tv Day 7 of Trial for Derek Chauvin Accused in Death of George Floyd CSPAN April 6, 2021 8:01pm-8:26pm EDT
television companies and more including charter communication. >> broadband is empowerment that's why charter has invested billions, billion infrastructure upgrading technology empowering opportunity in community big and small. titer is connecting us. >> is support c-span as a public service in these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> the trial of former minneapolis police officer derek chauvin continued today with several witnesses testifying how the minneapolis police department trained its officers. the day began with attorneys considering whether to have maurice hall testify mr. hall was in the car with george floyd when law enforcement first approached outside the convenience store.
>> on a motion for maurice hall, can you spare your name we have gotten different spellings on your names. >> marie's hall. >> representing mr. hall today what are your appearances. [inaudible] >> the attorney a present are going to go to the podium so you should be able to see them at that time but obviously were not in a position where you can consult privately but you had a chance to talk to them, is that
correct? >> is that a yes. >> yes. >> mr. hall's motion as a witness to cross the subpoena i would like to address it and you can take off your mask if you would like. >> good morning your honor. >> mr. hall has been subpoenaed as a witness in the prosecution and defense. defense counsel in their opening statement specifically name mr. hall and told the jury that they intend and preview what that testimony they believe it would be. in order to avoid any kind of delay interruption in the proceeding i notify all parties that mr. hall would be invoking his fifth amendment privilege of self-incrimination where he called to testify and subsequently filed a notice in
my motion to quash the subpoena, your honor at this point in time mr. hall has no immunity, he has been provided no immunity and no protection for his testimony whatsoever. and because of that mr. hall is invoking his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination and in several key areas of questioning that we believe he would face where he could be called to testify. either, you said uncertain areas that he would testify to, there are some topics that would not incriminate him, is that correct. >> i cannot envision any topic that mr. hall would be called to testify on, that would be relevant to the case and that would not incriminate him. >> that is ultimately the court's decision correct? >> yes. >> on a question by question basis correct. >> yes your honor. >> all right, go ahead i
interrupted you. >> that's okay judge, i wanted to allied those areas that i believe mr. hall may face questioning. the first area where he would invoke his privilege against self-incrimination is any activities that took place on may 25, 2020 both before and after police arrived. mr. hall testimony in these matters would specifically put him in the position of being very close to proximity to mr. floyd there's an allegation that mr. floyd had controlled substance as police were removing him from the car the car by the way that was searched twice into my understanding drugs have been found in the car twice mr. hall potentially incriminating himself into a future prosecution for third-degree murder and specifically 609.195 subdivision be in that and the court is well aware covers third-degree murder
liability somebody involved in drug activity that eventually leads to overdose and that statute is broad does not just include the situation that sells drugs to be in the be becomes an overdose that includes any activity directly or indirectly unlawfully selling and giving away bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing or administering controlled substance on schedule one or two. that statute is broad and had been interpreted broadly by minnesota court is not a megabyte situation in fact anyone who could be pointed to as a link in the chain of the distribution and prepares drugs for someone else someone who acts as a go-between can be implicated in third-degree murder. any of the activities that mr. hall would be testifying about throughout that day including before police arrived on may 25, 2020 could
potentially incriminate him and that charge not to mention drug sales and drug use. additionally the other area of testimony in which mr. hall would be invoking his fifth amendment privilege is any personal knowledge that he had of drug use by george floyd up until in including may 25 for the exact same reason. it leaves him open to exposure a potential third-degree murder charge any testimony regarding his testimony could leave them open to potentially incriminating himself. >> i think what i'm going to do is ask mr. nelson to lift the topics in areas on whether there is something outside of what you just outlined, maybe there is common ground, if you could just switch places.
>> your honor the defense in the following and certainly any of the events leading up to mr. hall and mr. floyd's arrival earlier in the day with what they're doing mr. hall's interaction with mr. floyd including whether either party gave the other a counterfeit bill and whether or not mr. hall or otherwise provided with controlled substances specifically whether mr. floyd and his behavior in the car mr. hall previously described mr. hall was falling asleep and it was sudden and i would ask him questions about mr. hall's previous statements to law enforcement that mr. floyd had indicated he did not intend or
he was planning on taking his pills later when they got home implying that mr. floyd took them beforehe they left and t mr. hall described seeing mr. floyd go for the ignition when the h police arrived so the behavior in the car at the time when police arrived. mr. hall i would intend to ask him of giving false names to police officers after they were intervened after the police intervened, mr. hall is seen on the security camera taking something out of his backpackwo and throwing it and i would ask him about those and what it was that he threw and i would ask mr. hall about his decision to leavea minnesota immediately after this incident and his subsequent apprehension of the texas rangers. >> let me focus on a couple of
things, you would agree that any questions he answers about the counterfeit bill could incriminate him, would you agree. >> yes. >> the false information that he gave to the police he would have a legitimate indication there as well? >> yes and what he took out of the backpack that the legitimate fifth amendment privilege to invoke their. >> yes.t, >> as circumstantial evidence a guilt you would agree if he wanted the motive as opposed to traveling to texas, that could be incriminating, would you agree with that? >> yes. >> use and possession of drugs by both of them during that day, that could incriminate them based on the representation, would you agree with that? >> yes. >> it seems like everything that you want to ask him except the following he would have a
legitimate right to invoke his fifth amendment rights against compelled self-incrimination and that being how george floyd appeared when he was back in the car and falling asleep suddenly. >> i'm sure the council willhe e it as incriminating. >> i do not believe in that incriminate mr. hall and aha description of mr. floyd falling asleep but the implication being because that none was found in mr. floyd system and it causes a person to fall asleep that that would be connected to controlled substance.
>> unfortunately you don't have the benefit have gone through the testimony but it appears this will be a proper indication of his fifth amendment rights with just about everything mr. nelson was talking about te one exception appears to be his observation sitting in the passenger seat of the car is how mr. floyd appears that he was falling asleep and that happened suddenly. very narrow and the reason i say that is because i have a parallel testimony from the clerk in the store who said mr. floyd appeared good-natured, seemed to be having a good day but he did appear to be high, i don't even think i would allow whether he appeared high because that could inform an opinion for a basis that he knew why that he was under the influence. it seems that his description,
mr. hall's description of life of a store clerk is not quite incriminate him if there is no questioning and why he fell asleep and what he thinks he fell asleep and there's drugs in the car and that there is any possession by mr. floyd of drugs the day that they sell them even if we avoid there's drugs and having mr. hall say i was passing in the hot which is already clear in his video and the evidence for your knowledge that mr. hall is in the passenger seat and removed by the police, beyond that is obviously that he was a passenger when the police came up to the car, what was mr. floyd's condition that he observed immediately before that? >> would you agree that is not incriminating if we keep the mention of drugs and why or anythingng like that. >> no your honor, i do not
agree. >> how would that and how would it be mr. hall saying that would incriminate him. >> the inquiry is not what evidence is in front of the jury and what testimony has he heard. >> i'm using that as an analogy how that didn't incriminate the store clerk saying you appeared high and mr. hall say it appear the cues falling asleep and happened suddenly likeed anythig else it's a parallel type evidence i was using as an analogy. liz: i understand but the whole point is to prevent mr. hall wefrom incriminating himself and him answering that question that he was in the car put them in close proximity with mr. floyd in very close in time before he alleged the invested drug and exposes him on the third-degree murder charge if there were to be future third-degree murder charge and mr. hall was charged with basically being involved in the drug activity that has ircaused mr. floyd to pass away due to an overdose him being in
that car incriminate him in terms of behavior so mr. floyd what he observed when he observed it, know your honor i would argue that it definitely would expose him to potential incrimination. >> this is a car were a drugs have been found twice. >> the state has all the evidence and were nothe talking about that did not incriminate him, the video of him sitting next to george floyd, did that incriminate him and not subjected him to criminal liability. >> you think beyond that. >> you think given his observation of how george floyd would incriminate him? >> i don't think how that would put him closer to criminal liability just with those observations. >> it takes it off the state and any future prosecution to prove what demeanors, behaviors mr. floyd was exhibiting should
they decide to charge mr. hall with a crime now they have his own testimony to use against him at the very definition of the fifth amendment privilege. >> that incriminate. >> the fact that he testifies does not make itt incriminating. >> your testimony would be used to incriminate him in any future prosecutions. >> anyway, do you need to weigh in on this, i don't think you're the dog in the fight at this point. >> i do your honor, i would like to be heard briefly. >> sure. >> thank you your honor. >> you talking to represent his interest are you. >> i'm not, the dog in the fight is a fair trial for mr. chauvin, orone trial, what we cannot have is an implication of this privilege in front of the jury and is questioning that the court is offering or suggesting creates a huge problem and the
caldwell case to the court is the question would not exist in the bathroom, the standard is not the evidence itself in inculpatory or implicates him and it creates a link, that's what mr. cousins is referring to input them in the vehicle and the testimony from he himself creating a part of the link and as i said at one exist in a vacuum there would be other questioning and we would have the right to question him about his credibility and other aspects of the interaction that would lead unfortunately and potentially to him invoking? question in front of the jury.
>> we regularly, in this case excruciating detail walk-through motions and limiting what questions can be asked based on the evidence, this is not based on evidence it's based on his fifth amendment rights and what could incriminate him. the limitation you have to adt as we canat tell you the caldwel case is a totally different situation. that was a man who wanted to testify despite everything he could incriminate himself and didn't care until it might get them into more trouble than he thought. it's the complete opposite of this case. >> is an illustration of how despite the witness trying to tailor his evidence to me a certain goal, it just cannot be done and it led to unfortunately not a jury sitting there but the implication that's where they ended up in that case we cannot have that will martin a jury an mr. hall would be faced with the question by question
determination of what were arguing aboutbo this morning that's why a blanket indication is allowed because the standard is brought. >> what case law says there in a blanket indication. >> a case -- all admit i don't think there's a clear minnesota case law but i'm looking at illinois the northern district of illinois, oregon, hawaii, a couple of cases the city of chicago, that is second 75 the northern district of illinoisre oregon versus rodriguez, the 404 the democratic organization of cook county which is 881 is pretty clear for most cases
greater than not minnesota that the indication of the fifth amendment right is anna? question basis and the legitimacy of that is to be determined by the court which makes sense otherwise somebody who did not want to testify. >> i agree with that concept we cited the court case where they talk about the process and essentially this hearing is a substitute for that process because we know from this counsel that he is going to invoke the fifth amendment about the very area she discussed and there is no legitimate way there is notot any question that all f the matters that the council identified are tied intimately to the interactions with mr. floyd that day and in the previous weeks and it ties him,f were not facing the question like and perhaps most cases it might be invoking because they don't want to testify, here's a
legitimate link in the chain for what he's going to beim tasked about and quite a few potential crimes not just the third-degree murder being the most important. we've talked about the sense in the council suggested an alternative perpetrator with the third-degree murder and drug charges, counterfeiting, false information and i don't know how we put on mr. hall to testify asking one question and let him leave without having the ability to pursue as we normally would in a trial the credibility and the foundation for the testimony in light of all we know. i think this case doesn't raise the kinds of questions that are being brought up in the cases the court cited, i cannot speak to them personally right now but here there is no question thatt the singular question the court
is inquiring about our intimately linked to george floyd in the activities of that day and all the other areas -- >> if you look at the case log it is much closer to incriminating behavior like this case that is really clear i would not have ruled the wayay they did i would say that was a proper indication. >> let's do thispe step-by-stepi appreciate your argument and i kinda know where werek heading without this is what i'm going to propose, we are not donee today with this, we are pretty much established or based on what mr. nelson said there is a small narrow topic that might b permissible. , i'm going to ask mr. nelson in the written question form with
the expected answer based on the statements that were made on what that would be, that way mrs and talk about would he be willing to answer those then we can have another hearing outside of the hearing of based on my review of the examination believe the proper indication on a question by question basis and is not a proper indication as mr. hall willing to answer despite is he not going to he's subject to content but i think we get too far ahead, let's say whether the questions were going to ask, let's walk throughgh the jury whether or not i would allow it and that is notha incriminating and based on that mr. hall canan be with his lawyers, i'm talking by thursday and would like that
list. that they can do any indication of cross, the same thing. i'm guessing what you would want to cross mr. hall on with his credibility on that it's pretty much up to you and why did the net something might clearly get into the nominations but and if mr. nelson can get you that you can write a list of questions let's do it outside of the hearing of the jury and he has time to talk to his attorney before we put them on the stand and is limited and this is not a final ruling, this is only part that i think is possibly not subject to a fifth amendment claim tell them what you want to ask, run it by outside the hearing of the jury on a
question by question basis, the determination and based on the ruling will you testify and will go from there and i don't want to push through a ruling and we need to try carefully, his amendment right is a broad one and i agree the link to possible prosecution if everything is linked then it's a blinking prohibition that that is not the case. so everybody's got their homework. >> but for now don't waste your time on the other stuff it's a narrow limited area that we havb to talk about. >> will probably start up at 91 when the jury. >> in recess, thinkingnk mr. hal