0 cash bond on charges of battery, disorderly conduct and resisting an officer. and there's more. his criminal history reportedly dates back to 1999 and includes felonies and misdemeanors in various states. so, you're going to see attention turned. if this is accurate reporting by several media outlets, you're going to see attention turned on this phenomenon we're experiencing that covid has caused judges to empty out prisons. that some activist das and judges are engaged in letting people go who in past years would have been detained. watch for the focus to change on why this gentleman was on the street. >> we have to, regardless of that, just kind of remember that these are five people who have lost their lives and 40 people that are severely injured. frank and tom, extraordinary reporting, as always. thank you for being with me. that wraps up the hour for me. i'm jose diaz-balart. craig melvin picks up with more news right now. >> good monday morning to you. craig melvin here. what should have been a joyous holiday parade is horror. late sunday a red suv drove into a crowd in waukesha, wisconsin. as of this hour, at least five people are dead, more than 40 are hurt. eyewitnesses describing a harrowing and terrifying scene. >> they saw people on the ground. there's blood and it was really bad. >> roughly an hour from now we expect an update from children's hospital of wisconsin. we'll get an idea of how the children that they are treating are doing. we also expect an update on the investigation itself from authorities at 2:00 eastern, 1:00 local time in waukesha. right now a person of interest is in custody. we're learning a little bit more about who this person is this morning, but we should stress this person has not been charged with any crime in connection with the incident and police have not named him as a suspect. we'll have the latest and moments on that. we're also keeping a very close eye on brunswick, georgia, and the trial of three men accused of murdering ahmaud arbery. closing arguments are in a break and when they pick back up, we will take you back inside that courtroom. cal perry is outside the courtroom there in brunswick, georgia. cal, take us through what we heard so far this morning in the courtroom and when we expect these closing arguments to resume. >> hey, craig, good morning. in the next ten minutes we expect the defense will present their closing arguments and we heard for the better part of an hour from the prosecutor on behalf of the state of georgia who is bringing the charges against these three defendants and she really spent the majority of her time laying out the legal definitions of these charges. once the defense has finished their closing arguments, we'll hear one more time from the prosecution and then the judge will give jury instructions. it was those jury instructions and the terms in it that she took such time to define. first defining citizens arrest. saying to the jury, you will hear from the defense that they were carrying out a citizens arrest but as defined by the law, you have to witness the felony taking place in front of your own eyes. it has to be during the time and, of course, these three defendants did not witness any felonies taking place. in fact, they did not witness any crime taking place. that was something to point out to the jury. the other thing she spoke about was self-defense. she laid out for the jury anyone in their right minds would find it hard to believe the individuals, two of whom were armed were acting in self-defense. that was really sort of the just of what she laid out. again, we'll hear from the defense next. unclear sort of how they will lay out their case, but they will need to somehow convince the jury, craig, that these three defendants were not only afraid for their lives but they had to carry out this violent act. >> cal, stand by. let's listen in. again these are not the closing arguments but the attorneys appear to be going back and forth about something so we'll listen. >> the state objects to the heading on that since it attempts to have a photo of something that was never testified to. >> what's the heading? >> has an image -- >> that's where he went to school. what is so objectionable about it? >> he testified where he went to school and testified what he did in the training and the other thing shown on there. let me get back to it. the objection is granted in part. as that slide has been amended, i don't have any issue with that. >> okay. >> use of that. >> please back up one more. >> his testimony at trial. >> wait a second, hand written notes. we're going to show those to the jury sph. >> of course we are. i wrote them right in front of him as he was testifying. it is not this appropriate to get this deep into my presentation. these are the notes i took at trial. the same way i can show this one. >> those are your notes. >> i did it in front of the jury. just like i did this one. >> what you're referring to. >> i'm saying you saw him testify. >> when everything is talking and working through things, i can't think it through. so you are using the slide to show is what his testimony was at the time. >> the state has chosen to type it up. they decided to type up what was said. you heard travis mcmichael say this is my notes as i was writing as he was talking in front of the jury with the state present during trial. i do this because it captures what's said on the stand and the jury can understand it. i don't see what the objection is. the state can talk about and type up but i can't show what i wrote down during the testimony? that doesn't make any sense. >> i understand now what that was. i agree, mr. sheffield did write those things down on a big piece of paper and he chooses now to show it this way. the state's okay with that. the problem becomes the next photo, no one testified to that photo. >> you're objecting this neighborhood with a neighborhood sign up front. it is a chapter heading of what i will be presenting. >> my fear here is just that i'm going to have to object every single slide when it comes up if no one testified to it or information that no one testified to it. >> i think a number of things -- the state has a continuing objection then to the i understand that's not in evidence but the sign itself simply being used as indicated as sort of a chapter marker. i'll permit the defense to use that. what the changes that have been made now to the slide that showed the training, what i understand now is limited to what was actually testified to will be referred to that way as opposed to here's the manual or what the coast guard instructed him. i won't limit you exactly on how you want to present that. as long as it's not a presentation as if it was evidence separate from testimony that was provided by mr. mcmichael from the witness stand. and the use of force continuum is what you're using to demonstrate the argument as opposed to relying on that as a training diverse or something that was actually presented in training. >> so, judge i'm asking for direction from the court. these are just the first couple. so, if there's some photos that no one has ever testified to, i'm going to object. if there are other things like, for instance, there's a picture of the neighborhood and somehow they've marked every time a 911 call came in, no one testified to all the 911 calls in the neighborhood. but maybe a graphic that shows all that. if such graphic exists, i'm not sure it does. i'm going to object. and if this happens more than twice within this powerpoint, i'm going to ask that we stop, unfortunately, and go through every single slide because i'll be up here objecting constantly to his closing because it contains things that were never testified to and no evidence was presented at trial because of it. that is my concern. >> i have a slide of the neighborhood that i've created, that i put little circles on and i put things on it that are representative of the testimony of the officer and going door to door and neighbors who had been complaining about things. i'm not going to say the neighbor at this address called 911. it's argument. it's demonstrative of my argument. i don't see any basis for the state to object and i don't have anything else in this photograph. >> i understand the issue. >> thank you, judge. >> she wants to object. that's fine. we'll just deal with it as it comes, i guess. >> jury 219. it's available. >> okay. let's go get the panel. the jury is coming back into the courtroom here in brunswick, georgia. we expect the defense to start their closing arguments here momentarily. i'm joined now by veteran prosecutor paul henderson. paul, help us if you can, try to make some sense of what we just heard there. it seemed as if the defense was trying to or is going to attempt to offer some evidence here in closing, some presentation, some slides that the prosecution has not seen and that the jury had not seen during testimony. is that what was happening? >> it's that and more. as they're preparing for closing arguments, both advocates are trying to show the judge ahead of time what is going to be shown to the jury while they're making their arguments. in this case, in particular, it's very important what that evidence and those documents are because there has to be a positive and a firm foundation meaning it is allowed to be shown to the jury. here's why it matters in this case. there's such a vast difference from what defense counsel argued in their opening arguments versus what the testimony was from their own witnesses and from the defendant that took the stand in this case that the prosecution is vigilant about what those boundaries are from the evidence that is trying to be shown to the jury. and i'll explain that by telling you, some of the things that the defense counsel argued in the beginning of the case and they talked about a number of things that there was probable cause to believe that a felony had occurred is what they said. they said that there was a duty to protect the property of others of larry english in the case. that wasn't really explained or affirmed in the law. they also talked about that he was armed. their clients were armed because he was moving in a way that affirmed for them that he was armed and that's why they were asserting their self-defense at the instance when he was killed. all of these things, that the neighbors knew that things had been stolen. all of these things weren't necessarily proven in the trial. so, the prosecution wants to make sure that none of those statements help in determining the self-defense on behalf of the defense attorneys. and that's why they're arguing page by page, bit by bit, over everything that will be introduced in the closing arguments. prosecution will not allow defense to introduce things that they haven't approved before or seen before and neither have the court that's why we're in the weeds arguing about the things that have been shown to the jury in the past but the defense attorneys have written their own notes on these documents and that's why prosecutors saying why do we have to see their notes? their impression of interpretation of the evidence can be persuasive to the jury because no foundation that those assertions are actually valid and it really is in the weeds but legally those are the issues that we're unpacking to make sure that the jury understands what has been presented as actual evidence and separating that from the arguments to be made that are merely arguments on behalf of the defense counsel. interesting in this case because there's no ambiguity as to what actually happened because it is on videotape. we're seeing two different interpretations of the videotape on both sides and they both will be arguing. prosecution will argue what the tape shows. defense attorneys will be arguing what the tape shows and what they're arguing about are literally the interpretations from defense counsel of things not necessarily shown on the tape, but the subjective interpretation and presumed information that is contained. >> paul, i hate to interrupt you. let's go back in the courtroom. the defense starting their closing. >> about three things. it's about watching. it's about waiting. it's about believing. travis mcmichael spent almost a decade of his life learning about duty and responsibility. he received extensive training on how to make decisions that would ultimately impact his beliefs as a petty officer and coast guard, as a boarding officer in the coast guard into some of the most treacherous waters extending some 200 miles off the coast. of the united states. he trained relentlessly about his duty and his responsibility. even after active service and then coming into smaller communities and working in the coast guard, he trained weekly sometimes daily on what the law provided that he do. what his responsibilities were how he would make decisions and critical moments of policing and in critical moments of rescue. these teachings were burned within his brain to the point of muscle memory so that he could perform his duty and his responsibility to his country and his community. he talked to you about officer presence and how he trained for officer presence. he talked with you about verbal commands and how he would use verbal commands to try to police or try to calm or to try to de-escalate situations. he talked with you about control techniques. and the things that he would have to use to get control from those persons who he was investigating. aggressive defense techniques something he never had to use on his job, but something he trained weekly. every friday with the red man suit. and he talked with you also about immediate weapons, weapons retention and the use of deadly force. travis spent a long time going through these things in his testimony if you recall i was writing feverishly so i could capture what he had to share about these things. it includes what gave him the right to search, examine, arrest, seize, inspect, inquire. he talked with you about the level of suspicion by a reasonable and prudent person given the overall circumstances to believe that crime has been committed. probable cause. he spoke with you about the use of force continuum. he talked with you about de-escalation and how de-escalation was always the goal. he talked with you about l.e.a.p.s. listen, empathize -- de-escalate, learn what's going on and figure it out. he talked also about weapon retention and using a weapon if it had to come to that to de-escalate a situation. when travis moved back home, he did so with his 3-year-old son everett. he moved in with his mother and his father and then eventually his sister joined them in the home. you heard about sutila shores from several witnesses who came to talk to you about what they were experiencing in this once idealic neighborhood. a neighborhood that was once a place where elderly would walk at night and kids would play after dark. but over time how that began to lessen. and travis began to notice it, among others, about how things in the neighborhood started to change. from learning that the gbi went around to alerting that officer rash went around to what was being posted on facebook to hearing from witnesses on the stand to hearing him talk about driving through the neighborhood. witnesses talking about police cars going through the neighborhood at night shining flash lites. this neighborhood was being covered in suspicious persons, in extra watches and neighborhood patrols and concerned citizens. it was everywhere. it was on facebook. and the count created some neighborhoods to help each other. and the types of things that these neighbors would talk about to each other was about the crime that was being committed to them. to their neighbors. a crime they had seen happening across the street from them. a crime that some was reported but not all. you heard a lot of people talk about, i didn't call the police because what's the point. crime is over and the people are gone. but they told you what was happening in their neighborhood concerned them. caused them concern and unsettling. to imagine people lurking and sneaking around your property at night so that your cameras are going off. your doorbell camera's going off. that's frightening. one witness testified how emotional she got because she had to tell her children you can't go out at night any more. the steps they took to protect each other using facebook. hey, be on the look out. you heard cindy clark testify about how she offered to go get license plates on two separate occasions for cars coming in the neighborhood. or how she called the police on a bunch of people who had come into the neighborhood saying their car supposedly broke down but it was stolen. these are real experiences of real people who were very scared. they took it upon them selves to do something about it. got cameras. called the police. notify each other. citizens watch. neighborhood watch. there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. even travis himself had taken it upon himself to try to investigate one person who was identified potentially being homeless and living under the bridge. travis explained to you that he had learned about a neighbor having her purse stolen, of course, there were other complaints of crime in the neighborhood, as well. and he thought after boating home one afternoon and seeing what he thought was a homeless encampment under the bridge that this could be the guy. so he finished going home and got his dad, who is a lifetime law enforcement officer and investigator and they went over and they drove and they walked down under the bridge. and instantly when travis did this, you saw evidence of his muscle memory. he talked about walking down, not holding a weapon out. not armed with the gun out. he had his gun with him just in case he needed it for protection. but he walked out to do what? use l.e.a.p.s. to listen, have a conversation. as he walked down under the bridge he saw a bunch of trash and a bunch of items and a machete and a man fishing. so he followed his training and polightly stepped between the man and the machete and said, hey, man. you living down here? everything okay? as he's doing that he's looking around. looking to see if that purse is there. looking to see if any of those other stolen items may be there. the man responded, no. just fishing. and then they left and called the police. you have evidence of that. you heard brett mcmichael on the phone with the police nonemergency line saying, hey, we want you to go check out this guy under the bridge that we called you about. state asked travis, well, why don't you describe this fellow for us. white, black, asian, hispanic. he's a white guy. call the police. he was gone by the time the police got there and that was the end of it. but the man under the bridge or the idea that there could be a man living under the bridge, did not go away. that theme and that person comes back. during 2019. the real problem as the neighbors and neighborhoods of satilla shores were trying to figure out what was going on and who may be responsible for it, was that 220 satilla drive residence. a residence that had a unique type of crime going on in it. one much different from what they had been experiencing. so dark you can't see the photograph of it. but it was the photograph of 220 satilla shores at night along with the dock down by the water at night. and what all these neighbors are going to soon become aware of is that there is a repeat offender who is coming at a time when he has absolutely no lawful reason for being there. just to start with. on october 25th larry english calls the police. we learned from larry english that there is a man plundering around. larry english at this time only has two cameras. one on the dock and one behind the house looking out in the backyard of the house. larry english says