues to lay out the state's case was able to get him to admit that at no time was ahmaud arbery threatening the group, at no time was he seen carrying a weapon. and that seems to punch some holes in the self-defense aspect of the case. she's trying to define key
7:44 am
issues here in georgia law. the first is citizen's arrest. the defendants will try to claim and have claimed that they were carrying out a citizen's arrest. the problem with that and what the judge is going to charge the jury with later today is saying that a citizen's arrest can only be carried out if you witness the felony taking place. if the felony is taking place in your presence. she's very clear to lay out the facts of the case do not lend themselves to that citizen's arrest. the only thing she's starting to lay out is the term, in the presence of. that is, the other defendants, whether or not they pulled the trigger. whether or not they actually shot ahmaud arbery, they were in the presence of the crime. that they were then a part of that crime. she actually compared it to super bowl rings. that everybody gets a super bowl ring, whether you're a trainer, whether you play or not. she's trying to convey to the jury that when they are given these instructions, there is no choice, as she would say, but to find the defendants guilty. we'll see how the defense plays out their case, but you can bet, it is going to be both that self-defense defense as well as that citizen's arrest defense.
7:45 am
jose? >> cal, thanks. and maya, what do you think of the prosecution's closing argument? we all saw it and heard it right here on msnbc. >> i thought she did a fantastic job. she showed up to do the job the prosecution has to do. as cal said, it's really making plain to the jury, here's what you're going to be asked to decide. and it's your decision. who do you believe? and walking the jury not just through each count, but the evidence that the prosecution submitted, both to show that there's evidence that this actually is a crime, are crimes, but it's also to eviscerate the defense and go to the credibility of travis mcmichaels, who took the stand and remember, her cross-examination of him was excellent, because she was really able to establish and she is reminding the jury of this in the closing, that he did not
7:46 am
give the same statement when he was on the stand as he originally did the police, that he had time to craft this story in way that would help him at trial. and that he had to admit that he couldn't recall if ahmaud arbery actually grabbed for the gun. that actually is key to the defense claim. and as cal said, i think she really established that it's very hard to make a citizen's arrest claim here, when they didn't see a crime, they didn't have actually direct personal knowledge with the crime. >> and interesting, also, maya, how she prepared, i guess, the jury for what the defense closing arguments are going to be. how unusual was that to say, hey, this is what i believe the defense is going to tell you about this, but here's why that is incorrect. >> yeah, brilliant observation, jose, because that's exactly what she needed to do. you want to inoculate the jury from the arguments that the
7:47 am
defense attorneys going to make. because as she said, they're going to do a good job. they're going to take everything they can possibly find to try to create that doubt, so she's essentially saying, when you hear this, here's the way you should hear it. and that is the job you have to do also in a closing argument. >> and how -- i'm thinking the defense is going to be able to, i guess, kind of come back with something, after she has been so systemic and so detailed. it's almost as if she was saying, this isn't self-defense, this was self-offense. how do you, maya, and does the defense tailor or change their closing arguments, depending on what they just heard? >> well, you can bet the defense knew that she was going to say what they said, because they've been sitting in the courtroom hearing how they've been presenting evidence and going after theirs. so they're going to play at the
7:48 am
fear factor. they're going to play up, this is a virtually all-white jury. black jurors were struck from this jury pool. there's only one. and they're going to play on fear. and they're going to play on fear as ahmaud arbery. they can't bring in the evidence about any past wrongdoings, just as the prosecution couldn't bring in evidence of travis dropping that n-bomb, as ahmaud arbery lay dying. and that means that they're going to have to pull all that they can marshal from the facts and circumstances that they have at their disposal about what was going on. i would be curious what kyle has to say about how it seems that the jury is responding to this. >> well, and let's ask cal his thoughts and his observations, cal? >> so i sort of -- maya was breaking up there at the end. i think you asked me what the
7:49 am
reaction was outside the court, is that right, jose? >> outside court and if there's any observations of what the jury was doing, looking like inside the court during these arguments? >> absolutely. so, look, there is a family vigil that takes place outside the court as these proceedings go on. you can see behind me some members of the family as they're coming out of the court, some have remained outside the court while some are inside the court. the other thing that's happening out here is you do see some protesters. not a large amount of protesters, but some protesters, including members of the "black panther" and the new "black panther" party, and i bring that up because it speaks to the discussion that is happening around this country, as it comes to race and this trial. that cannot be forgotten. and as we prepare to hear what the defense teams are going to say, keep in mind that kevin gauff has been saying some outrageous and outlandish things that are having some very racial overtones, as it relates to this trial. and people are reacting to that. i think people are concerned about what we could hear from the defense. because again, they've basically been throwing whatever they can,
7:50 am
seeing what sticks on the wall, including things like comparing 100 preachers, black pastors who appeared outside the courtroom as some kind of quote/unquote lynching. those are the words of a not understand really the irony of what he was saying or as the state is putting it, is saying these things on purpose. that is certainly overhanging this trial and when you talk to people outside, that is certainly something that they're keeping an eye on, jose. >> cal perry and maya wiley, thank you for being with us this morning. five killed after a vehicle plows into a holiday parade. we'll have more. ed t try spring daydream, now part of our irresistible scent collection. i've got moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.
7:51 am
now, there's skyrizi. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months, after just 2 doses. skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms such as fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches, or coughs or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine. ♪nothing is everything♪ talk to your dermatologist about skyrizi. learn how abbvie could help you save. - [narrator] every three minutes, talk to your dermatologist about skyrizi. a child is born with a cleft condition. in the us, children are healed at birth. but in parts of the world where the right medical care doesn't exist, children like lexi struggle to speak or eat. without surgery, some will die. those who do survive face extreme challenges. together, we can change this. operation smile works to heal children born with cleft conditions. with volunteer medical teams
7:52 am
in more than 30 countries worldwide, we need you. there are still millions in dire need of healing. go to today and become a monthly supporter. help create new smiles and new futures. but act now. children are waiting. go online to to give monthly or call. (upbeat music) (upbeat music) - [narrator] this is kate. she always wanted her smile to shine. now, she uses a capful of therabreath healthy smile oral rinse to give her the healthy, sparkly smile she always wanted. (crowd cheering) therabreath, it's a better mouthwash. at walmart, target and other fine stores. with xfinity home, you can keep your home t and everything in it a b more protected. i can wrangle all my deliveries. thanks, hoss! and i help walk the dog from wherever. *door unlocks* ♪ ♪ well, i can bust curfew-breakers
7:53 am
in an instant. well, you all have xfinity home, with cameras to home security monitored by the pros. *laughs* learn more about home security or get our self-monitored solution starting at just $10 per month. ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ wondering what actually goes into your multi-vitamin.
7:54 am
at new chapter. ♪♪ its innovation organic ingredients and fermentation. fermentation? yes, formulated to help your body really truly absorb the natural goodness. new chapter. wellness well done. we now turp to the tragic news from waukesha, wisconsin. five law enforcement officials tell nbc news authorities are questioning a person of interest identified as 39-year-old darryl brooks. he is not considered to be a suspect and has not been charged with a crime. at least five people are dead, more than 40 others are hurt after a red suv plowed into a christmas parade along the city's main street late yesterday afternoon. as investigators piece together what happened, five sources briefed on the incident tell nbc news at this stage there does not appear to be a connection from terrorism or friday's not guilty verdict of the kyle
7:55 am
rittenhouse trial. one witness told the "today" show it appeared to be an intentional act. >> where we were sitting and there was a float between us and the curb, he made an effort to come towards us because he wanted to get around the float and just, i don't know if it was to hit as many people as he can. i don't know what the senseless intention was other than just going the speed that he did. >> with me now nbc news senior national correspondent tom and nbc national security analyst. tom, what more are we learning and hearing about what happened? >> yeah, jose, good to be with you this morning. i'll walk you through what investigators think what happened. they think the driver went through a barricade like this one and that's main street.
7:56 am
that's where all the mayhem happened. that's where the parade was happening at the time. they believe the man turned on to main street and headed in the westbound direction and just began plowing into people. there were different groups, jose, at the time. this was a very popular parade here, holiday parade. you had children's dance troop, you had the dancing grannies, you had marching bands and you had volunteers from the archdiocese of milwaukee here. all of them are victims this morning. we know that at least two grannies from the dancing grannies have passed away and a troop of elderly women that would dance in the parade and make people laugh and happy and several children. 18 kids were taken to children's hospital of wisconsin and being treated right now. as you mentioned, five people have died in this. 40 injured. jose, so many injuries that there weren't enough ambulances so parents were picking up their children and rushing them off to the hospital. this has taken everybody by surprise. people are in shock. the schools are closed here in
7:57 am
waukesha and everyone wants to know why. what were the reasons why? we have some reporting to indicate that maybe that man you mentioned the person of interest was involved in some type of knife fight before hand. we'll try to get more answers and clarity later on in a press conference that authorities will have later on here in waukesha. it's just sad, it's upsetting and right during the holidays and this is such a special place and parade for this community that you can't even imagine. >> now, tom, what a horrendous tragedy and as you say in this time when people are coming out and it's last year that parade was not held because of covid issues. i'm wondering, tom, do we know the 40 injured, what condition many are in? >> we don't and we are going to expect to hear more in about 20 or 30 minutes. the hospital, the children's hospital is going to have a news conference, a virtual news conference and we hope to maybe get a status update. of course, they can't share of all of the information on how these patients are doing. jose, it doesn't look good. you see that suv and look at the
7:58 am
video and one thing that stands out for me when you look at the video and early videos, people don't know what they're witnessing because they can't imagine that some maniac would take a car and plow into people at a christmas parade. you know people's reactions in the beginning are almost like they don't know what is going on and then they realize the carnage. these kids, these elderly people run over. it's horrific. we're hoping like everyone else here, everyone in this community is praying that the people at the hospital survive. >> we agree. we just got to continue increasing those prayers. what a horrible situation. frank, law enforcement sources tell nbc news a person of interest in custody, but not considered a suspect. not charged with anything. what exactly does that mean? >> yes, it's really interesting. clearly detectives and prosecutors are working right now to piece their case together. but the nbc news investigative
7:59 am
reporters have done an outstanding job developing early information that this is likely their suspect. in the state of wisconsin, generally there's a reasonable period of time often between 48 and 72 hours that afforded the police to reasonably put together their case and then a magistrate will have to review the probable cause to continue to hold someone like this. so, the clock probably started running this morning. weekends generally don't count. but you're likely to see charges coming. i think they're trying to piece together this alleged stabbing. you saw the reports that there was a crime somewhere and he was fleeing from. they'll look at that. if that's true, jose, you'll see this turn into a felony murder charge instead of saying voluntary manslaughter because if you're in the act of fleeing, it could be a felony itself, if it's true. another development happening here it is now being reported by several media outlets that this suspect or person of interest was bailed out of jail on friday. on friday after posting $1,000
8:00 am
cash bond on charges of battery, disorderly conduct and resisting an officer. and there's more. his criminal history reportedly dates back to 1999 and includes felonies and misdemeanors in various states. so, you're going to see attention turned. if this is accurate reporting by several media outlets, you're going to see attention turned on this phenomenon we're experiencing that covid has caused judges to empty out prisons. that some activist das and judges are engaged in letting people go who in past years would have been detained. watch for the focus to change on why this gentleman was on the street. >> we have to, regardless of that, just kind of remember that these are five people who have lost their lives and 40 people that are severely injured. frank and tom, extraordinary reporting, as always. thank you for being with me. that wraps up the hour for me. i'm


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on