Transcripts For CSPAN2 After 20240705

Glad that youre here. This book is truly phenomenal. Ani can say that from somebody who was covering this story, covering this tragedy. And we all knew about the 9 minutes and 29 seconds, but this book really tells us the rest of the story of the tragic murder of george floyd. I want launch right into first what it was like for you to even contemplate writing this book, knowing how professionally, personally invested, really you are and the entire globe at this point. Well, honestly, i felt it was important to document what happened sadly these tragic incidents continue to happen. Weve had a number of, you know, officer involved deaths since george floyd was killed. And if were ever to make progress, weve got to not just, you know, pass good legislation, prosecute that deserve to be prosecuted, but weve also got to document happened i mean i benefited from reading about what happened with freddie gray and rodney those you know, to protect, you know, folks who took the time to write about how to handle those matters, helped me get ready for the george floyd case. I figured that i needed to make a document that could help future generations help manage this problem. And one day ended. And just to think about the decades apart from freddie gray to rodney king and frankly, so many cases in between, i remember, of course, im from your home state of minnesota and just proud of that. And im very of the work thats done there as well. And you were just thinking about there was a time when people did not associate with anything besides, which is a great thing or of course, the Minnesota Twins or any of our wonderful organizations that are out there. But the story of george floyd stopped really an entire world its tracks, even knowing that there had been so many cases before. One of the things you write about in this, its called break the wheel, ending the cycle of Police Violence was that the of this trial in particular was one of the judges most important and best decisions why . Well, because the world got to see it. You know, i honestly had my own misgivings about televising the trial. I thought to myself, well, are we going to lose witnesses . Because people are nervous about appearing on camera and what ended up happening is that the judge said, no, were going to televise the trial because we dont have enough room to meet the constitutional requirement of a public trial because of covid. So nobody, no audience cant be in the courtroom. Therefore, were going to televise it. That ended up being a good thing because in the aftermath so many people came to me and they told me, look, we were glad we saw it were glad we were able to bear witness to history, making sure that was a fair trial, that Derek Chauvin every everything the law allowed terms of what criminal defendants entitled to and yet he was convicted based on that evidence nothing political knowledge except for the agenda of a fair trial. So i thought it was a good thing and i ended up changing my mind and now i have publicly advocated for cameras in the courtroom because i think that it gives people greater confidence in our system. Its a really important given, especially the times we live in right now. We cant see it in a vacuum. People are doubting jury. Theyre doubting peoples ability to be objective and biased. I want to lean into further that, though, because it wasnt that this trial was publicized as this judge did not your book do any favors for the state . You guys werent given a heads up for the verdict you didnt have the normal number of preempt strikes. Youre able to strike a juror for whatever reason. In fact, he gave an equal amount to both prosecution and the defense, which normally does not happen. Well, you know, judge cahill was a defender for many years and he was prosecutor for many years. And i think that what he understood is that this case must be viewed as fair, no matter what the verdict is. So he i mean, he went out of his way to make sure that he was calling an even game. Right. And we there were a lot of decisions that i didnt think were the right ones. And im not saying that they werent the right ones. Im saying that as an advocate, a person involved the adversarial process. I was looking for a different outcome. But at the end of the day, i think he judged a fair case. And the fact is that he had to he make both sides do what they had to do to have a fair trial. So im happy with the that the case was judged as you know we have had appellate involvement in this case and the verdict was upheld recently. And now the defense is going to ask for a petition for review from the minnesota Supreme Court. But were confident. Go ahead, sir. But were confident because. You know, this case has been rigorously litigated every step. So we feel good. What really struck me in midst of this trial and with this book and is you have been so about knowledging that solutions, solving problems such that we face today in terms of officer involved shootings, involved deaths, the relationship in the community and Police Officers more broadly, it never can come down to one trial, one verdict or anything like that. So on the backdrop of sort of the court of public opinion, where this Derek Chauvin trial was really viewed as well as inside the you tackled issue and trying to figure out how break the wheel and you went really spoke by spoke in terms of the learning that did from this trial of what to do why do you think that its so to approach it from a not case by case but societal reform perspective because its going to take all of us. Yes, it will take prosecutors and Defense Attorneys in courtrooms. Thats a part of it. But its also the legislature. The legislature cant say, well, the court did its job, therefore were done. The United States Congress Still has not passed the George Floyd Justice in policing act. Thats too bad. They should take this matter up and focus on it. It could mean more trust in communities between police and community it could mean life or death for some people. And it could save careers. Law enforcement officers who dedicated to equal justice. But, you know, so far we havent seen them step up yet. But, you know, we have seen a lot of local departments pass rules on everything from chokeholds to no knock warrants. We have seen state legislatures move forward on things like qualified immunity and, you know, the setting up registries so that officers who do heinous or bad acts cant just go from department to department. Department with ever would never any accountability. There been a lot of local action but quite frankly i mean the federal action is lacking and needs it needs to happen. So i say its not just one case and one case is one element. One point. And weve got to get it right. But we cant expect to solve this social problem with one case, you know, as you know, you know, this is a matter that has been going on. Clearly since slavery ended. Right. And maybe even before, you know, there is a history of the the Watchman Group in charleston, south carolina, which many people compare to what developed and evolved into a modern Police Department. This has been a long standing problem for literally centuries. You know, in as i was writing this book, i read as many investigative studies as i could about tragic incidents. Police, you know, Excessive Force that erupted into civil unrest. And i started reading them in 19, 19, 1935, 1943, 1950, 45. The commission, the kerner, the christopher commission, all the way up to obama when he has the 21st Century Policing commission. And this has been a recurring serious problem for a time. Its time for all of us throw our shoulders in and make it put it into it. Given i mean, why do you think this has been such the perpetual problem . Is it because those who positions of power are either satisfied with the status quo or they benefit from it . Or is it just some sort of everyday human being . Benefit of the doubt that we want to believe that who are supposed to protect really in fact only have our best at heart. Its both. And i mean, one things for sure. Its not only those men and women who put on the badge and the uniform every day. The problem is bigger than that. It really is much bigger than that. It has to do with prosecutorial discretion and whether or not the prosecutor is going to take the case to a grand jury or it out whether the what theyre going to charge it to do with the way the victim a Police Brutality case is painted from the very. George floyd was right out right from the gate. You know the Minneapolis Police Department Said that george floyd died in a medical emergency. Never mentioned force. Then of course we saw you know the judges have a deep and very important role. We talked a little about judge cahill and that in the case he called, but he wasnt the only judge in this. We could go all the way back to the United States Supreme Court, which is the case, which is the that set up graham versus connor, which is the Legal Standard or Excessive Force cases. And let me tell you, graham first is kind of basically says, you know, if an officer acted unreasonably from the perspective of the officer without benefit of hand hindsight, then then you know the upper hand acted, then the officer could be liable for and be accountable in a criminal court. But if the after officer acted reasonably from, the perspective of a reasonable officer, even if officer was wrong, then that officer not be held accountable. And as much as that standard has made it difficult for victims to get relief, its better what was there before the standard under johnson versus glik was that it was malicious yet to prove maliciousness. Right now now youre getting into the into recess of somebodys mind and their motivation very difficult to prove. So you know, bottom line is, the Supreme Court laid out the standard and in courts all over the country have followed it. And you know so right on down to those to call the balls and strikes in the in the cases that are brought. So its the prosecutors its the judges its the media are all kind of coming together to, protect the status quo, in my view. Thats what thats what the wheel is. You know, those things together was key to kind of keep on rolling. But im saying that the wheel itself needs to be broken because the wheel is perpetual. A lot of things that are not good for society, such as a lack of trust. Members of Community Need to be able to trust their Police Officers. They to be able to believe that officer if i call, theyre going to come, theyre going to help where . In some communities because we have allowed impunity to prevail. People cant say that. And weve seen reductions in cooperation people not cooperating with or with with subpoenas, people not giving statements, people not coming forward with what they saw. And then, you know, trust issue is a real problem which creates unsafely it creates a lawless when you dont have that cooperation. But you also have to bend is pressure on municipal budgets. Laura so for example, over the last ten years we paid out 100 million in Police Misconduct cases in minneapolis. Thats an extraordinary amount to think. Think about all all the playgrounds werent built, all the potholes that werent filled, all the lighting that was wasnt done. Think about the opportunities that we because were paying to pay for misconduct, that is a big deal. And dont even Start Talking about new york, chicago, los angeles, other cities. When you could get into 150 million, 200 million. Its its an enormous amount of money that were paying out to pay for misconduct. And then, of course. Well, let me let me unpack one thing, because i i want to touch on each of the points you just raised. But i want to circle back for a moment to the standards from the Supreme Court, because i think that it cannot be given short shrift. The grand versus conner decision. And the idea of having officers essentially be the sole and the sole position actually judge the reasonableness of conduct can make many people many prosecutors rely into ever endeavor to even charge or go before a grand jury on issue of Police Misconduct for that very reason which is perhaps one of the most striking aspects of the work done in the Derek Chauvin trial, because the choice was made to ask the jury to make that determination and decide whether. It, in fact, could be under this grand versus conner and the reasonableness to standard in the boldness of that decision. It didnt seem that bold to most people. Attorney general ellison the idea of lets go ahead and test the particulars Supreme Court precedent but in fact it is one of the biggest muzzles for prosecco haters across the country in their charging. Why were why was the team in this case so confident to keep going. Well because we didnt think we had any other choice. You know, we had to put the case in front of the jury and let the chips where they did. I mean, ive come to the conclusion that not pursuing accountability, because we could lose was the wrong decision. As a prosecutor, i hope prosecutors who read the book think to themselves that. Its better to try the case and lose than to simply not ever charge it. Because you think you might lose. Right. I mean, but many think thats the standard that if i cannot. I wont even indict a case, theyll say at least i can go and guarantee beyond a reasonable doubt in the hands of really juries that never really guarantee that. Youre right. Yeah. You know, youve been there, so, you know, and i mean, but heres the thing. Prosecutors. You dont know what the jury is going to say until they said it. I know. I didnt know. You know, i never know. Juries have a tendency to think for themselves why they exist. And so if you believe that there is probable cause that that this defendant is guilty of this charge, and you believe you can put evidence front of a jury that could be that that would sustain that charge. Then you should do it, even if you dont get a slam dunk. Because, look, you could the elements of the charge and still think, well, you know maybe i wont win. My thought is give the jury a chance. The jury represents the people, the 12 folks who dont know the, defendant dont know. You dont know the dont know the judge. Now, let them stand in front of these facts, see what they say and well learn a lot more. Ill tell you, we had a Federal District court jury that the three defendants had to face because because chauvin pled guilty the federal case and they found guilty. I mean, a lot of people would have doubted that outcome. You know we prosecuted other officers. Let the jury decide it. Its the jurys decision. I think that we have, as prosecutors must have probable cause, must be able to sustain sustain the case to character, bind it, open for trial. But at that point, youre just selfcentered thing. And, you know, and quite honestly, i think theres a lot we ask ourselves as prosecutors, do we have so much social life, so much friendship and so much political relationship between police and prosecutors that we cant hold them accountable or that, you know, is that a question we need to at least entertain to get to the bottom of this . Perhaps its one of many in terms of what some can view as perhaps socially incestuous, to use a phrase on that. But at the same token, im trying to find jury in a case as wellknown as, the tragic murder of, george floyd, when the video obviously went viral. I mean, there is this conundrum that you talk about in this book, break the wheel between trying to cure a jury, but do so and still preserve the objective of that jury and to show the world that there are some thumb being put on the scale that took a great deal of effort with an eye towards ethics. The belief in our jury system. Tell me about what that process was like to even try to a jury that would be able do this. Well, it was open question from the start because of the very you identified everybody the video. But as you know the standard is not are you completely ignorant the facts of the case. The standard is can you be fair and, impartial. And so what we were looking for is jurors who would admit that they had a bias. And quite frankly, im very grateful to those jurors because of a juror said, look, i cant this is not the right case for me. Give me another one, because i already have mixed feelings about this. Then you know, that juror has done a service for the system because theyve allowed themselves to to go to another case where they can be fair and impartial in our case. You know, we had to pick it. Everybody saw it. Nobody didnt see it. But we we got enough people to say, i can suspend whatever i have set it aside and just make the decision based on what comes before me as a juror in this. And i and i am sure those jurors did their duty i am positive they asked to be asked a lot of questions. They were rigorous, easily interrogated. You know, i mean, there were a few times i said, is this is this a juror or, you know, because they were asked a lot of questions and what they came down to was, i can be fair. And some jurors, you know, i had you know, we had a very jury, as you know. Laura, you had six men, six women, six black folks or folks african descent and six people who who are white. And what we did is we we just asked him two questions. And, quite frankly it wasnt just race that we were concerned about. It was also do people have a pre any biases. It relates to chemical. Right. Do people any biases as relates to poverty . Do people have by you know, what do people know . Do they believe. We needed some who would not hold it against george floyd that he had struggled with opioids. Right. That was a big deal. That was another thing. We were worried about, you know, but at the end of the i think what we got is one of the most diverse juries ive ever seen in hennepin county. Hennepin county, as you know, is a predominantly white county. And jurors reflect that. And yet we had about as even a jury as you could get. And i had some people say, well, how did that happen . Well, its a statistical it happens, right . Its within realm of possibility. And it happened in this case. And you know, these jurors were selected way back in the summer. Right. And randomly generated through a random system. And so of that, you know, we ended up with jury that we were enough could could be fair and impartial and just thinking about just how history. And you go through this in your book. Well, break the wheel talking about the dynamics at play. It is a person who is the victim who is of a different race. The person who is the alleged perpetrator of the crime. There can be a variety responses from jurors on these issues and things that are baked into the kind of recipe of the cake that still shows that race very much still part of our society. Lets dig into that jury, though, in terms of what had to see, because as you mentioned, it was televised. And so we all became virtual members in jury pool without the benefit of that voir, which was an extensive worksheet will mention as well. But the the the decision of how to curate this case sequence of events, the decision to begin not from that contact with the officers but instead through the Vantage Point of the people who found themselves outside of that cup foods thats really about that. Well, you know, i wasnt we all would talk were discussing and you know, youve done the work laura so you know you know lawyers and paralegals will sit around and say, well where shall we begin . You know, theres a lot of different choices. And i had the benefit of going sit and have lunch with. My brother, after this tragic murder. And i was going to see my dad, whos 94 years young. And i got on a plane, went to detroit, sat down. My brother you know, said, lets go grab some lunch. So we sit and he says, know those people were like the good samaritans. They didnt know the man lying the road. They didnt know who he was or what he did before they saw him. But they saw he was a person and put them to put themselves at risk in order to preserve his life as much as they could. They didnt they werent able to preserve his life, but they at least documented what happened to him. And they were a very mixed group. They were they were black. They were white. They were young. They were older male. They were female. One of them was a nine Year Old Girl that had a shirt that had love on it. And of course we all know our scene. I mean, we all know Darnella Frazier, who is you know, took that video which she was viral around the world those were randomly selected by fate i guess and in that way. Theyre like the jury. Laura in that way. Theyre like the jury. And they had just happened be at that place in that time on memorial day around 8 p. M. And they saw what they saw and, they and they raised their voices and they took their videos. And so thats where we began. Thats where we started the case, because thats what really mattered. You know what . You know, the in my brother called them the good samaritans, you know, and he said, look, you know, these people, if you ever want to if youre ever cynical about ordinary people, look at that scene. Thats people doing what they can do. Or a stranger. And it was it was a spiritual thing. Even though george did not survive that encounter, when he came back give it came back a year later and told what they saw. And that took a lot of guts. Absolutely. I was just thinking about how profound the thought of them being randomly by fate and to receive the evidence as it comes in and still come with their own lives with them as we ask every juror in this country to do, and the lasting effects of what they have seen as well. I remember covering this case. You, of course, were watching it and you were unbelievably invested and involved in it as so were. Talk me about the decision to have the repetition of the death scene. It was very difficult. Watch even when it used the word very intentionally or not. Redundancy because i dont mean it into in a pejorative way, but just the decision to continuously show it. Walk me through what that Decision Making was like. Well, it was a hard decision and. I would tell you at least two reasons why i was tough. One reason it was very tough is because it was going to put the victims family through it time and time again. How many times should floyd have to watch his brother die on video and to make a decision would make his life more difficult. After all, hed been through was not easy for us. The other reason it was difficult is we were worried about overdoing it. The jury might get immune or desensitized. We really believe that that is what happened in the rodney king case. They played it so much and they slowed it down so much that after a while, jury just sort of their eyes glazed over. But we felt we had to play it when we played it. And that was a number of times because we didnt because there were a lot of different videos. There was the sky cam. There was a video over, the scene. It wasnt just the Darnella Frazier video. There were a lot of videos in a lot of different places. It was people from the gas station across the street took video and the last thing i wanted is for the defense to oh, they didnt show you x, y, z video, which shows that my clients are innocent, right . They didnt show you this. They didnt show that. So we made a decision to make sure that we foreclose the possibility the defense claiming that we were hiding anything and that meant that had to play a lot of video. We would, you know, a good defender and again i used to do defense used to do in the criminal system. It is your job to poke holes in the governments case. Thats what you do. The constitution requires you to be a zealous advocate. And. And yet we knew that. That those defense counsel were going to be trying to that we didnt show everything and that the one thing that we didnt show is the reasonable doubt. And we had to say, nope is not right. That is in wrong. And so we ended showing a lot of video, but it came with some risks. Laura and we were aware of them, but we just got to run a, you know, sometimes you got to run those risk societally with the sheer number that people have become increasingly familiar with and covered in Mainstream Media and National Attention to cases, otherwise and decades of yesterday would have been confined to the local news, if at all. Right. Do you have concern that . People are becoming dissents excised more broadly, just the interactions of Police Officers. You hear about yet another instance that people are more inclined now to turn the channel or look than they were before. You know you know, that has me a lot but you know when i the tragedy involving ty nichols in memphis i also saw people expressed extreme outrage at what happened to that young man and as tragic as that event was, and it was absolutely tragic. Tragic it still showed that we have a healthy sense of outrage when see injustice happening right in front of our eyes. So i dont peoples appetite for justice has changed. But i do think that people have gotten to a point where its like, look, you know, we got the street protested. We let our voices be heard. I made own little signs and placards, did them by hand. And yet, you know, the us Congress Still hasnt passed the George Floyd Justice in policing act and yet these incidents to happen. So my hope is that people will never lose their sense of outrage. I dont expect them to be surprised. But i but i do hope that they continue to be shocked, because if youre shocked at inhumanity, that means you still have some of your own in. And so i guess thats how i see it laura. You know, we are we are getting to the point where were burning people out and but i dont think people are going be burned out. I think theyre going to keep on pushing keep on pressing and never give up because this is a solvable problem. And we would be a Better Society if we solved this problem. And i just want people to remember that that is true being tired of being tired has been one of the more motivating aspects of a variety movements, the frustration that comes and people exhausted by whats the the cycle continuing, which is why break the wheel i think is such an intrigue anbook in particularecause it comes at a time following many an Inflection Point but it offers Pragmatic Solutions by having conversations with people who are the community stakeholders. You talk to the unions. You talk to Police Officers, talk to defense and prosecution. Walk me through your approach. Why was it so crucial to ensure that you preaching to people through the book but you were inviting them into the conversation and allowing the readers to be the flies on the wall . Well, you know, the one thing for sure that large numbers of Police Officers do not like the status. We had 14 officers sign an open letter denouncing what Derek Chauvin did and many more would have signed. But they were worried about the repercussions to themselves. But everywhere we went, talked to Police Chiefs around the country, all who agree and even chief denounced what happened. So, i mean, you really solve this problem without getting with a stake in the problem a say so as to how we move forward. Going to be the one im going to be trying to talk to folks can genuinely bring them to to to a better solution saying to officers look youre wellness is a part of this too. How much of of you know how much how many rapes, robberies, murders . And can a person see every day and have it not impact them at some point . Part of the solution has to be officer wellness. I dont think we need to abolish the police. I think that is not the solution as prosecutor, i know that private citizens commit horrendous crimes against each other, enough so that weve got to have somebody who we can rely on to help us maintain safety. Although i dont think policing in prisons alone enough to have a safe society. But its but it really does take all of us in. But we have solved more Serious Problems than in the past. We can solve this problem as well. But youve got to keep everybody involved. Interestingly enough, laura before months, four months before george floyd was killed, myself and john harrington, who you may know, the former commissioner of public safety, we led a task force, a working group on reducing Deadly Force Encounters with police. John harrington is he believes blue. Hes a cops cop. He was the chief police in saint paul. The chief of police of the metro transit police. He was hes been involved in policing his whole life. His father was a cop. His brothers a cop. And he still is involved in this. He and i led a group to try to get everybody the table. Civil rights folks, black matter folks and police, rural and urban prosecute, his people in the Mental Health community to come together to talk about what were going do and make some recommendations. We passed lot of those and, you know, but the thing is, we cant just we just cant quit. This problem is worse. But its going to take everybody. We got to be honest and clear. And that might rub some people wrong, but we need to be gratuitously honest in the sense that, no, we did not not honest, but we not be gratuitously sharp and insulting know. But we got to be clear and we got to end in if the truth hurts than it does. But weve got to get real facts out there so that we can discuss issues and get to some meaningful change. People often try to be reductive. Their approach to reform and those that are opposing will often point to a slogan and theyll point to defund the police the slogan or abolishing the polices. Whether there are politicians who support that or not it gained traction virtue of the fact that it still is in in our public lexicon. The defund the police discussions have a origin in part to conversations minnesota walking through why you think people held on to the defund the Police Slogan as rallying cry to try to undermine reform when that wasnt really what was actually intended right. Well youre absolutely right about that. That was not what was intended. I do think that republicans and im just being candid here, thought that it could give them an advantage in the election if they told citizens that candidates were concerned about their safety and wanted to take the agency away, who would help ensure their safety. And so i think it ended up being a political tool. In fact, i dont know anybody ran on defund the police, but it was certainly something that heard a lot in political ads. I will tell that what people who did use that terminology met and i and i know some and talk some and disagree with them, but they meant is they said, look, you know, we defunded schools we defunded health care, we defunded housing in the richest country in the world. We got People Living in tents. Were were not dealing with peoples Mental Health needs and, you know, but were not. But with the budgets for the police are very, very robust in large. Is that fair . No, i think that that question around how we allocate resources is a fair question and an important policy debate. But its also true that that phraseology got picked and weaponized and really unfortunate Democratic Candidates and even republicans who want to get to reform have to be able to say, thats a red herring. Nobody is calling for that. And now lets get back to the subject at hand, which is how we create more respect between police and community. And ill just say this, laura, if i may. Look, the constitution of the United States, the Fourth Amendment, basically says that there should be no unreasonable searches, seizures. What does that really . It means the government cannot use arbitrary violence against, people. Now, that is a principle every single american ought to be able to get around. Right. Every single american be able to say the government the people who monopolize force in our society cannot use arbitrary violence and force against people. And i that that principle is something that we can come together on. Now, the other the other stuff, the political rhetoric, the divisive language, it doesnt it doesnt save anybody. It doesnt help the police, doesnt help citizens doesnt help anyone. But getting around the language of the Fourth Amendment might actually holds a promise for us and help us move forward. You know, you go spoke by spoke in break the wheel on these very issues from conversation with prosecutors as i mentioned to heads of police unions. Historians are very much a part of the conversation. Judges, activists media figures, legislators, you run the gamut of whats happening. And i one of the connective threads to all of this has been that old phrase of follow the money. And you alluded to this earlier in our conversation about the resources and what and how theyre allocated and not just the monetary ones, but also the priorities of legislation, a resource, but also the idea of what it costs tax payers when there are issues within Police Departments, the amount of money that is going that. What has been the taxpayer response when youre in an elected position yourself . Sure. What has been the reaction to the resources to prosecuting cases. This. Well, you know heres the reality prosecute shooting police not been a priority for for prosecutors for anyone its i think that were approaching the level of impunity that these matters are not dealt with adequately enough over time. But know look we put we put we put priority on prison on policing and prosecutor budgets. You generally theyre adequate to meet needs. I mean in minnesota my office backs up prosecutors whenever they do have a resource drain, but we put our resource are not really in the upstream things we need to prevent these problems from happening in the first place. Lets never george floyd was a poor person because. He was dis employed by covid. He was dis employed by covid and because he was a he a bouncer at a nightclub, a security person at a nightclub and other places and those places shut down because covid. So he found himself out of money. Was the treatment he received because people saw him as a low income person and in how could we have made sure that he had the resources that he need so people wouldnt just judge him based on who they thought he was . The resources that we that we that we allocate throughout society, lord knows, we put, you know, we make sure that the texts, the text culture is advantageous to the wealthy people. We make sure the military budgets that all the money that they possibly need. It is true that our Police Budgets gone up even in the midst of covid, but it is also true that weve got to put money into the upstream things that will allow people to avoid Law Enforcement contact in the first place, like housing, like education, like Mental Health and Chemical Health. Those resources need to be president as well. Really to think about the prevention cure, particularly thinking about even this trial in the midst of covid19 in this and the extensive pandemic. The issue of chemical dependency which you raise as a concern even for juries. And im going back to your original initial comment, bookending almost the freddie gray case with a rodney king. The views societally about drug use this country has really changed idea of an opioid pandemic, an epidemic going on. Have seen when youre talking about this almost a societal paradigm shift, are you seeing that in real time in your ability to prioritize the cases that ought to be project commuted or even peoples appetite right to be compared in it and still be objective . I think that we have made progress since the 1990, but we still have a long, long ways to go when it comes to chemical dependency. In the 1990s we were had we had we were approving as a society, brought in loaders to bash through Public Housing where we thought crack was being sold right in 1990s. We doubled sentences and you know really exploded the carceral state and which is also a resource allocation by the way. And so today that approach is is we see less often. But i will tell you that people often struggling to the treatment that they need. They often are getting our judgment opposed to you know, the, you know, chemical dependency to be freed of addiction. When we dont we dont yet we have not yet arrived at the point where we see drug addiction and Chemical Health as a Public Health problem. We still stuck in we see it as a moral, failing as opposed to, you know, a medical problem. And, you know, heres the thing. One of the reasons that we called Courtney Ross as a witness who was George Floyds girlfriend is because we wanted to show the jury someone who got a car accident, need care, chronic pain, started taking vicodin and ended up becoming dependent. Right. And that george floyd got this got in the same situation because he was an athlete and his body suffered and he had chronic pain and he started using opioids, started and got chemically. And so there we go again. Right. We need to we need as a society to say that drug addiction is does not mean youre a bad person. And you know, again, you know, as society, were not that balanced because. You know, we tolerate chemical dependency and somebody like Rush Limbaugh or somebody else. But for somebody like george floyd, in our case, we were having to contend with the allegation that, oh, drug equals thug, if he was on drugs, that he deserved what he got if he was on drugs. He doesnt deserve the protection of, the law. That was a stereotype we to fight. And let me tell you, defense had it in all of their documents was saying it on television, trying to get the jury buy into that stereotype as well, and to contrast though that and which i thought the phrase that sticks in my head from the trial was the duty of care that was a right under that and in your care a duty of care was and and what that looks and i ive often wondered following that and in my many conversations with Law Enforcement since theres always this question theres the rub of when a Prosecutor Police officer is prosecuted, does it lessen the morale of officers and make them want to lean back as opposed to lean in, on the other hand, as well, does this is going to change the way in which policing is done . Have you found that there have been cases since that you have heard about or been reading about or in your conversation with your counterpart in other states that the lessons, the Derek Chauvin trial have translated into deterrence. Well, let me tell you the phrase me uses in your custody is in your care, in your custody is in your care. When someones in custody, they cant seek health care on their own. They cant seek treatment on their own. They cant during your custody, they are confined by the state and are not free. And so in your custody really is in care. And you have to make sure that person gets their needs met. If youre the one detaining them. So thats what the idea. Now youre talking about this process. They call it de policing and that is after there is a profile incident of Excessive Force, Police Brutality. Sometimes what you see is officers withdrawing because they they get reluctant to be held accountable because they think that if were doing assertive policing, then something bad can happen. And then i will be blamed for it. But yes, i have seen that ive. Seen that. I oftentimes dont buy it as a as explanation. And heres reason why is because officers dont get in trouble for. Understandable mistakes. They get in trouble for horrendous mistakes. I mean, whats the so like rodney king was beaten like 59 times 59 blows. What explains that . Right. George floyd, somebody was on his neck for 9 minutes and 29 seconds. Is thats not a close call. Thats pretty great. Pretty gruesome. I mean i mean, not freddie gray, but Laquan Mcdonald shot 19 times. The officer said he was walking towards them with a knife. In fact, he was walking away. So this idea that were not going to do our job because if we do our job, people will think that were being too aggressive. I i dont i think that theres a lot to be said about that than then. I think thats a position that needs to be challenged because, i dont i dont buy it, quite honestly. I think it certainly has happened. But is the real reason that people accountability if theyre too . No, i think whats going on is that its like, oh, you dont like how we do policing . Well, then were not going to do policing and then see how you like that. You know what you do . See . Upticks in crime after some of these tragic incidents. And we saw it in minneapolis. We saw it in other places. I think that there is a certain in in minneapolis. Not only do you see people sort of like stepping back and being less to stop crime, we actually saw well, 200 officers seek. Medical medical leave because of that situation. So, you know, that just complicates the whole situation, makes it a little tougher. As i said, officer wellness is a key issue and weve to make sure that we are making officer wellness a priority. But going back to your original question. Have we seen this withdrawal of Security Services after a high profile polices it . Yeah, weve seen it. Its unfortunate. And the explanation ive been given has not i have not found convincing. It strikes me as though the more optimistic slant it though that part of the legacy of this tragedy if could find a kind of silver has been that the experts that were used in this trial. The idea of the exposure of and the transparency of experts, the actions and the Police Practices or the nature of the use of force, have you seen that its had a positive impact. The training of other police and other departments . Oh, absolutely. I mean the way that the memphis Police Department responded to in nichols . I think was a was an ancillary spot. It was a tragic situation that no one would ever want. But given that that tragic incident. You saw the chief step up, released information. The press the investigation was was swift. There was a lot of videotape got released after the officers were able to review it. I think that that is an example of lessons being absorbed, being learned. I also will tell you that i think that you have a lot more Police Officers who who who will stand up and say thats wrong, which is very important. Right. Weve got to have situation where officers feel comfortable staying that, you know, when see something that is improper and right. That it is there is not that they can behind. You know, i think that that is another thing weve seen more weve local governments respond weve seen in minneapolis weve had the city council and the mayor passed a policy or a no knock warrants chokeholds things that and were seeing more action on the local level still need see some on the federal level. But i cannot agree with folks who say nothing has been done a lot has been done more needs to be done. You know, attorney general ellison, there was a time when you were called congressman ellison at federal level. I remember speaking to you when you had decided to make the transition from a member of congress to the Attorney Generals Office and successfully so as many, many people dont know this always realize you were the first africanamerican and the first Muslim American to elected statewide in an office in minnesota. Theres a lot of power to be harnessed and wielded at the congressional level. Why did you choose this position . Is it because you were perhaps prescient and realizing that the front lines is really at the state level . Well, the reason is that im in it for the public service. Thats why i want to do it. And i was privileged and honored to be in congress 12 years. But, you know, as attorney general, im able to try to impact problems on a regular and basis as available, be involved in this case. But then there have been a number of i mean, we you know, weve been the minnesota ag, weve actually brought cases against, papers like jewel. Thats public thats thats protecting the the the lungs of our young people. We brought them a settlement last week of. 60. 5 million for the people of the state of minnesota to that loss. I mean, were on the front lines, when it comes to trying to deal with keya and hyundai, which are two automakers whose cars stolen far, far far more than any other brand. Were trying to make them more accountable, make their cars a little bit more like other cars are harder to steal. You know what stuff on guns were trying to hold the gun traffickers accountable. Weve actually filed a lawsuit. And so it is its being on the front lines. So im in it for the service. Im in it for trying to make peoples lives different. And. I mean, to bring in more balance. I want to be a voice for those Police Officers do their job well every day and love doing their job and want to do it right. You know, thats what i want to do. I mean, washington is great. But, you know, it. Two and a half hour plane ride from my home id rather be at home in the mix sleeves up fight the good fight. Well, it strikes me that you are a unique position to be able to have the landscape and to have where you think your service is best, most needed. This book, break the wheel ending the cycle of poli violence. It really goes into detail and just how you can be as productive as you can with blueprint in front of you to solve where nations most long lasting crises. Thank you so much for this conversation. Attorney general keith ellison. It was pleasure. Thank you,