Skip to main content

tv   Day 7 of Trial for Derek Chauvin Accused in Death of George Floyd  CSPAN  April 7, 2021 12:47am-1:12am EDT

12:47 am
attorneys considering whether to have maurice hall testify. he was in the car with george floyd when law enforcement first approached during - - while outside the cup foods convenience store time but obvit
12:48 am
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
12:49 am
statement specifically name mr. hall and told the jury that >> on a motion from witness maurice hall, so your name. representing mr. hall today? [inaudible] >> your attorneys are present you should see them at that time obviously we are not in a position you consult privately with them today. spirit this is mr. hall's motion to quash the subpoena who would like to address it? take up your mask if you would like. >> thank you judge. and what your honor. mr. hollis been subpoenaed in this case by the prosecution and defense. defense counsel and opening statement specifically names mr. hall as 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
12:50 am
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
12:51 am
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 close proximity to mr. floyd. they say that mr. floyd ingested a controlled substance while he was removed from and the car has been searched twice and drugs of and found twice now this incriminate himself with third-degree murder and specifically subdivision be and that the court is well aware covers third-degree murder liability for someone involved in drug activity eventually leading to an overdose. is not just a situation to succumb to an overdose in fact it includes any activity directly or indirectly unlawfully selling or giving away bartering, delivering, exchangig a controlled substance classified as scheduled one or two. that statute is broad and has been interpreted broadly by the court
12:52 am
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 in fact anyone pointed to m as a link in the chain is distribution or prepares drugs for someone else, someone is a go-between can be implicated in third-degree murder. any activities he would be testifying before police arrived could potentially commit him with drug use. the other testimony is any personal knowledge that he has drug use upt to and including mh for the exact same reason. .
12:53 am
>> 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 leaves him open to exposure. he could potentially incriminate himself. >> what i will do is ask mr. nelson to list for the court the topics and areas if there is something out of what you just outlined. maybe there is some common ground. switch places. >> it is your honor the defense intent certainly any events leading up to mr. hall and mr. floyd's arrival at cap foods earlier in the day and what they were doing.
12:54 am
mr. hall's interactions with mr. floyd 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
12:55 am
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
12:56 am
be incriminating, would you agree with that? >> yes. >> use and possession of drugs by both of them during drugs by both of them that day. that could incriminate him based on representation. would you agree with that quick. >> yes. >> just about everything you want to ask him except the following. you would have a legitimate right to invoke with amendment against compelled self-incrimination. how george floyd appeared when he was back in the car and falling asleep suddenly. >> i'm sure council will say that incriminating. >> i do not believe that in and of itself incriminate's
12:57 am
mr. hall with the description of mr. floyd falling asleep but the implication fentanyl was found in mr. floyd system, and it causes a person to fall asleep that that would be connectable he on - - connected to a controlled substance remotely perhaps but not in and of itself. >>. >> unfortunately you have the benefit of the testimony but it appears it is a proper invocation of fifth amendment rights for just about everything mr. nelson is talking about. the one exception is his observation sitting in the passenger seat of the car is how mr. floyd appeared. that he was falling asleep and happened suddenly. very narrow. the reason i say that is we have a parallel testimony from a clerk in the store who said
12:58 am
mr. floyd appeared good nature, seem to be having a good day but he appeared to be high. i don't think i would allow counsel to ask that. because that could form an opinion for a basis he knew why he was under the influence. but it seems mr. hall's description of the store clerk will not incriminate him if there is no questioning about how he felt safer why he thinks he felll asleep of there were drugs in the car if he knew they were drugs in the car or if he had position if we totally avoid drugs and mr. hall say i was a passenger in the car which is already clear. there is video and evidence. now he is in the passenger
12:59 am
seat. and is removed by the police.d beyond that, it was established he was established asam the passenger, what was mr. floyd's condition he observed immediately before that? would you agree that is not incriminating if we keep all the mention of drugs. >> no your honor. >> how did that not incriminate the clerk then how would that with mr. hall? >> because first of all the inquiry is not what evidence is in front h of the jury but what evidence they have heard. >> that didn't incriminate the store clerk to say he appeared high. mr. hall said he fell asleep and fell asleep suddenly. it is a parallel type of evidence. it was in analogies.
1:00 am
the whole point is to prevent mr. hall from incriminating himself. him even answering that question he was in thero car but some him in very close proximity with mr. floyd before he is alleged to be in just team drugs and exposes him on the third-degree murder charge. if there was a future third-degree murder charge and mr. hall was based on drug activity that caused mr. floyd due to an overdose, him even being in the car incriminate him in terms of behavior, what he observed and when he observed it. no your honor. i would argue it p definitely would expose him to potential incrimination. this is a car were drugs have been found twice. >> the state has that evidence. that did not incriminate him. the video of him does not incriminate him. that is not subject them to criminalal liability spirit that
1:01 am
is the key word yet. >> is observations of how george floyd that would incriminate him? that i know how to put them closer to criminal liability. >> because it then takes the onus off the state in the future to prove demeanors and behaviors mr. floyd was exhibiting if they charge mr. hall with a crime. now they have his own testimonyat to use his testimony against him. >>d just the fact he testifies does not make it incriminating. >> but it would use f to incriminate him in future prosecution. >> anyway. mr. frank? do you have a dog in the fight? >> we do. thank you, you're in honor.
1:02 am
our dog in the fight is a fair trial for mr. chauvin. what we can't have is invocation of this privilege in front of the jury. this questioning that the court is offering or suggesting create a future problem bringing the case to the court is because the questioning would not exist in a vacuum. the standard is not just whether thise evidence itself in court the tory or implicate tim that creates a link. that is partly what ms. cousins is referring to a person in the vehicle that he creates part of that link. this does not exist in a
1:03 am
vacuum. there would be other questions 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 by question in front of the jury. >> but in this case in excruciating detail go through motions of limiting what questions we could ask other witness based on the fifth amendment rights and what could possibly incriminate him. but you have to admit, the caldwell case is a totally different situation. that man wanted to testify despite being warned everything in then realized we get them in more trouble thanpl he thought. it's a complete opposite. >> as an illustration, your honor, how despite that
1:04 am
witness trying to tailor his evidence to meet a certain goal, it just could not t be done. unfortunately in that case with that invocation that is where they ended up in that case. we cannot have that in j front of a jury. mr. hall would be faced with question by question determination of what we are arguing about this morning. that's why a blanket invitation is allowed. the standard is rather broad. >> what case law says there is such a thing as a blanket invocation. >> i cannot cite a case yet. >> i will admit i don't think there is clear minnesota case law on it. but i am looking at illinois, northern district of illinois, oregon and hawaii.
1:05 am
oregon versus rodriguez. the oregon appellate four oh four. shackman versus democratic organization of cook county 920. it is pretty clear from those cases. the invocation of the fifth amendmentn right is on a question by question basis and legitimacy should be determined by the court. otherwise someone who just didn't want to testify to just say fifth amendment right. >> i agree with the concept. there is a case they talk about a large air process. it is a substitute but he will invoke the fifth amendment about the very area she discussed.
1:06 am
there is no legitimate way. no question that all of the matters that council identified are tied intimately to his interactions with mr. floyd that day and in the previous weeks. and it ties him. weer are not perhaps in those cases maybe it was just invoking because they don't want to testify, here there is a legitimate link in the chain for what he will be asked about and quite a few potential crimes not just the third-degree murder. that is the most important. we talk about the sense almost an alternative perpetrator but also drug charges, counterfeiting, false information. i don't know how we put him on to ask you one question that without the ability to pursue
1:07 am
as we would in a trial with thend credibility for that testimony in light of all that we know. this does not raise the kind of questions and what the court cited. i cannot speak to those personally right now but no question to george floyd. >> if you look at the case law it is much closer to incriminating closer to behavior that is really clear i would've said that is a proper invocation. te>> let's do this step-by-step. i appreciate your argument. this is what i propose.
1:08 am
we are not done today with we can pretty much establish based on what mr. nelson said, it is a very small, narrow topic that might be permissible. what i will do is ask mr. nelson to give a draft in written question form with the t expected answer based on whatever statements were made on what that would be. that we mr. hall can meet with his lawyers to talk about if you would be willing to answer those his lawyers, i'm talking
1:09 am
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
1:10 am
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
1:11 am
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. ha. >> watching live coverage on c-span2 on the seventh day of that we can have another hearing based on my review of the examination and the question by question basis. if not a proper invocation he is subject to contempt. but we get too far ahead. let's look at the questions we ask him. whether or not i

1 View

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on