he told another guy, he ain't no shuffler, this guy is an asshole. he commented he wanted him, ahmaud arbery, to know we weren't playing. if i could have got an shot of the guy, i would have shot him. travis mcmichael claims he was in shock, but it's interesting because he talks about his concern for his child and his own well-being. part of this was while the victim was actually laying there in the street, commented this was the worst day in my life. i think it's been touched on here today. there were other individuals that were impacted. i look at the video of this incident -- when i say the video, i think everybody knows what i'm talking about. but there was one part of it that struck me as absolutely chilling. it was the enhanced video provided by the gpi. there's a frame where it looks
the scene, this guy ain't no sl shuffler, this guy is an asshole, commented that he wanted him, ahmaud arbery to know that we weren't playing. if i could have gotten a shot at the guy, i would have shot him. travis mcmichael claims he was in shock, but it's interesting because he talks about his concern for his child and his own well being. part of this was while the victim was actually laying there in the street. he commented this is the worst day of my life. well, i think it's been touched on here today, there were other individuals that were impacted. i look at the video of this incident, when i say the video, i think everybody knows what we're talking about, but there was one part of it that struck me as absolutely chilling, and that is, i believe it's in the enhanced video provided by the gbi. there's a frame where i believe ahmaud arbery, it looks to be,
i don't know. and in that same sentence, he could be arrested, or at least identified. so this is all for identification. this, this whole entire thing, this was all to do what. identify mr. arbery. that's what we're doing. that's what greg michael says. how do you know it was an attack on mr. arbery? strangers with intent to kill. i yelled, stop, or i'll blow your fucking head off or something. i wanted him to know that we weren't playing. this is what he said to the police. now, he got up here and went, oh, yeah, he was just confused, he didn't mean that. he didn't remember what he said. really?! he probably told the police, this is what he said to mr. arbery. we're going to kill you if you don't stop.
did he break into a house today? i don't know. and in that same sentence, he could be arrested or at least identified. so this is all for identification. this, this whole entire thing, this, this was all to do what? identify mr. arbery. that's what we're doing. that's what greg mcmichael says. how do you know it was an attack on mr. arbery? strangers with intent to kill? i yelled, stop or i'll blow your fucking head off or something. i wanted to let him know that we weren't playing. this is what he said to the police. now, got up here and said, yeah, he was just confused. he didn't mean that. he didn't remember what he said. really? he proudly told the police, this is what he said to mr. arbery. we're going to kill you if you
0 there he goes. this is the white truck. he's still underneath here. here comes somebody to the truck. he's right there. here comes greg mcmichael-he comes around. he gets in. then mr. albenze starts walking down the street. truck pulls out. there goes his arm. there goes his arm. where is the truck? already pulled out. already pulled out and heading down the street. all right. should you trust the statements of travis mcmichael? well, let's go ahead and first take a look at this. he told you he's not going to chase or investigate someone who is armed, and yet all he talked about was, he kept reaching into his pants, kept reaching into his pocket. well, did you think he was armed or not? then what did he tell you? this is what i was thinking. mr. arbery may have run by. maybe matt had seen him. maybe he has broken in. maybe harry english is over at 220. i don't know. maybe ahmaud arbery was caught. maybe ahmaud arbery was trying to run from the police. these are all maybes. he doesn't know anything. these are all the maybes he testified to. he said he assumed he was committing a crime. that's what he said on the stand. remember? i wrote it out. you said you assumed he was committing a crime. i went down there to see if it was him. then he said, i don't know. i don't know what he did that day. i don't know. then he wanted to talk about his totality of the circumstances and all that stuff that he knew that was going to allow him to do the citizens arrest. what did he talk about? well, i heard from my mom about the stuff stolen off the boat. okay. well, can't arrest somebody on unsupported gossip of someone else. can't do that. and then i saw him by the house and i knew he was in there a couple other days because i seen video on february -- on february 11th, saw these videos. okay, well, that's not having committed a crime in somebody's presence. this is somebody showing you stuff about something else. knew about the white couple, the other suspects. he also said, yeah, then there was the shady looking guy under the bridge. he was also kind of a suspect. said i want to talk to you, i want to talk to you, what happened down the road? i was ordering him to stop. what gives you the right to order ahmaud arbery to stop? my impression was that he could be a threat, because who knows what can happen? oh, my god. self-defense. you have to think you're in imminent danger of receiving serious bodily harm or death. i'm about to die. my impression was that he could be a threat. yeah. who knows what could happen? he said that on the stand. all right. so what else have we got? if greg called 911, he still would have been on the phone with 91. we know that. that's how 911 works. they stay on the phone with you. he knew he wasn't on the phone with 911. he told you he didn't know what his father was saying to amauld. really? does anybody believe that, that he was in the car with his dad but he has no idea what it was that his father was actually saying to ahmaud as well as what he was saying? now, what did he talk about? he talked about that, like, continuum of the use of force and blah, blah, blah. level two is commands. okay. i'm sorry. how do police officers command people to do stuff? how do they usually do that? because police officers, are they yelling at you or are they politely saying stuff to you and commanding you to do things? do you believe for a minute he was talking softly to ahmaud arbery? what's going on, what are you doing? please stop running. do you really believe that for one minute? i'm going to ask you another question. do you think this travis mcmichael who took the stand was the same travis mcmichael from february 23rd? you think the they're the same person? or do you think this is trial preparation? what tone of voice do we have being used by the mcmichaels? >> hello. >> 911. what's the address of your emergency? >> i'm out here at satilla shores. there's a black male running down the street. >> where at satilla shores? >> i don't know what street we're on. stop right there! stop! >> sir, hello? >> ask yourself was that the tone of voice being used? well, yes, we know it was. he just said, stop, goddamn it, stop! to mr. arbery in that tone of voice. use of force continuum. presence. did not have no badge, no uniform, no authority. just some strange guys in a white pickup truck. strangers. verbal commands. they don't have any authority to use verbal commands. this is a fellow citizen. it's another human being. they're pulling up on him and they're commanding that he stop and talk to them. and then of course he skipped level three, level four, level five, and went right to deadly force. boom. someone's dead. claims he didn't cut off ahmaud on burford, did not get out with his shotgun. i don't know, do you believe any of that? told police he got out of his car on holmes a few houses down and told ahmaud to stop. now he says that doesn't happen. i was really confuse preponderance of the evidence what are the coast guard goals? to not escalate but to keep everyone calm and cool. you don't want anything to escalate. then he tells you pull out a shotgun and point it at someone to de-escalate the situation. what are you tacking about? does this logic make any sense to anybody? travis mcmichael never said to the police, i was making an arrest, trying to arrest him for the crime of this? wouldn't that be really important. hey, i was trying to effectuate a citizens arrest for a crime i know he committed. wouldn't that be something you tell the police? never once. never told mr. arbery who was under arrest. never saw i saw him commit the crime of blank today. he didn't because he was on the sofa. never said he was going to hurt my dad or pull him down. never mentioned become afraid for his dad. not once. anything about the english's boat or anything being stolen from 2/20, never mentioned it, never talked about it. two hour and 24 45-minute interview, doesn't talk about any of this stuff. assume the worst. here's what he did. so, he stopped. and i said, hey, just want to talk to you, you know, where are you running from, where are you going? this is what he says he said. he's asking ahmaud about what he was doing that day. that day. because he didn't know what he'd done that day but he assumed the worst, he must have committed some crime. what's your emergency? there's a black man running down the street. what did agent seacrest tell you? gbi agent. i can't compel anyone to speak to me. they knew better, just like agent seacrest knows. i can't compel anybody to talk to me. all right. let's go ahead and talk about defendant bryan. 307 burford. you see the video. i'm not playing for you again. it's motion activated on the coach. travis mcmichael's white ford f-150 pickup truck comes in front. driveway decision. this is important, ladies and gentlemen. this is really important. y'all got it? why is this important? what does this say? mr. bryan, from his porch, can tell that they are chasing and trying to falsely imprison, stop, confine mr. arbery. he can tell it from his porch. he knows exactly what they're doing. y'all got him? he knows what they're doing, and you know what he chooses to do? his independent, independent, own decision, i'm going to go join them to try and stop this guy, confine and detain him. he just joins in and starts helping. his driveway decision. that is what being a party to the crime is. you go to help some people who are committing some crimes, trying to stop this guy and detain him and contifine him. he joined in. y'all got him? he knew exactly what the mcmichaels were doing. what did mr. bryan tell you? so, i just kind of saturday there for a minute and didn't really know what to do, and then he was trucking, so, i mean, he closed in on me quick, and as soon as he got up to me, i overshot the road. i was kind of angled. i overshot the road and forced him to go down into the ditch right there. aggravated assault with a pickup truck on mr. bryan's verdict form? check. and i angled amuck at him again. i think he kind of turned around. i missed him or whatever. i missed him. he was intending to hit him. i missed him. when you say i mtszed him, what does that mean you were trying to do? you were trying to hit this person. then at the scene, he tells an officer when i cornered him on burford, he was trying to get in my truck. he tried to get in my door. okay. trying to get in his door. or mr. bryan, did you get so close to mr. arbery that mr. arbery had to push off from your truck leaving his palm print on your truck? because you got so close to hitting him he had to push off to get away from you? i mean, i can't say for sure that he wasn't on the door. i didn't give him a chance to get to the door, but after i angled him off the side of the road, you know, and i kind of went on past him, because i didn't hit him, which i would have, might have took him out and not got him shot, but, you know, i probably got past him a little bit, and he comes up on me and i could see him my mirror and he was coming to my door and i could see his hands right behind the door. after i angled him off to the side of the road, i kind of went right on past him. i didn't give him a chance to get to the door. yeah, towards the entrance. towards the entrance. i confronted him again. ing a vaggravated assault numbe three. left-hand side, heading towards the entrance of the neighborhood. he confronted him once again at that corner of holmes and satilla. i was fixing, i put it in reverse and was going to back up at him, and that's when he made his move to go back down the road. felony murder right there. felony murder for criminal attempt at false imprisonment, felony murder forring a valted assault with a pickup truck. he kept mr. arbery from running down satilla drive and out of satilla shores and redirected him up holmes. but for those actions, mr. arbery would be alive. played a necessary and substantial part in the death of mr. arbery. i packed up and started going down that way. i think i angled at him again, kind of forced him off the road or something right in here, and he turned around, turned around right here. the black guy did. he turned an and started running back the other way, and i pulled into a drive or something and started to turn around. fourth aggravated assault with a pickup truck. there's his route. there's the mcmichael route. and here it is all together. so once again, ladies and gentlemen, the indictment. how could defendant bryan be responsible for using his silverado, travis mcmichael murdering ahmaud arbery, how can be held responsible? it's ral simple. party to a crime. the law does, in georgia, believe that everybody to wh helped, encouraged, advised, went inside a house and grabbed their son and told him to get his shotgun and come on, they're all equally responsible for the ultimate death of the victim, because a person is a party to a crime only if that person directly commits the crime. travis mcmichael, shotgun. helps in the commission of the crime. wouldn't be able to do that if not for his father and if not if mr. bryan. intentionally advises and encourages. that's what greg mcmichael is doing. cut him off, cut him off, go this way, i'm going that way. what are they doing in the truck? they're working together, greg and travis mcmichael. that's why they're both responsible. greg mcmichael is just as big a murderer as travis mcmichael is because he's a for p party to t crime. okay? when three people chase an unarmed man in two products with guns in order to violate his personal liberty, who gets to claim, i'm not responsible for that? under the law in georgia, no one gets to say that. everybody is responsible. i'm going to give you an example. this is just an illustration, just to make a point, okay. four men drive to a bank to commit an armed robbery. all right? the driver that never gets out of the car, the lookout outside, a guy who goes in without a gun and a guy who goes in the bank and shoots the guard. all right? so who's guilty? under the law in georgia, all of them are responsible for aggravated assault for shooting the guard and armed robbery for trying to rob the bank or robbing the bank. all right? because they committed the crime or helped in the commission of the crime or they advised and encouraged someone to commit the crime. and of course you're saying, but linda, only one person had their finger on the trigger in this case, and that was travis mcmichael. so how do we find greg mcmichael and william roddy bryan guilty of murder? under the law in georgia, it's as if they were all holding the gun together. in this example, the guy who never got out of the car is just as guilty. the guy in front of the bank is just as guilty. party to a crime. under the law, all are involved. why? well, greg mcmichael, he was seeking to confront ahmaud arbery. he was encouraging travis mcmichael to come with him, encouraging travis to cut him off. greg mcmichael threatened ahmaud to get him to stop. okay? we would not be here if it weren't for greg mcmichael. travis mcmichael, without travis mcmichael deciding to actually take his shotgun and help his dad. he could have told his dad, we're not doing this, calm down, call the police. there's a whole bunch of decisions both of them could have made that would never have resulted in ahmaud arbery's death. he decided he's going to drive his pickup truck to chase ahmaud, and he got out of that truck with that shotgun. totally and absolutely unnecessarily. mr. bryan, who decided to help the mcmichaels, without bryan, assaulted arbery in his pickup truck without redirecting him on to holmes, without bryan chasing ahmaud toward travis mcmichael, we wouldn't be here, because ahmaud arbery would not be dead. doesn't matter who actually pulled the trigger. under the law, they're all guilty of malice murder. all right. let's take a look at the crime scene. of note, ahmaud arbery had nothing on him, no bag, no backpack, no burglary, no cell phone, no i.d., no wall it, no keys, no gun, no weapon. nothing. i'm going to show you some crime scene photos. so what do we have? take a look at this. this is what's important in this pic picture. these pants are so baggy. look at this. look how baggy they are. he's running like this. there's no way they believe he had a gun on him. absolutely no way. mr. arbery was shot first in the torso and through the wrist. all right? he was shot this way where it came out this way. so what's he doing? coming around the corner, here it is, here it is, his wrist gets shot. did he grab the end of the shotgun? did he try and push it away? who knows? but we do no is it happened like this and travis mcmichael fired. they struggled over the gun. then they're struggling over the gun. two more gunshots and he gets shot under his left armpit. i am going to show you the crime scene photos. why do we know he got shot in the wrist? because of the blood splatter. two spurts. remember? why is there blood here in the road in this driveway? from the arterial spurt from the wrist. that's how we know the wrist got shot when he was shot in the torso. there's the evidence of it in the crime scene photos. what do we also know? here's the gunshot wound to the torso. here's the gunshot wound under the armpit. both lethal, lethal injuries. travis mcmichael attend of his interview, the very end of his interview with detective nohilly, do you remember if he grabbed the shotgun at all? i want to say he did, but i honestly cannot remember. if he grabbed that shotgun, that would be the first thing travis mcmichael would have said. yeah, he grabbed my shotgun. all right. we are going to talk about greg mcmichael. greg mcmichael did attempt to control the narrative after the this took place. he's the one who started this whole thing, and now his son has killed someone, and that young man is laying dead in the street from she's shotgun blasts. what does greg mcmichael do? well, while first responders are on the scene, he's telling his kid, you didn't have any choice. he goes over and talks to bryan to find out what he saw. oh, he's got a video. he talked to diego perez. he's outside the crime scene tape wandering around, talking to people. someone brings him a phone. stranger comes up to him, some stranger, some neighbor comes up to him. this is a crime scene. there is a deceased young man in the middle of the road, and strangers are walking up to him. what does he tell the stranger? this guy is an asshole. malice right there. that's how you know. right there. 2/15 p.m., he's talking to captain john pump, the head of the criminal investigations division of glynn county police department. while tom jones, crime scene tech, is taking photos. okay? and then greg mcmichael drives his white truck from the scene. never got any pictures of the white truck. never got pictures of the silverado. hmm. the white truck was never searched. mr. bryan's truck was never searched. neither of those trucks were impounded. so what have we got? we got this. outside the crime scene tape talking to the held of cid. look at the crime scene photos. what happens next? he drives that truck away while the crime scene tech is there taking photos. no one said mr. arbery had a weapon. no one said mr. arbery made any verbal threats or gestures. nobody said i saw him commit a crime today. no one said i was trying to make a citizens arrest. no one was trying to arrest him for a crime of anything. nobody said any of these things on february 3rd, 2020. greg mcmichael's statements to the police. these are important. this is why greg mcmichael is guilty. did this guy break into a house today? that's just it, i don't know. that's what i told what's her name out there. i said, listen, you might want to go knock on doors down there because this guy just done something because he was fleeing. i don't know. he might have gone in somebody's house. you can't make a citizens arrest because someone's running down the street and you have no idea what crime they have committed that day. you can't hold somebody so the police can show up to go, he must have done something. why don't you police officers figure out what he did today. that's what greg mcmichael told the police. then he was asked, is he picking up anything or going through anything? you know, not that i recall. i don't think the guy's actually stolen anything out of there. or if he did, it was early on in the process, but he keeps going back over there, over and over again, this damn house. no one ever said, we have evidence that he stole items out of larry english's boat back on some unknown date, so we were trying to arrest him for that. there's never any mention of larry english's house and the stolen items off the boat. not by anybody. my intention was to stop this guy so he could be arrested. never says for what. never says what crime it was he was going tock arrested for. i don't think the guy's actually stolen anything. did he break into a house today? i don't know. and in that same sentence, he could be arrested or at least identified. so this is all for identification. this, this whole entire thing, this, this was all to do what? identify mr. arbery. that's what we're doing. that's what greg mcmichael says. how do you know it was an attack on mr. arbery? strangers with intent to kill? i yelled, stop or i'll blow your fucking head off or something. i wanted to let him know that we weren't playing. this is what he said to the police. now, got up here and said, yeah, he was just confused. he didn't mean that. he didn't remember what he said. really? he proudly told the police, this is what he said to mr. arbery. we're going to kill you if you don't stop. greg mcmichael. yeah, he was trapped like a rat. knowledge, intent, that they had committed false imprisonment on holmes drive, right there. greg mcmichael, guilty of all charges. what's your emergency? i'm out here on satilla shores and there's a black man running down the street. yeah. this is what we get. this is what we get. driveway decisions and assumptions, right here. i've gone through all of this. i'm not going to do it again. bottom line, ladies and gentlemen, they committed four felonies against ahmaud arbery in violation of his personal liberty before he finally tried to run around their truck after running from them for five minutes. he was trying to get away from these strangers who are yelling at him, yes, ma'aming at him, threatening to kill him. and then they kill him. all right? do you have any doubt that they committed all of the charges in the indictment? no. no. remember, a reasonable doubt does not mean a vague or ashtray doubt. it's a doubt for which a reason can be given. in other words, you say it out loud, i doubt william roddy bryan was committing aggravated assault with his pickup truck because it was just reckless conduct. if you can honestly look each other in the eye and say that about mr. bryan with a straight face, ladies and gentlemen, you're the jury, you decide, this is your search for the truth, if you honestly can look at each other and say that out loud, then find him not guilty of aggravated assault. find him guilty of a lesser. because you decide. you are glynn county. i mean, today you are glynn county. remember, this isn't about having personal baggage back in the jury room. it's not about a point of view or an agenda or anything like that. that's not what's going on. y'all are really really smart and you've paid really close attention to this case. you're going to determine what really happened based on the evidence, and then you're going to apply the law that the judge gives you to that evidence. it's not about being an advocate for anybody. it's your search for the truth. i suggest, witness again that you work from the bottom of the indictment. it's just going to be easier. criminal attempt at false imprisonment and then work your way through it. it will help you logically. remember party to a crime when you're talking about greg mcmichael and mr. bryan. you'll get a form. the state will ask you to fill it out this way with the aggravated assault pickup trucks. he's not guilty of simple assault, of reckless conduct, of reckless driving. he's guilty of aggravated assault for putting ahmaud arbery in reasonable apprehension, fear of receiving serious bodily injury. i overshot the road and forced him into a ditch. ladies and gentlemen, here's the thing. this isn't about whether these three men are good people or bad people. that's not what this is about. it's about responsibility. it's about holding people accountable and responsible for their actions. when they do something like this, they have to be held accountable and responsible. nobody gets a free pass. okay? would you get a free pass? who gets a free pass? no. the law basically says, if you commit the crime, you're going to be held responsible. and, ladies and gentlemen, when you come back with a guilty verdict on all the charges, this isn't saying somebody's a good person or a bad person. what you're saying is you know he committed the crime. now we know he committed the crime too. that's all it is. they know what they did. it's not like they don't know what they did. they know exactly what they did and why they did it. it's not a mystery to them. when you come back with your guilty verdict, all you're doing is telling them we know what you did too. and we're going to hold you responsible for it, because guess what you did? you turned this young man into that young man. that's what you did. for absolutely no good reason at all. ladies and gentlemen, i'm asking you to find all three defendants guilty of all the charges in the indictment. thank you very much. >> all right. ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take a ten-minute recess, then we'll come back with the charge of the court. do not begin your discussions or deliberations in this case until you have received the final charge of the court. again, about ten minutes and we'll come back and get that onto the record. thank you. >> all rise for the jury. >> we just saw the final rebuttal from the prosecution in the trial of the three men accused of killing ahmaud arbery. it was methodical. it was thorough, nearly two hours long, at times impassioned. the final words, though, notable to the jury as in a few minutes they'll begin their deliberations, she says this is not about point of view. it's about facts. it's not about whether the defendants are good or bad, it's about responsibility. and erica, it was quite a powerful moment at the end where she says responsibility for turning this young man, that is the then living ahmaud arbery, into that young man, referring -- and you couldn't see this as we were watching because it was off camera -- to the pictures from the coroner's office of his dead body. we should know this also happened off camera and was notable that his father left the room as the pictures went up on the screen. her his mother stayed in the room but she was visibly distraught. >> it's understandable that anyone -- how they would feel that way, even the decision to leave. you talked about this being methodical, jim. really the prosecutor going through every single point, walking us back through much of the testimony that we had heard in this trial as she rebults. what we heard from the defense and their closing arguments yesterday, talking about how they made their decisions, what those decisions resulted in, laying all that out. so the big question of course will be was it effective once the jury does begin its deliberations? joining us to discuss, federal and white collar attorney carolyn policey. shan, as former prosecutor, as you're watching the way this unfolded, yes, it's what you want a prosecutor to do in a rebuttal, right? rebut what they have heard from the defense. but what else stood out to you in the way that lisa dunikoski laid this out? >> i thought she did a good job. she really tried to give the jury the high points they should focus on. and to me, what i came away with was this idea that the knowledge that the defendants had simply doesn't add up to give a by sis for this alleged citizens arrest. i thought she did a very good job of using the video, going through what can be a complex time line, to show they had no reasonable basis that a crime had been committed. that impolice siltly focuses it back on the racial onus. the crime is a black guy running down the street. i thought she did a very good job of that as well as tying in how the nonshooters are the party to the crime. >> her line there, what's your emergency? there's a black man running down the street, her paraphrase of the 911 call. to your point, shan, she made a clear distinction because there had been some portrayal from the defense perhaps based on mcmichael's experience in the coast guard that he was somehow a qualified law enforcement officer or someone able to make law enforcement judgments, she referred in the testimony to someone who was an actual law enforcement officer with a badge and said based on what was known, there would have been no arrest by someone in uniform. so carolyn, that leads to other defense strategy, which includes going after the victim to some degree. i want to play one response to you. have a listen. >> laura hogue got up here and she gave you criminal defense 101. usually criminal defense 101 is no crime actually took place. now the crime's on video. my client didn't commit the crime. well, we have your client on the video committing a crime. criminal defense 101, step three. it's the victim's fault. standard, standard stuff. >> do you agree, carolyn, that that's where in effect the defense stands at this point, that she characterized that powerfully or impactfully rather to the jury? >> well, absolutely, jim. i think she was rightfully so calling out the defense attorney's arguments yesterday, some of which were really out of line and inflammatory, specifically with respect to the long dirty toenails commentary. that cheerily was a commentary to any racist jurors sitting on that jury panel. the defense attorney did what she thought she had to do, and the prosecutor there was really calling her out for that. i think the real issue here that shan aptly noted is this citizens arrest law. you saw them, the defense attorneys, actually object in the rebuttal by the prosecutor earlier today, which is a pretty drastic move, moving for a mistrial, saying the prosecutor had actually misstated the law. they're actually arguing over the temporal boundaries of when a citizens arrest can be implemented by a citizen and whether that -- the crime and/or felony had to be committed within the direct presence or sometime thereafter. really, that's all the defense has their hat to hang on in this trial if they don't get the benefit of the citizens arrest law, their whole case goes down the drain because then they don't get to argue self-defense. the defense honed in on the key parts but the prosecutor did a great job rebutting it. >> in terms of the self-defense claim, she made it clear you can't claim self-defense if you're the one who started it. did she make that point effectively today? >> i think she did. i think she's done a really good job with using the totality of the circumstances, because sometimes you want to really break it down moment by moment to show that a split-second decision actually was something much longer, and that's what the defense wants to make it look like, is that this is a split-second decision, that travel was in fear for his life, and what she did a good job of doing was showing the totality of what led up to that, really undermines that idea. you know, and to jim's point about the idea of portraying him as a law enforcement background training with the coast guard, you know, i call that the best of both worlds defense, which is on the one hand they want the vigilante to be portrayed as doing things by the book. he is trying to de-escalate. but at the same time they want to say he was really a scared, frightened citizen in fear for his life the way any of you might be afraid. so they're trying to have the best of both worlds, and i think the prosecutor did a good job of undermining that point. i think also to carolyn's point about the portrayal of the victim that really racist remark that was made, one interesting comparison to the rittenhouse trial is what a difference it makes when you can call victims victims. >> yeah. another comparison, by the way, very different cases, is the idea that in each case the defendant said it was their weapon that they brought that they were fearful that the other person was going to take away to justify the threat to themselves. i want your sense of that legally, but we do have ryan young there outside the courthouse. he's been covering this trial since the beginning. ryan, one point i think worth noting to viewers is that some of the legal drama here took place with the jury outside of the courtroom. >> reporter: absolutely. you think about everything that's played on outside the court so far, you think about all the statements that kevin goff has made over the last two weeks or so, and it's sort of enflamed the members of this community. you think about all the black pastors who arrived after saying he didn't want black pastors. there have been protests in the street directly responding to what the lawyers have been saying in court. one thing i want to pick up on, jim, is the pictures that were shown in court. you could really feel the change every time those pictures were shown. and when you think about parents sitting in a court and having to see the dead body of ahmaud arbery sitting there next to his picture of when he was alive, something we couldn't show because it was quite graphic, but really, every time they've shown those pictures, the court watchers have told us it has changed the tone inside the court. there have been conversations about one juror who was apparently falling asleep at certain times. we know every time the video is shown, the pictures are shown, nobody is not paying attention to what it is. you feel that when you get it all together. that picture really stuck with me as they showed it in closing and she put it up on that screen. it really took your breath away to think about what's how she was ending this today. >> to your point, ryan, that's the image she wanted to believe the jury, the ultimate outcome of this situation, the death of a young man in a very graphic way. one of the points, shan, you touched on, this but she also really drilled down on william roddie bryan being a party to the crime. we know his attorneys were hoping that would not be the case. she used the analogy of a bank robbery, if you're driving the car, on lookout, you are just as guilty as the person who pulls the trigger if someone in your party went in there and shot the security guard at the bank. do you think that's something that, as a jury, they are going to follow that? yes, it's the law in the state of georgia. was that the right analogy for her to show why all three men, when it comes to the law in georgia, would be equally guilty? >> i think that's exactly the analogy she had to make. bank robbery is a good one because here, his defense, roddy bryan's defense, is he's just the guy filming this on his camera, has nothing to do with it. i thought she did a very good job of using the statement he made, y'all got him? and him jumping into the fray. so i think for most people, common sense, they understand the analogy of driving a lookout vehicle, that's how he can still be involved in a felony murder inside the bank. that was a good analogy. it's a tough call. i have questions whether she made a bad strategic choice in not focusing on race more. you have to play to what you know with your jury, you v but you also have to trust the jury, and she's trusting the jury here that they're going to follow the law and use their common sense. that's what she's asking them to do. >> no question. and repeating it's about the facts of case, not point of view or the goodness or badness of the defendants involved. carolyn polisi, very different cases, but in both the rittenhouse case and this one, you have the defendant saying justifying self-defense saying i had my weapon and i was fearful that the other person might take that weapon and turn it on me. how does the law see that, particularly when a person brings the weapon to the fight, as it were? >> exactly. and, you know, the prosecutor sort of made that point in her closing, not necessarily in rebuttal, but she said, you know, they were the ones that brought the gun to the knife fight, so to speak. well, in this instance, they brought a gun to arbery's jog. so there is in the law, there's this idea of proportionality, and the prosecutor made that clear that when you have a self-defense claim, you can only use a proportionate amount of defense to make yourself sort of safe in that regard. so, what is a proportionate amount of defense when somebody is unarmed? she noted over and over again, you know, the bagginess of arbery's pants, that it was clear that he went armed, that in the defendant's post-arrest statements, they did not make it clear that they thought necessarily that he was armed. of course now after having the benefit of hindsight, they have clarified their testimony on the stand. of course they're saying, oh, they feared for their life. but really, the proportionality element wasn't there. and then, jim, they didn't even get the benefit of the self-defense defense if, in fact, they weren't committing a lawful and legitimate citizens arrest, which is why that's such an important element. >> i believe the judge has brought in -- the jury back into the courtroom. actually, he's asked for them to come back in. erica, back to you as we wait. long pauses. >> exactly. as we're waiting for them to be brought back in, i'm just looking back at my notes in terms of things that i wrote down as we're watching all of this. to caroline's point, all this talk about this has to be about the evidence, this has to be about the facts, we know that ultimately that is what the jury is supposed to look at, will be looking at. shan, as they're given those instructions, it is all about the facts, how important are the closing arguments? >> the closing arguments are really important because of two things. first, they are the last chance for the lawyers to make the point to the jury, it's what you leave them with. and secondly, it's because the first time that the lawyers really get to argue. an opening statement is supposed to be a preview of what you're going to show them. but in the closing you're able to take the evidence that's been brought in, ald your passion, add your narrative to it, and that's what's really important. that's why they call it a closing argument. so here, big advantage that she got a fresh jury. i was criticizing her yesterday for wanting to push through at the end of the day with two hours more of argument, but she got them fresh this morning. she 's the last voice they'll hear and then they'll hear the law. >> good point. you want them paying attention as you go through their final argument. i believe, if i heard the judge correctly, they're standing because the jury is being brought back in. of course you don't see the jury in this shot. let's listen in. all right. welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. you are considering the case of the state of georgia versus travis mcmichael, greg mcmichael, and william r. bryan. now that the evidence and the arguments of counsel have been submitted to you, it becomes my duty to give you the final instructions of the court as to the law applicable in this case. as i told you at the outset, it is my duty and responsibility to asser tan the law applicable to this case and to instruct you on that law. you are bound by these instructions. it is your responsibility to ascertain the facts of the case from all the evidence presented. then you must apply the law i give you in the charge to the facts as you find them to be. it is your duty to follow the law in the instructions i am about to give you. you should not single out one instruction alone but must consider all the instruction as a whole. you have a sworn duty to decide this case based upon the law given you by the court and upon the evidence submitted during the trial. the defendants travis mcmichael, greg mcmichael, and william r. bryan, in this case, have been indicted each individually and as parties concerned in the commission of a crime by the grand jury of this county for the offenses of malice murder, felony murder, four continues, aggravated assault, two counts, false imprisonment, and criminal attempt to commit a felony. the indictment was turned into court on june 24th of 2020. you will have the indictment with you at the end of the case, and you should consult it for the specific allegations brought by the state. the defendants have each entered a plea of not guilty to the indictment. the indictment and the pleas form the issues that you are to decide. neither the indictment nor the pleas of not guilty should be considered as evidence. the defendants are charged in the diindictment with crimes th are violations of certain laws of the state of georgia. i want to emphasize to you that the indictment, including all of the counts therein, and the pleas of not guilty, are the legal procedures by which these criminal charges are brought against each defendant. the charges and the plea of not guilty are not evidence of guilt, and you should not consider them as evidence or implication of guilt of any crime whatsoever. the defendants are presumed innocent until each is proven guilty. each defendant enters upon the trial of the case with a presumption of innocence in his favor. this presumption remains with the defendant until it is overcome by the state with evidence that is sufficient to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime or crimes charged. no person shall be convicted of any crime unless and until each element of the crime is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. the burden of proof rests upon the state to prove every material allegation of the indictment and every essential element of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. however, the state is not required to prove guilt of the accused beyond all doubt or to a mathematical certainty. a reasonable doubt means just what it says. it is a doubt of fair-minded, impartial juror honestly seeking the truth. it is a doubt based upon common sense and reason. it does not mean a vague or arbitrary doubt, but it is a doubt from which a reason can be given arising from a consideration of the evidence or lack of evidence, a conflict in the evidence, or any combination of these. there is no burden of proof upon the defendants whatsoever, and the burden never shifts to the defendant to prove his innocence. when a a defense is raised by the evidence, the burden is upon the state to negate or disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. though you may consider all of the evidence as a whole, conviction of one defendant does not necessarily require conviction of another. you, the jury, must determine whether the state has proven the guilt of each defendant beyond a reasonable doubt as to each count. if, after giving considerations to all the facts and circumstances of this case, your minds are wavering, unsatisfied, that is a doubt of the law and you must acquit that defendant. but if that doubt does not exist in your minds about the guilt of the accused, you will be authorized to convict that defendant. if the state fails to prove a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it would be your duty to acquit that defendant. facts and circumstances that merely place upon a defendant a grave suspicion of the crime or crimes charged or that merely raise a speculation or conjecture of a defendant's guilt are not sufficient to authorize a conviction of a defendant. now, your oath requires that you will decide this case based on the evidence. evidence is the means by which a fact that is put in issue is established or disproved. evidence includes all of the testimony of the witnesses or the equivalent such as depositions, any exhibits admitted during the trial, and stipulations of the attorneys. as i have previously charged you, the stipulation is an agreement between the parties concerning some fact or facts which you, as the jury, are bound to accept as facts during your deliberations. evidence does not include the indictment, the plea of not guilty, opening or closing remarks of the attorneys, or questions asked by the attorneys. evidence maybe either direct or circumstantial or both. in considering the evidence, you may -- excuse me -- in considering the evidence, you may use reasoning and common sense to make deductions and reach conclusions. you should not be concerned about whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial. direct evidence is the testimony of a person who asserts that he or she has actual knowledge of a fact. circumstantial evidence is proof of a set of facts and circumstances that tend to prove or disprove another fact by inference. there is no legal difference in the weight that you may give to either direct or circumstantial evidence. whether dependent upon direct evidence or circumstantial evidence or both, the true test is whether there is sufficient evidence or whether the evidence is sufficiently convincing to satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt. if not, you must acquit. if so, you may convict. there's no rule that either circumstantial or direct evidence is stronger than the other if conflicting. the comparative weight of circumstantial evidence and direct evidence on any given issue is a question of fact for the jury to decide. testimony has been given in this case by certain witnesses who are termed experts. expert witnesses are those who, because of their training and experience, possess knowledge in a particular field that is not common knowledge or known to the average citizen. the law permits expert witnesses to give their opinions based upon that training and experience. you are not required to accept the testimony of any witness, expert or otherwise. testimony of an expert, like that of all witnesses, is to be given only such weight and credit as you think it is properly entitled to receive. now, the jury must determine the credibility of witnesses. in deciding this, you may consider all of the facts and circumstances of the case, the witness imaner of testifying, the witness' means and opportunity of knowing the facts about which they testify, the nature of the facts -- the nature of the facts about which the witness testifies, the probability or improktbability their testimony, the witness' interest or lack of interest in the outcome of the case, the witness' personal kreblgtd insofar as it may have been shown in your presence and by the evidence. any evidence of bias for or against a party, any possible motive in testifying, if shown by the evidence, in that regard you are authorized to consider any pending prosecutions, grants of immunity or leniency or similar matters and whether a witness has been impeached. the question of whether a witness has been impeached is if you, the jury, believe witness has been proved unworthy of belief. a witness may be impeached by disproving the facts to which the witness testified. your assessment of a trial witness' credibility may be affected by comparing or contrasting that testimony to statements or testimony of that same witness before the trial started. it is for you to decide whether there is a reasonable explanation for any inconsistency in a witness' pretrial statements and testimony when compared to the same witness' trial testimony. as with all issues of witness credibility, you, the jury, must apply your common sense and reason to decide what testimony you believe or do not believe. the testimony of a single witness, if believed, is sufficient to establish fact. generally, there is no legal requirement of corroboration of a witness provided you find the evidence to be sufficient. now, the defendant in a criminal case is under no duty to present any evidence tending to prove innocence and is not required to take the stand and testify in the case. if the defendant elects not to testify, no inference, hurtful, harmful, or adverse to the defendant shall be drawn by the jury, nor shall such fact be held against the defendant in any way. a number of statements that the defendants have allegedly made were offered for your consideration. before you may consider any of these as evidence for any purpose, you must determine whether the individual statements were voluntarily. to be voluntarily, a statement must be freely and willingly given and without coercion, duress, threats, use of violence, fear of injury, or any suggestions or promises of leniency or reward. a statement induced by the slightest hope or benefit or the remotest fear of injury is not voluntary. to be voluntary, a statement must be the product of a free will and not under compulsion or any necessity imposed by others. the burden of proof is upon the state to establish that the statement was voluntary, that is, freely and willingly made. if you do not find that the statement was voluntarily, you may not consider it for any purpose. you should consider with great care and caution the evidence of any out-of-court statement allegedly made by a defendant offered by the state. the jury may believe any such statement in whole or in part. believing that which you find to be true and rejecting that which you find to be untrue. you alone have the duty to apply the general rules for testing the believability of witnesses and to decide what weight should be give on the all or any part of such evidence. the defendant's out -of-court statement that is not supported by any other evidence, is not sufficient to justify a conviction, even if you believe the unsupported statement. however, proof by other evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime alleged has been committed may constitute supporting evidence of a defendant's statement if, a, should so you find, the law does not fix the amount of supporting evidence necessary. you must determine whether or not other evidence sufficiently supports a defendant's statement so as to justify a conviction. if you find that there was a statement made by a defendantpo evidence, the degree of proof necessary to convict is that you be satisfied of the guilt of a defendant beyond any reasonable doubt. any out-of-court statement made by one of the defendants on trial in this case after the alleged criminal act has ended may be considered only against the person who made the statement and only if you find that such statement was freely and voluntarily made. if you find that an out of court statement was made to the police freely and voluntarily by the defendant on trial in this case, then you are to consider the statement only as against the particular defendant who made it. now, members of the jury, this court is responsible for determining the admissibility of certain evidence with regard to statements in this case. sometimes full audio and/or video recordings cannot be played for you for legal reasons. you are not to make any inferences for or against either party in the case about the fact that the law does not allow the playing of certain recordings by the parties in this case. now, evidence of prior difficulties or lack thereof between one or more of the defendants and mr. arbery has been admitted for the sole purpose of illustrating if it does the state of feeling between the defendants and mr. arbery and the reasonableness of any alleged fears by the defendants or mr. arbery. whether this evidence ill illustrates such matters is a matter solely for you, the jury, to determine. but you are not to consider such evidence for any other purposes. certain evidence of fingerprint comparison has been admitted by the court for your possible consideration. identification by fingerprint comparison is opinion evidence and is dependent upon the credibility or believability and
i see bob back there. congratulations, bob. he's in great shape. you in good shape, bob? right from the beginning. you take care of yourself. all right? we're ending the intrusive epa regulations that kill jobs, hurt family farmers and ranchers and raise the price of energy so quickly and so substantially in order to protect american jobs. companies and workers we've withdrawn the united states from the one-sided paris climate accord. [applause] i won't get into it, but believe me, that really put this country at a disadvantage. number 1, we weren't playing on the same field. it kicked in for us and doesn't kick in for others. the money we had to pay was enormous. it was not even close. maybe we'll be back into it some day but it will be on better
west virginia, wyoming, and all of the different places, and i see bob back there. congratulations, bob. he's in great shape. right? you're in good shape, bob? right from the beginning. good. you just take care of yourself, all right? we're ending the intrusive epa regulations that killed jobs, hurt family farmers and ranchers and raise the price of energy so quickly and so substantially. in order to protect american jobs, companies and workers, we've withdrawn the united states from the one-sided paris climate accord. and i won't get into it, but believe me, that really put this country at a disadvantage. number one, we weren't playing on the same field. it kicked in for us, and it doesn't kick in for others. the money that we had to pay was enormous.
west virginia, wyoming, and all the different places. and i see bob back there. congratulations, bob. he is in great shape, right? are you in good shape, bob? right from the beginning. you just take care of yourself. all right? we're ending the intrucive epa regulations that hurt family ranchers and farmers and raise the price of energy so quickly and so substantially. in order to protect american jobs, companies withdraw fwrg the one sided paris climate accord. and i won't get into it. believe me. that really put this country at a disadvantage. number one, we weren't playing on the same field. it kicked in for us and not for others, the money that we had to pay was enormous. it was not even close.
you know, we weren't playing to just new york and l.a. when we were doing "saturday night." we were playing for the whole country. he's pretty used to entertaining middle america and the whole country. his sensibility isn't exclusionary. it's more about like, yeah, let's bring more people? >> let's talk about snl for a moment if we could. recently joined the cast after that white spread criticism the show lacked diversity. what is your take on how it's going and if that's something that you felt was needed for a while? >> i think -- first off, i think it's going amazing. she's -- every show i've seen her on she's had great things to do. i think it's not -- i don't think it's something people were thinking about, like let's not work on getting a black woman. i think it's just that people's sensibilities when they're auditioning and coming around, it's just something that you don't think about immediately. i think finally they took some