loader image

Hello my friends and welcome back to yet another episode of Watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert Gruler. I am a criminal defense attorney here in Scottsdale at the R&R Law Group. And today we’re talking about closing arguments and the Ahmaud Arbery case. I know that we just finished up with a very grueling trial, but, uh, fortunately we’ve got another grueling trial that we can just sort of jump into. Kyle Rittenhouse of course has done big, not guilty of total acquittal on all charges very good day. And we celebrated that with our Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty party, which took place. Yes, uh, last week on Friday, it was a good old time. If you miss that, go check that video out. But today we had closing arguments on another case that this channel has been following it’s the Vermont Arbery case, Travis and Gregory McMichael, two individuals charged with multiple different counts, including murder, along with another individual named Rodney Bryan, also charged with murder, felony murder.

And so this case was something that we covered about a year ago, and we were mostly interested in it because of the government malfeasance, because this was kind of the case that was swept under the rug, because there were some prosecutors, they kind of took a look at it and cover it up for their prosecutor, friends, and then kick the case around a while. And then finally the video leaf, and then we saw some charges. So it was a keen example of Watching the Watchers. We wanted to shine the spotlight and root out some of the malfeasance taking place in prosecutor’s offices covering up for other police officers. People like Gregory McMichael, who used to be a police officer in this very locale. And so the trial has been ongoing in parallel with the Kyle Rittenhouse case, but today was closing arguments. And so today in this video, we’re going to go through and we’re going to talk about the three defense closing arguments that took place in court today from different lawyers, Jason Sheffield, arguing for Travis McMichael, the individual who actually pulled the trigger that ended up killing them on Arbery.

We’re going to hear from Laura Hogue, she is representing Gregory McMichael. This is the former police officer. And then we’re going to hear from defense lawyer, Kevin go, who argued for Roddy, Bryan, who was sort of the neighbor who was actually filming the video that we all saw. So we’re going to look at all of that, but before we do, we’re also going to see what Linda doing skied. [inaudible] Linda done a Koskie. She is the prosecutor, and she was delivering the closing arguments for the government today. And so we’re going to break it all down in more. We’ve got a lot of clips and is very interesting characters in this courtroom. A lot of big personalities that were delivering these closing arguments. So we’re going to break it down. I hope that you can join us. And we are chatting live over with our friends at watchingthewatchers.locals.com.

If you want to join us over there, you’re going to see a form that looks just like this. And you can use that forum to ask questions as they come in. I will try my very best to get to them. And of course, if you can keep them in order, uh, that certainly helps. Although we’re only talking about one thing today, if you’re looking for clips of the show, various individual segments that are not the full show that you can share with friends or family, we have a clips channel that is over there at Robert crueler Esq clips. And then you can send those. We certainly appreciate when you share the show, we know that YouTube sort of keeps us in this little, uh, algorithmic silo, their fingers on the scale, but when you share it, it certainly helps the channel grow. So we appreciate that.

All right. And so, as a reminder, Ahmad mod Arbery, we covered this case when it happened some time ago, and there was a very interesting summation of this that was provided by my Fox, who was with the channel some time ago. And he put this together, he created these two different gifs or jifs however you want to call them. And they show you sort of the last minutes where a mod Arbery is running towards Travis and Gregory McMichael. And you can see these are two side-by-side frames, one sort of in real-time one super slow Mo and Ahmad Arbery is the, is the, you know, the quote jogger who is running in the white shirt, running down the street. We have father Gregory, who is in the car. This is former police officer on the back of the vehicle. And then we have Travis McMichael who was sort of standing there and you can see him sort of raise the shotgun right there at the last minute, which is what my Fox was pointing out.

And he said, you can see that Travis is pointing a shotgun at Arbery even before he’s 20 feet away. And so we covered this about a year ago. And so this is the scene that we’re talking about. Quick refresher there. What ends up happening just to catch up to speed is Arbery ends up sort of making a detour around the side of the pickup truck comes around the front of it, reengages with Michael’s here Michael’s of course has a shotgun. Shotgun goes off three times. Arbery is now dead. This all took place after there was a series of, uh, sort of events where the big Michaels were following Arbery around the neighborhood. The allegation being that Arbery was burglar, and they were making a citizen’s arrest to stop a burglar and to stop a burglary in process. So we’ve got some background. These were the major parties of the case, and we didn’t go through this.

Like we covered a lot of other trials where there was just, you know, mounds and mounds of witnesses. But of course there were today. We’re going to hear from these people, these are the main parties of the case. And so Linda Dunnett Caskey, she is the person who delivered the closing arguments for the government. She did a very good job. I’ll say she is actually somebody who was very organized, very powerful. I think used a lot of the best practices. She did a nice job. And then we hear from all of the different defense attorneys, we’ve got Jason Sheffield, he delivered the closing arguments for Travis McMichael. He of course, was the shooter we hear from Laura Hoke. She was the defense attorney who delivered closing arguments for Gregory Michael. And then the very, very interesting defense attorney. Kevin go is the person who delivered arguments for William Bryan or Roddy.

Brian and Kevin go has been causing a lot of just ruckus in this courtroom almost every single day. He stands up and argues for a mistrial. He says, uh, your honor, uh, given this egregious egregiousness, I’m going to ask for a mistrial again. And it’s sort of the same thing, very interesting, the same guy that news now, Wyoming, over on our locals community and on YouTube is, uh, he, he communicated that this guy is constantly out there sort of saying weird provocative things about black pastors and a black about black people in general. And it, it rang my memory bell because when we covered this, I think it was back in August. We heard this from Kevin go. And remember when I played the clip here on the channel where he said, um, your honor, there’s people that are a part of black Twitter that are causing interference with this case.

And you’re going, what are you, you can’t, what are you talking about? You can’t say stuff like that. My man, and he’s saying, well, black Twitter and black media, they’re going to be interfering with this entire trial. And he was talking about Lee Merritt at the time. And Lee Merritt of course happens to be a black lawyer. He’s a family lawyer. He’s representing the Ahmad Arbery family on a civil case against, uh, against the big Michaels and presumably against the government for trying to cover this case up. And so he happens to be a black lawyer and you have Kevin Gove, the defense attorney, who’s saying, well, he’s on Twitter and he’s, he’s agitating black Twitter. And it rang all of our eyebrows. When we listened to that here on this channel, we’re going to, what, what is he saying? He’s trying to instigate, or he’s trying to make the argument that black Twitter is instigating the trial.

And so we were wondering what he was doing, but then we fast forward now and we get to closing arguments and it turns out he’s been sort of doing this as a strategy, kind of, this has been a mechanism by which I think he’s trying to create a mistrial. So early on in the trial, he comes out there and he starts ranting and raving about black Twitter and about black media and about Lee Merritt. And he’s out there trying to sort of instigate a fight, right? He’s trying to get out there and saying, they’re doing all of these things that are problematic. And, and he’s saying that is interfering with the trial. And so by him saying that, knowing that this is all being televised, knowing that everybody on Twitter is going to see this white lawyer from Georgia getting out there screaming about white, I’m sorry about black Twitter.

And about the black media, knowing that black Twitter is going to see that. And the black media is going to see that it’s going to create this cycle whereby his own language in the courtroom, instigates causes an outrage in those particular media, bubbles, that then he’s going to take back and use. And he’s going to show the judge, see, judge, look at all this stuff that they’re saying on black Twitter about me. And you’re saying, yeah, but you started it. You’re the person who said that. Okay. Right. And so it’s the chicken or the egg argument that you have going on and on and on. But he is a very interesting character. We’re going to hear him argue for a mistrial again, even right in the middle of closing arguments today. So now that we’re caught up to speed, let’s turn it over to the prosecution. We’re going to turn it over to Linda Dunnett Koskie and she’s going to deliver the closing arguments for the government today in the Travis and Gregory and Brian trial. Here’s what we’ve got

On Thursday. Uh, we would, uh, be ready to go ahead with closing arguments in the case here Monday morning. Uh, we already to do that, I understand the state is ready to proceed. Yes. From the state.

Thank you, your honor. Once again, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Linda [inaudible]. I, along with Marissa, Olivia and Paul Kamaria represent the people of the state of Georgia and the citizens of blend county today, you are Lennon county. So why we’re here is to go ahead and present you with the state’s closing argument. Now the state gets to go first and last because the state has the burden of proof to prove this to you beyond a reasonable doubt, but not just to prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt, the charges in the indictment. But remember from year you were asked, can you give meaningful consideration? Do the defenses presented by the defense? Did they put any up? Okay. And, and what we’ve heard is what self-defense and citizens arrested

Self-defense and citizens arrest. And did you see the PowerPoint slides that they’re using? It looks like they got it off of like a VHS tape, uh, from the 1980s or something like that, you know? And they would mean like they would zero and then you’d see the title of the movie or something like that. Or it’s a video game. I don’t know what it is, but the slides, they came out very old school. They’ve probably been using them for the last 80 years. And they’re, they’re, you know, nicely organized as we’re going to see we’re going to go through them. She gave us a little bit of an outline, talked about the defenses are going to be citizen’s arrest and self-defense. And so she’s foreshadowing what some of these arguments or going are going to be. So then we jumped back in and now she’s going to lead us off with talking about sort of probable cause and about these assumptions and these driveway decisions.

And so they keep using this phrase driveway decisions. And the point of this is to sort of anchor into the juror’s minds to say that Travis and Gregory McMichael, uh, they were just sitting in their driveway. You know, they, they had nothing to do with this case. They rubbed their noses into something that they shouldn’t have. And they were just sitting in their driveway, making decisions versus being somebody who comes upon a burglar right in the middle of the act and, and has to act to stop them in order to stop something where there’s an urgency where somebody is in danger or there’s a threat, or somebody might get away. None of that, these were some people sitting on their sofas and in the driveways. And so what did they have any, any right to get themselves involved with this? This is what Linda argues in court today.

Now you heard the defense talk about, well, probable cause you’re going to have to distinguish between assumptions based on gossip and rumor and all this neighborhood talk on Facebook and actual probable cause to believe a crime had been committed and someone had committed that crime. The state’s is all three of these defendants made assumptions, made assumptions about what was going on that day. And they made their decision to attack them on Arbery in their driveways because you as a black man running down the street. So here’s what we got the bottom line. They assumed he must have committed some crime that day. Cause he’s running real fast down the street, right? They did not call 9 1 1. They wanted to stop him and questioned him before they called 9 1 1. How do we know? Because that’s what they told the police that night. That’s what they said at the scene. Hey, stop. We want to talk to you.

You have to do that. They made these decisions in their driveways. So what’s really going on here. You know, what’s really going on here, Mr. Aubrey was under attack. They committed four felonies against him. And those were the four felonies in the indictment that makes shot and killed him. Not because he’s a threat to them, but because he wouldn’t stop and talk to them, maybe they going, going to make him absolutely make him stop. We’re going to put a shotgun at you. That’ll make you a stop that should make you stop right here in your tracks. Cause we want to talk to you. And what did he do? He still ran away. Still ran away for five minutes, ran away, tried to speak. Michael went to intercept him with that shotgun. And he turned that corner. We can’t see whether it’s Darby attacked him or grabbed the shotgun right there. It doesn’t matter because how fast did he shoot him? How fast did he just hold that trigger? They shot and killed the Moto. They all acted as a party to the crime. They’ll note. They’ve been indicted that way. And I’m going to talk about

All right. So she goes through a lot and you can see sort of how she’s framing this. Ahmad Arbery was running away, running away for five minutes. In fact, you know, uh, uh, what did they say in the Rittenhouse case, dip and Dodge Thomas binger. He was dipping, dodging all over the neighborhood and they were chasing him. They were falsely imprisoning him. They were committing a series of various felonies in order to chase him. And they did it based off of a decision while they were sitting in their driveways. This wasn’t an emergency. He wasn’t running down the street with a TV over his shoulder. He was something where there, there was kind of no need is what she’s implying for these guys to just get up out of their driveway and go get involved. She continues. Here’s what she says.

So what is the defense? I mean, we’re, I’m just going to take it right down there. You talked about that. What is the defense we got self-defense what is that? Well, they’re going to try and convince you that a moderate Bree was the attacker that, um, he was somehow threatening to them three on one, two pickup trucks, two guns, Mr. Aubrey, nothing, his pockets, not a cell phone, not a gun, not even an ID. They want you to believe that he is a danger to them in Mr. Rubin said it in the opening statement, he was scary.

So here’s the thing. They’re going to try to claim that they were justified in their actions. Okay? Because here’s the thing, ladies and gentlemen, you cannot claim self-defense under certain circumstances. You can’t, you don’t get to say how it’s acting in self-defense and there’s three of them and it’s the law. This isn’t just something made up. There’s three of them in the law. Okay? If you are the initial unjustified aggressor, you don’t get claimed. Self-defense. If you’re committing a felony against somebody, you don’t get to claim self-defense. And the third one is, if you provoked somebody that they defend themselves against you, and then you go, oh, look, he attacked me first. But you really were the one who was provoking the attack on yourself. You don’t get to claim self defense and that’s the wall.

All right. So it’s provocation. Remember we talked a lot about that in the Rittenhouse trial. In this case, they’re saying that the defendants provoked the, the entire exchange, which is exactly what they said in the written house case, Rittenhouse, allegedly provoked Rosenbalm. And then when he shot and killed Rosenbalm he didn’t get the op he didn’t have the, the defense of self-defense any, any longer. The same thing is happening here, except they’re actually saying that the McNichols actually did provoke the ordeal saying that the Michaels were chasing literally Arbery around. And then when he responded, they don’t get to use self-defense. Now the opposite argument is going to be proffered by the defense saying, wait a minute, we did have justification to go and chase our down. It’s called citizen’s arrest. And we’ve seen this guy, Bert, allegedly burglarizing our neighborhood for a long period of time.

And so once we saw him, we decided enough already. We were authorized to make a citizens arrest. We did that when he attacked us under in response to a lawful citizens arrest. That is when, and only when Travis McMichael use deadly force, it was to protect himself because Arbor was trying to pull the gun away from him. So it’s sort of flipped on its head here. The prosecution is trying to take the wind out of the defense argument. They’re saying, listen, this is what you’re going to see from the defense. And I don’t know why they put a gold star on this a little bit interesting, but she didn’t have that in some of our other slides, but she put it on here. And she’s saying a defendant can’t claim. Self-defensive he is the initial aggressor. We’ve already talked about that. If you go up into a bar and you smack somebody the back of the head, and then he comes to rightfully respond and smack you in the head, you can’t pull out your gun and shoot him and say up self-defense cause you started it.

If you’re committing a felony, if you’re, you know, if you are falsely imprisoning somebody, if you’re committing a felony against the other person, you can’t use self defense. Cause you’re in the commission of a felony against them. So she’s arguing false imprisonment is a felony. And therefore you can’t use a self-defense defense when you are committing a felony against somebody else. So we have another clip here where she talks us through the citizen’s arrest portion of this analysis. She’s saying that if, if the defense is to be successful here, they have to, to, to be justified for what they did. And what is the justification? Where does it come from? It’s on the citizen’s arrest statute. So here is now Ms. [inaudible] in her closing arguments

And try and claim. They were justified in starting this in their driveways. They’re going to try and claim they were justified in committing all these felonies against Mr. Arbery. How, because they’re going to try and convince you that this was a citizens arrest. That’s what they’re going to do. But here is what assistance arrest really is. Okay? This is what the law says. This is the statute. The judge is going to give it to you. It, private person may arrest an offender. If the offense is committed in his presence right here, right now, I’m seeing you do it. Okay. Right here. Right now, I’m watching you commit the crime. I’m witnessing it. You’re doing it in my presence. So what’s the problem for the defendants? Well, we all know that Mr. Brian is on his porch, fixing it. Where’s Travis sleep. Michael he’s on the sofa, inside the house.

All right. So this language let’s play close attention to this. A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. And so you just heard from Ms. Dukowski, she says, well, I mean, it wasn’t within their presence. They were in the sofa, inside the house. These were people who were sort of observing this from across the street. If this was a burglary, then it wasn’t within his presence. But what about his immediate knowledge? You know, now you have to sort of say, well, they kind of knew about it and it was within their immediate knowledge, but there’s, they’re, they’re really going to latch on. You can even see what she’s underlining here. If the offense is committed in his presence, which is the much better language for her, because it clearly was not in his presence, but she’s just going to kind of gloss over that or within his immediate knowledge, which is kind of also what he would argue.

Well, it kind of was cause I was in the house across the street, on the sofa and my, my son told me about it, which is why I got up and went off and started chasing a mod Arbery so we hear that from Linda. Then we get an objection. So now she’s right in the middle of her closing arguments. And you’re going to hear the attorney. I believe it’s for Gregory McMichael. He stands up and he says, listen, I apologize. I know it’s your closing argument. I know it’s kind of rude while you’re on a roll and you’re really getting it. And you’re catching your strive for me to stand up and interrupt you. But I got to do it. It’s because you’re misstating the law. And I just need to make an objection about that. Here is what that sounded like

Going to somebody who has pure speculations. And after he’s lying there, dead Gregory Michael’s they’re telling the police, Hey, why didn’t you investigate some shorty committed some crime today? That’s not a citizens arrest, not legitimate at all.

So what are you going to hear? I hate to interrupt closing argument that the state is misstating the citizens arrest law repeatedly in this section of its argument. And I’d like the court to instruct the jury that the law will come from the court. This is not an accurate statement of it. Someone’s going to charge the jury on the law and as indicated, you’ll have a copy of that charge with you to review during your deliberations.

Okay. So did you see what happened? The judge says, okay, thank you for the objection, uh, jurors, you’re going to be charged. You’re going to get the jury instructions. And you’re going to get a very clear statement about what the law is. And so just, you know, okay, so we’re not going to hash it out right now. We’re not going to allow the judge to go in there and say, well, you know what? Mr. Defense attorney, you’re right. Mrs. Prosecutor, what are you doing over there? And what are you doing over there? And we’re going to just duke it out over what the law is. The judge has set, tells the jurors. Okay, listen. Yeah, he’s objecting. I’m noting that. Thank you for your objection. It’s kind of a form. Objection, misstating the law, but you’re not going to get into the nuts and bolts of it.

Judge just tells the jurors, Hey, you’re going to get a formal reading of all these charges. Just pay attention to that when we get there. But Linda Dunn at Kosky, the prosecutor does something very interesting here. She actually goes back in her slides and she says, oh, I just noted that objection from that defense lawyer over there. And uh, let me just rewind my slides. And she just shows the jurors exactly what she’s going to show them. She says, oh, well let me just kind of, uh, okay. They’re saying I’m being dishonest about it. Let me just scroll my slides back and I’ll just show you what the language is. Cause I copied it right from the charges that you’re going to get. She does that here. Kind of rubbing his nose in it a little bit. Watch.


As you can charge you these exact words, You, these exact words

going to show you these exact words Puts it up on the screen.

The state suspects that what you’re going to hear from

The defense is this. So then she just goes off into the next portion of her testimony. So objection. Right. And, and part of the reason you make an objection in the closing arguments is to throw somebody off in the middle of their closing arguments. You know, closing arguments are a lot of, sort of what I do here. You know, sort of a, an organized, emotional rant. Some people in the chat call it rage, pellets, you know, oh, here it comes. Here’s Rob going to just unload these rage pellets again. And typically I do. I find something that enrages me and I just go, but in a closing argument, obviously you’re in a court of law. You want to be a little bit more structured, a little bit less you to be a lot of less YouTube, but you’re, you’re, you’re passionate. You get in a rhythm, you have an argument to make, you’ve got some bullet points and you want it to deliver it with some oomph.

You want it, you know, really hammer it home. And so when you get thrown off in the middle of your closing argument, when you have an objection and you have to stop, your cadence gets off beat a little bit and now she’s got to pick it back up. So she didn’t actually do that. She actually just said, okay, well, I’m just going to stop here. We’ll just pick it back up again. Let me show you the language. And let me just clarify how that objection is not pertinent because I’m just going to show you the actual language that you’re going to see. So I liked it. I thought that it was effective. It, but, uh, I think, uh, buttresses her credibility. And she continued with the slides I saw also in the chat. Somebody said that, uh, this is the jeopardy font. And I think that is, is probably it’s probably right.

It kind of does look like the jeopardy font, doesn’t it. But this was an outline that Ms [inaudible] gave the jurors. And I like that. I always liked when there, when the jurors have some form that they can follow because it’s a lot, you know, you’re sitting there for two and a half weeks. You’ve got all these complicated words and jargon and legal and witnesses and objections. It’s very convoluted. So jurors need to know what to do. What are we here? Okay. W we’ve sat through a two and a half weeks of this now, what, what are we going to do? And she tells us, we’re going to talk about jurors duty, what you should do. If you’re a jury juror, why this is so important, identify some of the legal concepts. Talk about some of the charges that are in the underlying indictment. Talk about party to a crime.

This is where we’re going to get Roddy. Bryan, who of course is, uh, the, the, the, the friend, the neighbor who actually recorded the video. Why is he involved in this wild party to a crime? They also talk about self-defense and citizens arrest, which are the two main, I think, defense strategies that they’re trying to latch onto. And she gives us another slide where she’s talking to the jurors about what you’re doing. And I like this. She says, you do these things. You determine the witness credibility. You can believe them or not. You are the finder effect. You get to decide what ultimately happened. If two people said something happen, you get to decide which one is the truth, which one you believe you’re weighing the credibility. And she gave them this sort of this big, which I like. It’s it’s, it’s the reason why the jurors are there.

You know, it’s, it’s supposed to be meaningful. Do you want to give them something to do that? They can be a part of that. They can feel good when they go home and they sleep at night. I did justice that day. Both sides want to convince the, that they are helping you effectuate justice here. The prosecution is saying, this is the search for truth. You’re going to go find it. You have an obligation. All people want to be a part of the search for truth. Don’t you? I mean, isn’t that what we do with our lives, try to find our meaning and purpose and reason for living. And we want to get out there and cause change in the world about truth and purpose and vision and all okay. Jurors. You have to go out there and find the truth. That’s a big call. It’s a big ask.

And I like it. And she also gave us a very interesting slide here that defines some of the scope of the trial. Here is what we get from prosecutor, Donna Kosky. And so she put this up on the screen for the jurors to take a look at, and we talk about this a lot on this channel. We talk about defining scopes because scope is a very important part of any argument. You have to be clear about what you’re arguing about. Otherwise you can get outside of the scope. Somebody will start on one thing and then you’ll get into a tangent and you’ll jump outside the hula hoop. We talk a lot about the hula hoop here to stuff that’s inside. The hula hoop is my business stuff. This stuff that’s outside the hula hoop, none of my business. And so oftentimes even at our law firm, we say, is that in your hula-hoop probably not right?

And so we kind of take that from inside our hula hoop and pull it outside. The Hulu. Sometimes we take our hula-hoops and cast it over stuff that we probably shouldn’t really cast it over. We take stuff. That’s not our business and we make it our business. So we talk a lot about scope here in the Kyle Rittenhouse case, the defense wanted the scope to be about four minutes. The entire incident should’ve been about what happened from Rosenbalm to gross crew it’s to after that. When Kyle turned himself in four minutes, immediate, very narrow scope. What the prosecution tried to do is broaden that puppy to include everything, to include Kyle driving around without a license in Illinois, to Kyle violating curfew, to maybe being on car source property that he didn’t really want to be on. And all of these little externalities that when you compound them might be enough to convince a jury.

It wasn’t thankfully that he is guilty. The prosecution here was kind of doing the opposite of that. They’re saying we just want to focus on this, this one incident right here. And they define that for us. They say, look, anything that’s inside is what the jurors need to worry about. It’s inside the envelope, but anything that’s outside is outside the Hulu, but inside we have the elements of the crime. It’s all you need to know. You just got to listen to the testimony of the witnesses. You got to look at the defendant’s action. Only consider the law things like reasonableness. Look at the photos, use your common sense. She says and think about the credibility of the witnesses, along with the elements of the offenses, which is sort of like this one, the elements of the crime, but don’t she says don’t have any sympathy for the defendant.

That’s outside your hula hope. He might be a nice guy. He might be somebody who was a coast guard person who served his country and all of that. That’s great. Thank you. But don’t have sympathy. She says, don’t think about the penalty or the punishment. That’s not what you’re here for. The judge is going to handle sentencing. That’s not your prerogative. You only have to decide innocence or guilt. The judge will determine what the penalty is. Also. Don’t worry about prejudice. Don’t worry about sentiment. Don’t listen to conjecture. Even if you disagree with the law, I don’t as such. It’s too bad. That’s too bad. You don’t get to disagree with the law. You have to decide on the law as it’s written and forget about your passion, because that’s also irrelevant. Instead, focus only on what I tell you to focus on is what the prosecution wants.

So I like that again, right? Very concrete. It gives the jurors something that they can latch onto and they can, they have an instruction manual. They’ve never done this before. Have you ever tried to build a dresser from Ikea or one of these places? It’s a nightmare. And this is a complex legal case. Jurors need some instructions on how to assemble the verdict. And so the prosecutor is giving them that right now. She also talks about more instructions. How do we do this guys? Jurors, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. How do we do this? She gives him some advice. I’d start at the bottom. Actually. I would start with some of the lesser charges. It’s going to make it a lot easier. Here’s what she said. Right?

So we’re going to do now is going to talk about the charges in the indictment. All right, I’m going to make a suggestion to you. This may help you start at the bottom of the indictment. All right? And your deliberations start with criminal attempt at false imprisonment. It’s just easier. You just work through that one, work your way on up then to felony murder than to malice murder. Just it’s a suggestion. So what have we got criminal attempt to commit a felony, which is false imprisonment. What’s an attempt that’s when you perform an act, which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of said crime, Mr. Brian pulled out of his driveway and random into a dish. Mr. Aubrey was able to keep running right there. Criminal attempt to commit false imprisonment, criminal attempt to commit a fault false imprisonment. This is actually what it says in the indictment. What do you have in violation of the personal Liberty of Mr. Arbery? Okay. Guess what? We’re citizens of the United States, right? We live here. We have personal Liberty because this is a free country, free country. Other people can’t go up and stop us and hold us and detain us. Okay. They have to actually have seen us commit that crime in order to effectuate a citizens arrest. So you go around and you start stopping people. You’re doing that in violation of their personal Liberty,

Personal Liberty. See that. So she’s in Georgia, probably a very conservative jury based on the demographics of the area. And she’s making Liberty arguments saying, Hey, wait a minute. This is America. You can’t just go up to somebody and stop them and say, oh, excuse me. I just, uh, have some questions for you. If you want to be left the hell alone, you’re free to do that. This is America. And you can walk around without being aggravated by other individuals. And so she’s communicating that to a very conservative jury panel saying, listen, like me, fellow conservatives. I also don’t want to be molested. When I’m running around jogging in the streets, we should not create an environment here legally, where we encourage more of that behavior, because this is America. And we have Liberty in this country. She carries on and she talks about, uh, getting into, into some more granularity. This is where I’m saying, she’s giving the jurors an instruction manual for assembling the verdict. And here is what that sounds like. You’re going to see. She gives us a very clear distinction between the words and, and, or, and she’s even a little bit self deprecating. She says, oh, you know, lawyers, the such a pain in the butt. Aren’t they an aura and all this stuff. We’re just the worst she says, which you know is true.

Aggravated assault did make an assault upon the person at the mater artery with a Ford, one 50 pickup truck and a Chevy Silverado pickup truck. I got a legal note here for ya. Okay. You notice how it says an okay. Well what do we know Mr. Brian’s driving a Silverado. Travis is driving the Ford. F-150 Greg McMichael is in the passenger seat at first, then he’s in the back of the truck. So of course it doesn’t mean, and it’s all. Okay. I know that sounds crazy. Don’t you love lawyers. She just loved words. Okay. And he’s war. So the way you should read this is what’d they Ford F-150 pickup truck or a Chevy Silverado pickup truck. Okay.

Or, okay. So she’s getting very clear on that. So it’s kind of both trucks. You can use it as, or it’s either Travis’s truck or it’s Roddy. Brian’s truck. Doesn’t need to be an end. You can actually sort of split this up. And so she’s telling the jury when you get in there and you see, and, and or this is how you read it, this is how you interpret it. So giving them more instructions and she uses some very good analogies. If you follow this channel, you know, I like to use analogies here. She uses a good one. She says, Hey, you know what? The super bowl, everybody who’s a part of the team gets a ring. Even if you’re not exactly a player on the field. You know, the, uh, the team owner is up there in the, in the owner’s booth and they get a ring, but they didn’t step foot on the field. Everybody who comes to the game, they get a ring. Here’s how she communicates that. When she’s trying to bring in the idea that Roddy, Brian, somebody who didn’t actually live with them at Michael’s, he’s just a neighbor. He was just in a random guy out there running around the streets, trying to help his neighbors. Doesn’t even know what’s happening. Just a random dude. Why is he involved in this? Everybody gets a ring. That’s why.

And let’s jump in the truck, encouraging advising. How did I come off? Cut them off is what Greg the Bible said. So that’s where we’ve got. Listen, gentlemen, how do you really want to think about this? Everybody gets a Superbowl ring, right? The quarterback gets a super bowl, ring. The guys in the field, get the super bowl, rang. The dude on the bench gets a super bowl ring. Right? Everybody is involved. Everybody’s responsible. That’s what the law says.

Okay. So yes, I’m seeing a couple of comments in the chat, which is, what’s so cool about doing the show live in real time. Is people saying, you know, she sounds awful condescending to me, isn’t she condescending? And I think what you’re picking up there is sort of, it kind of sounds like talking down, right? I mean, it really does. It sort of, it, it almost feels like you’re explaining this stuff to a child and they kind of oftentimes at, at CLS in different, you know, seminars will tell you that. And what they’re trying to do is encourage lawyers to not be too technical. You know, lawyers have this, have this really bad habit of, of defaulting to the technicalities. Just say, I don’t know what to do here. So I’m going to talk about gas chromatography and, uh, all sorts of, you know, science-y stuff that is, is really technical, or we’re going to get into the statutes and, you know, refer to the section two 30, whatever it is.

And we’re going to know really involve ourselves in the minutia. And so what they will teach lawyers is you got to stop doing that, right? Simplify, simplify, simplify, simplify. You cannot talk to people like a lawyer because their eyes are going to glaze over and they’re going to keel over in the jury seat. So you’re supposed to kind of, you know, I don’t want to say dumb it down, but really kind of dumb it down. Yes. Ladies and gentlemen, and versus, or kind of being folksy about it, kind of, you know, lawyers are just so dumb where the worst. Yeah. It, it, I, I can see how it can kind of come off as a little bit condescending, but I don’t think it’s intended to be that. I think it’s, she’s trying to simplify down to the base level. She’s trying to, you know, make it simple because again, remember what happened in the Kyle Rittenhouse case 36 pages of jury instructions.

That’s like a novel that’s, you know, more than most people read it in a year in, and they’re supposed to go through this after listening to two weeks in trial, uh, you know, it’s nuts. And so this is a big ask. And so what attorneys are trying to do is limit volatility and simplify, really simplify. So you can cut out all the noise. That’s what she’s trying to do here. So we carry on. She is, uh, she gives us a Superbowl ring analogy, and then she gives us a couple additional slides. So she says here, a mod is not even to the mailboxes. And Travis McMichael is raising the shotgun up at him. This was the same point. We started the show with, with our gift from Fox, who was on the channel, uh, helping us out some time ago when we first got started, shout out to mom.

And so you can see the same thing that he pointed out in his gifts. Uh, the prosecution is using right there in the arguments, which is pretty cool. And also you can see that she’s telling us that you can’t provoke somebody into defending themselves against you so that you can intentionally harm them. And then claim self-defense. This was the big point that we we’ve been making on this channel for months now involve the Kyle Rittenhouse case, which was sort of an, uh, uh, erroneous attempt by the prosecution to use this doctrine in order to secure a conviction. They failed on that one. But this one, I think is a little bit more applicable here. And this is what the government is arguing. We also see that she is kind of going to go through this next segment, and she’s going to try to take the wind out of the defense.

So it remember how this works in a criminal trial, the prosecution they’ve got the burden of proof. They’ve got to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And if they, if they alleged an affirmative defense, they’ve also got to prove that those affirmative defenses like self-defense, don’t apply beyond a reasonable doubt, basically disprove them and, and, and show that they’re not applicable beyond a reasonable doubt. So very high standards. And so, because the system is, um, uh, very fair and they want to give the government all the opportunities in the world to make their case. And because they deserve it, they don’t already have enough money and funding and rules that go in their favor. They also get to closing arguments. So the way this works, the government makes their first closing argument. We’ve gone through this with Linda [inaudible], then the defense goes, so they get one opportunity at a closing argument.

And then because our law says that the government has that burden of proof. They get a reclose, they get a second close closing set of arguments and they get to come back and then beat up on the defense again. So the way that this works now is before Ms. Donna is going to turn this over to the defense of law, defense lawyers. She’s going to try to lay out their argument, flush it out so that the jurors are going to hear it from her before they hear it from the defense. That’s going to give her the opportunity to craft the argument around the margins and sort of poison the well to some degree. And so she’s going to try to do that right now. Here is how that sounds.

What are you going to hear? I don’t know. I don’t want, they’re going to say they’re good. They’re good defense attorneys. They’re going to get up here. And I’m the state is so worried that they’re going to make it seem so reasonable that everything Travis city Greg did is just so reasonable. I’m just going to ask you, use your common sense and put your thinking caps on, but this is what I anticipated. What we anticipate going to say, the victim started it, or you’re going to hear that he was the aggressor. Okay. Because he was running towards Travis streak, Michael. He was running away from Mr. Brian. We’d already tried to hit him with the pickup truck and Greg and Michael said it, us trapped like our at you knew there was nowhere else to go, you know? Or they’re going to tell you that ladies and gentlemen, this is really about the front of the pickup truck. Forgive everything else. It was all about the front of the pickup truck. And I’m going to try and make it seem like, well, he attacked Travis speak, Michael. He very well, my head, we can’t see what we know is his hand was like this, right?

Doesn’t matter. Know why it doesn’t matter? Cause they worked me a citizens arrest. They worked in fear, real fear, a feminine danger from Mr. Arbery. They weren’t committing to four felonies. That’s what they were doing.

Okay. So you heard what she said? She said, you know, we are so worried. Did you hear her say that we are so worried as the states and you know, they are so good, these defense attorneys and you know, we’re worried that they’re going to make everything look reasonable. I mean, we’re taking this thing almost personally, you know, we’re scared that they’re going to be able to convince you. And it’s almost like showing a little bit of vulnerability to the jurors. And I’m a big fan of that. I think that people connect with that. And so when a juror, when a, when a prosecutor comes out and says, you know, uh, yeah, so-and-so shoplifted, whatever. Uh, I don’t care, right? Prosecutors do this all the time. Prosecutors oftentimes feel like they’re just reading from a script. They, they actually ended up doing a lot of trials in, in many cases.

And they are essentially reading from a script. They read from the, through the complainant. They look at the discovery file and that’s it. And so if you get a prosecutor that looks like that, or comes off that way, jurors are going to be disconnected from them. They don’t care about it. What do I care about it? This prosecutor Ms. Linda Dukowski. She is not that she’s saying we are worried. This case is very personal to us. We are worried. They’re going to make this all look reasonable and I’m afraid they’re going to pull the wool over your eyes. And you’re not going to understand what really is going on here. So I’m just asking you, please just use some common sense here. He said, trapped like a rat. Okay. They were trying to kill this guy. Don’t listen to any of their distractions. Remember the hula hoop center yourself, when you go back into those deliberation rules room.

So she also tells us more about the law on citizens arrest. We have a lot of conversation about failing to make the arrest immediately after the commission of the offense. So if they, if they leave, then the power to conduct that arrest is extinguished is going to be her argument. And so we’re, we’re, we’re having a lot of conversations about time and about when the big Michael’s saw the, the alleged burglary taking place when there were prior incidents where they sort of spec, uh, uh, speculated that it was Arbery, that was this repeat burglar. And so all of these different timing and proximity questions about when did the McMichael see it? And does that justify them if it’s too far away or do they have to see it like right now? Like, can I only arrest somebody under a citizen’s arrest if I catch them in the middle of the act or can I arrest them the next morning? Or does it have to be immediate? And so we’re having conversations about the degree of that temporal proximity. And so prosecutor Dukowski gives us that. Then we wrap up, I think this is my last bit from her where she’s talking about the bottom line. They attacked Arbery it’s as simple as that folks, she leaves the jurors with something like this.

Let’s jump on this, the bottom line. As I said, nobody can say it to you again, this was an attack on a Mongo delivery. They committed the crimes. They committed before felonies. They attacked him. They shot and killed him. They can’t paint self-defense under the law because they were the initial unjustified aggressors. And they started this and they were committing the felonies against Hamada robbery. They have to somehow justify their actions by claiming citizens arrest. I’m going to remind you once again, evidence from the witness stand, they never ever said on February 23rd, 2020, if they were doing a citizens arrest or trying to arrest him, it was all we wanted to stop. We wanted to question him about what he was doing. Cause he must’ve committed a crime that day. And we were going to hold him to the police, could go back and figure out what crime it was that he must’ve committed as he was running down the street, citizens arrest. If the offense is committed in his presence or within,

And she goes on to say, or within his or, or with within his immediate knowledge and you see this here, she says, it means the same thing. Okay. It means the same thing. So you see how that modified a little bit earlier when we showed you this slide, it didn’t have those parentheses down there at the bottom. Did it? It didn’t have her interpretation of that. It didn’t have her argument. It only had the statute which, or the actual language that’s going to be in the jury charge the jury instructions. Because when she got objected to on that, she said, oh no, no, no, no. And she went back to her slides that had the actual language verbatim as written. And then now that we’re nearing the close of her argument, she says committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge means the same thing.

Now the defense of course is going to say, no, they don’t. That’s why they put a separate sentence in there. And they say, or within his immediate not, it’s not the same thing. Otherwise they would have just stopped writing after this. If they didn’t mean it. If it’s not, if it’s the same thing, why they put it in there, why didn’t they just put a period right here and just get rid of this whole thing? Well, it’s because it doesn’t, it’s not the same thing. It means something different. It means within his immediate knowledge, but you can see how the prosecution and the defense are going to mince words over this. So that was Linda [inaudible] delivering the closing arguments for the prosecution. I thought it was very effective. You know, she had a nice structure to it. I think that she simplified things. I liked how she used analogies.

She gave the jurors good outlines. She went through the law, pretty persuasively. And I think she had a, a good way of carrying herself. Some people in the chat have commented and said, mom, it might be a little bit condescending. I think what you’re picking up there is the oversimplification, which is not necessarily a bad thing. You know, you sort of, kind of have to balance those out. Do you want to over-simplify at the risk of being condescending, maybe because that’s how valuable simplifying the issues is. And she wants this case to be very simple. So she’s taking that approach. So Linda Dukowski delivering closing arguments for the prosecution. Then we pick up next. Now we have Jason Sheffield. Jason Sheffield is the criminal defense attorney who is representing Travis McMichael of course is the shooter who was in possession of the shotgun. When the exchange with the Marbury took place and his defense attorney, Jason Sheffield is now up and going to be delivering closing arguments. But before we get there, we noticed something interesting happens in the courtroom. Jason Sheffield is a PowerPoint guy. He’s going to be putting some PowerPoint slides up on the screen. And Lynn had done a Kosky the prosecution that we just heard from the prosecutor over there. She caught wind of some of these slides in the courtroom as he was setting up. And she doesn’t like what she saw. So she objects to these slides coming in and we start to duke it out here in court. Pretty interesting here is what happened today. Okay.

Yes, your honor. I have an objection right now. I have came into the courtroom and saw Mr. Sheffield flipping through a number of his slides that featured photos I’ve never seen before. They featured photos that I had not been tendered into evidence are not part of the evidence. And then I think there was a diagram that no one testified to. So having only seen four or five of them, and I get somebody writing some stuff down, maybe on use of force continuum, and then here’s the different levels because has testified to that there appears to be some sort of use of force diagram that no one testified to her authenticated. There seems to be a picture of the entrance to the tiller shores. And then there’s a photograph of like us Marine or, uh, you know, the us coast guard symbol, which is what I quickly saw. So right now, your honor, I don’t know if Mr. Chef was putting up, but I have grave concerns that he’s about to show the jury a bunch of stuff that they have never seen and no one’s authenticated or testified to in this trial at all.

Yeah. So, so she’s kind of trying to erupt him before he even gets started. And if you look over here, this guy has just been shot. Jason Sheffield. He’s like, what is she objet? He’s like, uh, I’ve been a trial lawyer for a long time. I’ve used slides all over the place. What the heck is happening here? He’s looking around at the judge going, what is this? Why is she objecting to my slide? I haven’t even started my closing arguments and she’s already making objections. And so she brings up some good points. These are images we’ve never seen before. They’re not an evidence. And he’s just looking around kind of baffled. And then he responds, he goes to the judge. Uh, these are a closing argument. These are slides. Uh, what’s the problem here. Here’s what he says.

The monster, the things judge says, closing argument. We’ve got a lot of testimony about law enforcement training center, all that is you’ve got testimony about his training and you can anticipate that use of force. These are just demonstrative, demonstrative things. I mean, they’re in evidence to the extent that to testify. Then the, uh, the only thing that caught my eye there is the argument that this is what he received testify. Okay. These are just demonstrative and there’s nothing on those that show, um, the coast guard, uh, manual or anything like that. That would be, uh, for example, I know that the state presented, uh, a few of the pages from the actual manuals themselves from the manual. The only thing that I have is what I’ve created, that shows, he testified about officer presence, verbal commands, control techniques, aggressive response, takings, immediate weapons and weapons. Okay. And this, what is that? Is that something you put together that,

Okay, so they’re going through a lot of this, right? And they, and they spent some time dissecting, basically every single slide. And now the judge is going to be asking. So we dig into one of the objections on one of the slides a little bit more specifically here,

You actually come to clip it and cut it from things that I’ve found.

Well, what’s behind it is an orange thing that has physical fitness standards and search incident to arrest behind it. So, and it says objectives completed facts. Like Michael never testified to any of those

Things that he did these things.

And what’s the thing at the top of your honor, we have maritime law enforcement academy student profile report that wasn’t as tendered in, and then we’ve got that next to it.

Well, for official use only, I just intend to talk about the course that he took the courses that he took, that he testified to. No, there’s, there’s more to them than it says. It’s a student profile report that was not testified to, that was not tenured in.

So we can’t see on this one, it sounds like he’s, it’s like a, like a screenshot from a online student portal or something like that that might have Michael’s name on it. And, you know, says that I’m a credentialed so-and-so and he’s like, well, that’s not an evidence. You know, it’s closing argument. You can talk, you can make arguments about stuff that came in during trial, but you just can’t, you know, go off talking about whatever, whatever you want. It’s closing arguments. I mean, the scope is limited to the trial. And so the judge is taking a look at those slides and saying, well, I mean, that might be true about him, but I don’t remember that officially being discussed on the record. So you just can’t, you just can’t say, oh, and he’s, you know, he’s, uh, a superhero also, by the way, he saved, uh, you know, a whole cart wheelbarrow full of puppies.

Let’s not an evidence. You don’t get to just make that up. And so I’m not arguing that he’s doing that. It’s just that his slides are a little bit overbroad. The prosecution is being a total stickler about this. And she’s saying that, that, that, and that all got to go. You can see how this is a little bit different than what we saw in the written house trial in Rittenhouse. It’s just like, oh, whatever, just talk about whatever you want. The judge is like, oh, it’s free for all. Just, you know, have at it. Nobody cares here. It’s very specific. I mean, she went up there and she didn’t like the header on it. And so the defense attorney Sheffield is now adjusting it in real time. They carry on with this and defense attorney Sheffield is this kind of hilarious. He’s going to talk about his handwritten notes.

So we just finished up with, uh, with Ms. Linda Dunn, a Koskie and she used PowerPoint slides. So she used these, uh, beta max VHS jeopardy, 1980s slides that have been around probably that office for the last 30 years. And that was her way of organizing her content. She organized her, her notes in something separately, and then went and created slides. And so in this case, uh, attorney Sheffield has a different approach and it’s going to really weird everybody out for a minute when you hear it, and I’m going to explain why, and it weirded me out for a minute too. I was like, what, what? This is weird. He wants to use what he wants to show jurors. What here’s, what it is very interesting. Let’s listen.

So tell shores neighborhoods. This is his testimony at trial.

Wait a second. Handwritten notes by the attorney as to his testimony at trial, we’re going to show this to the jury. Okay.

Of course we are. I wrote him right in front of him as he was testifying. This is inappropriate to get this deep into my presentation. These are the notes that I took a trial. The same way that I can show this one. Yes. Well, those are your notes. Yes. Based on his testimony, I did it in front of the jury. Just like I did this one. Judge

Is a weirded out.

I can put my notes up there. Just what you’re referring to. Yeah. I’m saying you saw him testify. So the unfortunate thing is when everyone was just talking about working through things, I can’t think it through. So, um, when you are using the slide to show is what his testimony was. At that time, the state has chosen to type it up. They decided to type up what was said. You heard reg Michael say, you heard Travis and Michael 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 said on the stand and the visual way, 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. Yeah, judge.

I understand now what that wasn’t. I did not. And I agree, Mr. Sheffield did write those things down on the big piece of paper. Um, and he’s chose, chose, chooses now to show it this way. State’s okay with that. The problem becomes the next photo of scintilla shores. No one testified at that photo.

Okay. So then she moves on and it goes into the next photo, which they object about. And it turns out to be, it’s like a, like a chapter book marker. So I think the judge lets it in, but she’s fighting over the fact that he wrote notes down and he wants to use those in his presentation. She used slides. He just used his notes. And this is very effective. Very interesting. He’s actually going to use that as his, his literal presentation in front of the jurors. And what does that show? I mean, it’s very authentic. It’s like, listen guys, we’re not hiding anything from you. I mean, I’m literally showing you the notes that I took when he was testifying. I didn’t have to go back to my office and create 35 different PowerPoint slides. All right. Didn’t have to do that. It’s very simple.

All I needed to do, write down the truth, which came out of my client’s mouth. They’re right here on a notepad here. Look it up, put it on the slot, put it up there on the screen. Let’s go through it one by one. Okay. Uh, jurors point number one, I asked Michael about this. This is what he said. Point number two asked me, this is what he said. I took the notes down. It’s very raw. It’s authentic. It doesn’t feel like you’re trying to hide the ball, which a lot of jurors have problems with, with defense attorneys trying to hide things from them, trying to be these slick shyster lawyers. I’ve been called a shyster lawyer by a judge in Tucson. He said, what are you? One of those slick Phoenix shyster lawyers.

When I went down there, which is about two hours south of here, but you get the point, right? It it’s, it’s a, uh, short of showing a good faith. This is what I wrote down. We’re not hiding the ball, puts that on the screen. And once the prosecution recognizes it for what it is, she goes, well, that’s okay. I guess, I guess there’s no problem with that. The issue here is that attorney’s notes are like super sacred. You know, you don’t want those getting out, just like if somebody who comes through the office, like a plumber to come fix something in the, in the building, it’s like every is covering their notes up because of attorney client privilege. And so for a lawyer to just throw their notes up on the screen, it’s like, well, you’re not allowed to do that, man. You know, this is you’re, you’re a lawyer.

Do you know how valuable those are? And so he just throws them up on the screen and the judge freaks out the prosecution freaks out, even I’m like, what is he doing? He’s going to show somebody his notes. Those are like his secret test results. How could he possibly show anybody those? But, so it’s an interesting tactic, interesting technique. I like it. So that was from Jason Sheffield kind of fun exchange in court. Then he finally gets started. So now all of that stuff is out of the way about the, uh, the, the launching into the closing arguments. Now he finally gets started and you’re going to see a lot of the same best practices that we talk about here. The triad, he’s going to talk about the three things that this trial is all about three as is usually the case here he is

Duty and responsibility. And following the law will always be intertwined with heartache and tragedy. This case is about three things. It’s about watching. It’s about waiting. It’s about believing Travis, Michael background, 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 in the coast guard, as a boarding officer, the Cook’s card into some of the most treacherous waters extending some 200 miles off the coast in the United States. All right, you train 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 provides that he do what his responsibilities were, how he would make decisions in critical moments of policing and in critical moments of rescue.

Okay. So what we have here, you saw him give us the triad, watching, waiting, believing. He’s going to expand on that as this goes on. And then he talks a lot about the human elements of this case. And we already heard that Travis McMichael testified. And so we learn a little bit more about him. He came out, he talks about he’s a coast guard, and we’re going to see this coast guard theme, come back around again. In closing arguments, as Jason Sheffield wraps up his arguments, he’s going to use this as a theme that, that he has been out there for most of his life in the coast guard, saving people drowning in the water, rescuing people, pulling them shore, saving their lives. And now it’s going to be on you ladies and gentlemen of the jury jury to do the same to him, reach out and extend an arm. And so you can see this theme that is being formulated here at the start of Sheffield’s clothes. He then now goes through and actually uses those notes. So remember what we just got done, arguing about and turns out, yeah, go ahead and admit those things. Show them to the jurors. Well, he does. Here’s what that looks like.

Travis spend a long time going through these things in his testimony. If you recall, I was writing feverously as he was testifying so that I could capture what it was that he had to share with us about these things. It includes what gave him the right to search examine arrest, seize inspect in choir. 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 deescalation and how deescalation was always the goal. You talked with you about leaps, listen, empathize, empathize, ask questions, paraphrase, summarize why, so that you could gain understanding so that you could continue to investigate deescalate, learn what’s going on and figure it out.

There you go. Actually using the laser pointer to just bounce around on his notes. And so he’s just kind of showing the jury exactly what they talked about. And of course he, he knew during his direct exam of his client, Travis and Michael, where the line of questioning was going to go. So, you know, the notes aren’t like, uh, something that he was just, you know, sitting down with a random person at a coffee shop, asking them questions. He had a very clear structure of about exactly where he wanted to go during his direct exam because he knew he was going to use this strategy. He was going to say, okay, perfect. I’m just going to basically, you know, fill out a bunch of questions that I want answered, ask him the questions, fill out the answers, and then shove that up there in front of the jury, as my closing argument and walk them through it.

I think it’s very authentic. And like I said, a lot of this is about credibility and about, you know, body language and about, uh, sort of reading emotions and motives into people. And so oftentimes defense attorneys get a bad rap. You’re representing the bad evil scum of the planet, even though that’s not true. 99.9, 9% of our clients are amazing people. Very good people just have one bad incident. We’re all one moment away from it. And so you have to sort of shatter that. You have to, you know, walking into a courtroom as a defense lawyer, you’ve got a little bit of an uphill battle. A lot of jurors just already think that you’re that scummy defense lawyer. They saw in some Hollywood film somewhere. And so he’s being very authentic and open. And I liked that. He also talks about flushing out a little bit more about the incident talking about Arbery now going into a full sprint, running into the neighborhood. And this is where we see two different versions of the same set of facts. We know that there was a human being running down the streets, but why or where or what was the character? The context of that, the prosecution frames at one way, the defense frames at another. Here’s what that sounded like

Behavior then changes instantly. Mr. Aubrey is at a full sprint running into the neighborhood, into the neighborhood. It’s this thing is going to infer means he’s going on his regular job because running out of the neighborhood is a problem. It’s a problem now because there’s a guy standing there on the phone, looking at you back in the same residence that you’ve been caught in. Now, three times caught meaningful camera and police coming and searching with lights and Travis pick Michael. And to return to that house in the middle of the day like that, after being run off, imagine going to visit a house under normal circumstances. Oh, this house looks like one. We might want to buy. I’m going to go in there. Then somebody comes up to you with headlights and tries to stop you from going into the house and confronts you about it. Are you literally ever going to go back to that house? Again? It is unreasonable to think that he’s going back there for some lawful purpose after being run out of there three times before.

Okay. So he’s trying to frame this differently. We know what we heard from the prosecution. And I don’t think I played the clip here on the show, but we heard from her that she called Arbery a looky loo, just this person who was just going around, looking at buildings, just, you know, kind of, oh, well, this is interesting, which you may have done. I’ve done it when I was a kid, I used to ride my bike all over the place. If there was some construction or something, oh, I wonder what’s going on over there. You know, but you’re not out there to, uh, you know, uh, strip out copper plating or wire from the interior of the house. You know, you are in fact, somebody who’s just poking around the neighborhoods and that’s not an uncommon thing. And is that exactly right? I don’t know.

Maybe it’s what the prosecution says and he’s just a looky loo. But then the defense comes out and says, no, they’ve already had hints that he was there. Three times. He’s already been warned more or less not to come back. They’ve kept an eye out for this character for a long period of time. He finally comes back. Somebody makes eye contact with him, says, we’ve been looking for you. And now he is scared to death. He knew that he shouldn’t have been there. He knew that this was sort of a, a burglary that he’s already been under, a close, full watch for. And he is petrified, man. He knows that they are coming down for him. And so now he’s is this trapped like a rat person who is going to be fighting back, right? When a rat gets cornered, I mean, this is not my language.

This is their language. It’s going to bite, right? When an animal gets quartered, it strikes back. This is the theme that they’re going with here. Not calling them out Arbery and animal. But they’re saying that he was a nefarious actor. He’s a bad person doing bad things. When he got caught, he acted badly. And he was going to go and attack Travis with Michael, which is why he had to defend himself. And you can see here, he’s laying out that narrative. Yeah. He’s in a full sprint. He made eye contact with somebody who was calling the police. He was petrified. And that’s why he ran away. So same interpret, same set of facts, but a different interpretation. And then he goes back to the moment, this one moment where the gun actually went off and he’s going to give us some demonstrations about how this all went down here is Jason Sheffield representing Travis with Michael,

Pull it straight out. No question. This is about this man. Travis turns into a mom trying to use his entire body pulls the end of the shotgun. Away from him, gets pushed across the road, into the grass. And the second shot goes off. Here’s the plume. And it’s believed that it didn’t hit Mr. Robert, Travis coming out of the grass. Now trying to yank this gun from Mr. Arbery again, trying to yank it away from him a his hand still on it, a mods fist. Now raising, is there any question that a Marbury is assaulting Travis with Michael right before that third shot? Not one single bit of question.

All right. So that was Jason Sheffield. I think we’ve got one more clip from him. And this is where he’s talking about the third shot. So we know that there was a series of, of shots that went off. We know that they happen in rapid fire succession. Here is why we sort of dial in on that third shot. Here’s what that sounds like.

And that third shot those off and these two minutes and where they started face to face looking into each other’s eyes, never a word being spoken by Mr. Author. It is an absolutely horrific and tragic that this has happened.

This has happened.

It’s a tragic, this is where the law is intertwined with heartache and tragedy.

I remember that he opened with that. The law is intertwined with heartache and tragedy. And did you hear the language that he was using? That was very intentional. This was a horrible thing that happened. Nobody did anything, but it happened and it’s heartache and tragedy. And sometimes that happens in the law. Doesn’t mean somebody’s criminal doesn’t mean that they are a murderer tragedy. And heartache happens in the law all the time. Here is now where he’s enrolling the jury. This is his final close says this courtroom is sacred, except your duty.

This courtroom is sacred. It is our last place for truth. It is where we pull it from the witnesses. If we have to, and we present it to you and we ask that you hold it dear. And that you accept your duty to not erode the law. As you sit here and think about what the law allows a citizen to do, it is going to take courage. It’s going to take courage to set aside what you think and feel what may be trying to penetrate you from other sources that you have tried to do your best to avoid and to focus on the bare facts of this case that had been captured on photograph and on video I’ve been testified to in this courtroom, we’ll take courage. And every count in this case, you’re going to be asked to make a decision about each person accused Travis. Michael will have his form, reg Michael heads and Roddy, Brian hits, and you will be given the option on every one of these charges for not guilty or guilty. The evidence that’s been demonstrated to you, I think is overwhelming, but it doesn’t come without hardship on you consequence for these families. I think the evidence is clear in this case.

Evidence is clear. You jurors have a sacred duty, very important. This courtroom is a sacred ground, and you’ve got to go out there, make a decision. It’s going to be hard. It’s going to be asking a lot of you. It’s going to be taking courage is what he says, because he knows that he’s asking them to make a decision. That’s going to free his client who shot and killed another person. And that’s a hard thing for jurors to accept. This guy killed somebody. Was it self-defense maybe, but he still killed somebody. And so people don’t like to just let people kill other people. People want consequences. When that happens, we saw what happened with Kyle Rittenhouse. We saw that even in that case, one of the most common, most, uh, clear self-defense cases, I think that I’ve ever seen, uh, took five days for jurors to figure that out or however long, it was way too long.

Okay? Jurors don’t like it. When people are dead, they don’t want to let the other person who caused those other people to die, to go free. It’s just, uh, you know, an eye for an ice situation. People like equity naturally in life, regardless of what the facts of the law say, they want balance and harmony. So in, in a Rittenhouse case, they, it took a long time in a clear cut case to come to terms with allowing this to happen. In this case, Jason Sheffield is communicating that to the jurors. It’s going to be hard. It’s going to be asking a lot. You might have to sacrifice something in your world. It might be scary to go home and tell your family that. But that’s why this is courage. This is why this is your civic duty. I’m asking and calling upon you to do your duty in this sacred arena. Then he finishes out with the coast guard, close the coast guard theme from Travis McMichael. We started out at the beginning, Jason Sheffield, whose defense lawyer said he was somebody who served in the coast guard, saving people’s lives. And now we’re asking you ladies and gentlemen of the jury to save his life. He, that arm to drowning sailors in the middle of the ocean, will you extend your arm to Travis McMichael?

Travis had spent nine years in the coast guard, search and rescue policing the water, sometimes 200 feet off shore going into situations that were very difficult. Working with law enforcement, reaching out and extending his hand as firefighter law enforcement officer combination for the first time in his life. Travis is now in those waters. He is now a one who needs help. Our goal here has been to do everything we can to dive into those waters, to search for the truth, to pull it from the IC depths, into raise it to the, to the surface. And we have done that. We have done that with Travis McMichael. We have carried him to the surface to you. And now the choice is yours. Will you do, as he has done in the past to others, will you reach out your hand and extended to Travis, speak Mike and pull him out of those waters? I think if you’ve heard anything that I’ve said, there’s only one decision. He’s not guilty on all charges. I thank you all for your attention.

Whoa. That is a meaty ask. Isn’t it? The jurors, if you don’t save him, then you are letting him drown. If you don’t extend your hands into the water and come out with an acquittal, a not guilty, you’re letting Travis, when Michael drown in the water, how could you seek sleep at night? He’s been out there saving people all over the place and all these asking for now is a little help from you. And are you willing to do that ladies and gentlemen of the jury? Well, we’ll find out what way. All right. And so we’ve got, that was Jason Sheffield, delivering closing arguments for Travis Smith. Michael. Let’s see what else we have. We have two other attorneys to continue on with and give me one second because something happened over here on my PC that I’m going to try to see if I can troubleshoot real quickly.

I had a recording error. All right. We’re just going to figure it out. We’re going to work on that later. All right. And so we’ve got two additional defense lawyers making their closing arguments. Next, we turn our attention to Laura. Hope she is representing Gregory McMichael along with her co-counsel Mr. Hogue and Gregory McMichael is Travis Michael’s father. This was the former police officer who was in the back of the pickup truck, but didn’t actually pull, uh, or pull the trigger on the firearm that ended up killing a model. Arbery so he’s the father and Laura hoed comes out here and delivers closing arguments and wants to explain to the jury why Gregory’s not guilty here is how she started.

My father worked for almost 50 years as a life insurance salesman. Not because he liked it because he didn’t, he did it because he had three kids that he wanted to see grow up in a neighborhood that was safe and secure, a safe home, surrounded by a community of neighbors who cared for each other. Band-aids for skinned knees, July 4th parties, block parties that went on for hours, crocheted, baby blankets. When a new child was born casseroles, when we’d lost a loved one, he worked hard day and night to provide those things for the people that he loved.

So she flips the flip charts and what do we get the word neighborhood?

Larry English was a contractor in Douglas, Georgia who worked hard every day to provide for his wife and two children and to save for.

Okay, so she kind of starts it off a little bit. Interestingly, you know, with a personal anecdote, talking about my father, three kids, safe and secure, all that stuff. Then he transitions into Johnny English, the guy who actually owned the house that Marbury was in and talks about his life as a contractor and wanting to provide all the goods for his family and that type of stuff. So, you know, kind of starts it off as my father. And I don’t like that at all. I think that a lot of attorneys will try to weave in personal anecdotes. That’s fine. There’s appropriate times and places to do that. But at the very start of an opening argument, I’m just not a huge fan of that. I think that oftentimes, uh, juries, I don’t want to hear about the lawyer. They don’t really care about your family, about what you’re doing, your fit, your friends, or any of that crap.

They’ve got their own families they’re worried about. And so it’s more appropriate to talk about you, the jurors, K your families, you know, raising your kids and all that stuff in a safe neighborhood, making it more personal for the jurors rather than about the lawyer. The lawyer is really somebody who, you know, largely, should sort of disappear into the backdrop of the trial and they’re most effective when they are able to sort of use their legal sword Smith, their, their, you know, uh, judo to get out there and win without being the center of attention. You know, you want to sort of eliminate the opposition without being the center of attention, do it without making it about you, right? The most masterful attorneys out there are people who can do that. And what she’s doing is making it really about her. And then she transitions into Johnny English and then carries in.

But you see what she’s trying to do. She’s trying to talk about this in the neighborhood context, trying to say, this is all important because it’s about neighborhoods. It’s about families. It’s about living in a safe environment. So she’s going to connect it back to that. She picks up and she is going to sort of rephrase that same language that we heard from the prosecution, calling them out. Arbery a looky loo saying that he was just somebody who was just popping his head in there. It’s not accurate at all, is what she argues here is

There was no legitimate reason for a mod Arbery to beat plundering through Larry Englishes house, those four nights. And again, on the afternoon of February 23rd, Ahmad didn’t live there. He didn’t work there. He didn’t have friends there. He didn’t have a girlfriend there. He wasn’t hanging out with a friend in that neighborhood. It was a friend of a friend. He didn’t jog through that neighborhood. He was a recurring night time intruder. And that is frightening and unsettling. A looky-loo in an open unsecured construction site. Why did we have to withstand that drumbeat? Why let’s clear a few things up. The judge will charge you that for burglary purposes, a dwelling is any structure that is intended for residential use. It makes no difference if it’s occupied being built under construction on occupied or vacant.

Okay? So you see what she’s doing now. The prosecution came out and they wanted to frame this as looky, loos, just a random person, just looking around, not a big deal. She comes out and says, that’s not a looky-loo. This guy is a burglar. Okay. She was witnessing a burglary, trying to stop a repeat burglar in the neighborhood for, from committing additional burglaries were tired of it. And so we saw this happening and what that, what that, what she’s reframing there is a burglary that is a felony it’s taking place. As she says, in a structure, according to the law and that justifies, she continues, these citizen’s arrest. She wasn’t, you know, they didn’t go and stop Arbery because they saw him poking his head into an empty building. They watched him committing a burglary, which is why they pursued him. That is the basis that justifies the citizen’s arrest.

They’re arguing, which justifies the, the actual following of him, not to use the word chase, but following up him to seize him, to conduct that arrest at that moment, he attacked them. And then they decide that their life is in danger. And that justifies the use of force is how Ms. Ho is arguing. She finishes up. She says, uh, she also now is giving the juries some instructions. Okay. So remember when I talked about this at the start of this show, we heard from the prosecution and she gave them very clear instructions. Okay. And versus, or think about it this way. If you’re at a super bowl and your team wins, whether you’re playing or not, you’re a part of the team. So you get a trophy, you get a ring don’t you, everybody does. And so she’s using a lot of these analogies to communicate with the jurors.

Laura is part of the defense that is going to be delivering this portion of the closing argument. What I suspect happened here is because we have three co-defendants. We have several different arguments that were sort of split up. The defense is saying, okay, look, we all get our own closing arguments. Why don’t I do this portion? You do that portion and you do this portion. So she comes out and sort of gets the jurors, a lecturing portion of this. Listen to everybody. The government came out here and they’re going to tell you to go in there and just, you know, come up with a verdict and just find them guilty on something. We don’t care. Just go do it. She’s saying, that’s not how this works. You are, you are not part of a group. What she’s trying to basically educate the jurors and say, listen, this is not about reaching an agreement.

Okay? You’re not going to come out of there with a negotiated term. This is about innocence or guilt. And so if you’re somebody who says that, you’re, you’re a holdout, you’re a hard liner, which is exactly who she’s talking to here. If you’re going to be somebody who’s like going to vote to acquit and you’re not going to move at all, you’re a hard liner. And so don’t let them negotiate you out of your position. This is not about compromise and negotiation. This is about sticking to your guns. Do not buckle is who she’s talking to.

The deliberations are not like a meeting. They’re not like a business meeting where you’re going to each put in your opinions and thoughts and reach an agreement, a little give and take. It’s not like going to buy a car and you’re, dickering over the price. It’s not even like the legislature when they’re trying to come up with a budget, Hey, this is the stuff I really want in my packet. And this is the stuff I really want in my packet. I’ll give up a little bit of this. If you give up a little bit of that, that is not at all. How jury deliberations work because you see compromise has absolutely no place in the deliberative process. The judge will instruct you keep an open mind, talk with each other, consider each other’s points of view. But the bottom line, ladies and gentlemen is that each of you will form this verdict on your own,

On your own talking to the holdouts, okay? This is not a group activity. If you’re a holdout, if you’re the one person in there that says, I can’t tell, maybe I might vote to acquit. Hold the line is what she’s saying. Please, she’s talking to that one person doesn’t know who it is, but she’s talking to them. And then she finally finishes on this one. Here’s Jeremy


Nope, I already got that one. Here is where she talks about our beautiful constitution. And she connects us all back to safe neighborhoods, which was the opening theme of her closing argument. We saw her flip that over on the chart neighborhoods, our constitution, our beautiful us constitution here as Laura hug

Institution, our beautiful constitution demands no less than this certainty. The grandparents on golf carts, instant Tila shores, the kids on bikes in your neighborhood, the couples walking their dogs after dinner in our small town neighborhoods deserve no less. Greg Mike bolt is not a murderer. He’s not guilty

Makes eye contact with everybody. Doesn’t say, thank you, closes the binder and gets up. Now the judge is sort of in shock counsel,

As in general,

The judge has the best facial expression. So he gives them a break that was Laura Hogue, Gregory Michael’s attorney, giving closing arguments today in the Michael’s Arbery trial, we have one final defense lawyer who came out defense attorney David goes representing Roddy. Brian Roddy. Brian, of course, is the neighbor who got involved in this ordeal by sort of a chasing Arbery and following him around. And he was ultimately the guy who recorded the video that all of us have seen many times. David go is the defense attorney representing Roddy. Brian David is a very interesting attorney. He has for a long time been making motions for mistrials at every turn of the corner. Here he is again in court today, arguing for yet another

To influence the proceedings in this case. Um, I don’t know whether they intended to scare the defendants, but I have co-counsel uh, with a small child who was scared to death, um, large weapons, apparently automatic weapons, uh, were seen outside, uh, the courthouse, uh, and you know, given everything else that’s already transpired in this case, we believe that this point that it’s perfectly fresh to renew the motion for mistrial. This core has gone to great lengths to give these defendants a fair trial. Um, but this security precautions that were in place despite the Sheriff’s best efforts and your honor’s best efforts, we’ve now got people claim to be violent driving around the courthouse with coffins, with our clients’ names on it with semi or fully automatic weapons. I’m not sure that this is no longer a figurative mob. This is a literal mob and inevitably the proceedings,

Okay. Mob. He says that they’ve got coffins that are being carried around the courtroom with their clients’ names on it. What’s, that’s a pretty big claim. And so they actually looked into that a little bit later, the judge talked to the sheriff and said, what’s going on with those coffins out there? Are they the names of the mug Michaels on the coffins? And they say, no, it’s not that it’s actually the name of a Mott Arbery and George Floyd that are on the coffins, which, you know, I, I’m not sure how much better that is. I mean, it’s still, it’s still a pretty volatile situation. So, uh, he’s making an objection, says I want another mistrial. I think this is probably, I don’t know how many days the trial has been in motion, but I think he has been making motions for mistrial at every single day. And so the state objects to this, they say, well, whatever, judge, the other stuff, if you want to Institute some new security rules or whatever, you’re free to do that. Uh, we leave that to the discretion of the court

State ask that you deny the motion for mistrial. We leave it to the discretion of the court.

Yeah. The courts again, denying the Ms. Trial. I’ve indicated, um, previously, um, mentioned to counsel that, uh, I agree with the concern that is out there, uh, with regard to the jurors having, uh, exposure to anything that may be going on inside out, not whatever is going on inside. I have, it has not been brought to my attention on a security level. Um, again, individuals have a right to be outside the courthouse. Uh, I agree with Mr. Hogue that, um, the court needs to keep a very close eye on, uh, whether or not whatever may be going on outside the courthouse has any influence upon the jury. And the court has taken steps to ensure the jury is insulated from, uh, anything going on around the courthouse so that they can focus on their business before the court, which would be to, uh, consider the evidence presented as well as the arguments of counsel, then I’ll continue to adopt her to do so.

All right. So the judge says, we’re going to keep an eye on this. Uh, no mistrial granted. And thank you. YouTube go is, is golf like cough, thank you for that. And V antique has also chimed in and said, yeah, he’s been making that same motion for about every day of this entire trial. So maybe not every single day, but almost all of them. And so he makes that motion and then judge denies it. Then it’s up for David Gough to come now and, uh, give his closing arguments. Now, most of this sequence of closing arguments was extremely boring for somebody that’s been very interesting throughout this trial. At least the clips that I’ve seen, but he just sort of reads through the statutes at some point. And it was really tedious work. And I think it was by design. This is not a dumb lawyer. I think he knows what he’s doing, but what’s happening here is, uh, now we get the start of this where he’s laying out the framework for his entire closing argument. Uh, and remember, we’re only talking about Roddy Bryan here not to make Michaels. This is just a random neighbor who just happened upon a scene taking place in his neighborhood. What did he know is why, where this argument is going?

I’ll come back. Are you saying we are ready to proceed with closing arguments, Mr. Golf?


When did Rodey Brian know the mic Michaels brought guns? When did Roddy Brian? No. Travis McMichael would shoot Mr. Arbery and at that point, what could Roddy Brian have done to stop it? The inconvenient truth is that Roddy Bryan did not know and could not know that these men were armed until moments before Mr. Arbery’s tragic death. He did not know and could not know that arbitrary would be shot. And by that time, sadly, there was nothing Ronnie Bryan could do to prevent this tragedy. Couldn’t do anything about it. Brian didn’t shoot anyone at the time of the shooting. He was some distance back. He was armed only with his cell phone. Isn’t it time? Isn’t it time ladies and gentlemen that we send Roddy Bryan home.

Isn’t it time to send Roddy Brian home? Not, not sure about that line, but okay. So, uh, talks about this, you know, he’s just an innocent guy. The other guys brought the guns, the Michael’s brought the guns and McMichael shot him. Uh, they were just really, he was just there that didn’t know much about anything. So the argument continues from David Goff and says, uh, something about this. Now, this is very interesting. So he’s talking about different gear shifts. And remember that Roddy, Brian was the neighbor. Apparently, uh, one of the arguments that the prosecution was making is that he is involved in this because he used his car to chase and block a mod Arbery. And that is aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The vehicle is deadly. That’s why we heard in the, in the prosecution’s closing argument that they were making that distinction between and, and, or she said, it doesn’t matter if it was that car or that car, both of them are cars.

Both of them are deadly weapons. Both of them can be sufficient in order to prove an aggravated assault claim. And so now what, uh, Mr. Golf is doing here is talking about all the different gear shifts saying that if his client Roddy, Brian was really doing things the way the government said, he’s doing things it’s not possible because he’d have to like shift into in a drive and then shift into reverse and then shifted and drive again, and then shifted into reverse. Again, it’s too many gears and it’s too many gear shifts. Now pay attention to the, at the close of this clip from Mr. Golf. Cause he shakes his head after this argument. And then he takes his note, his notes, and he’s been doing something interesting during this entire closing. I think he has his notes. I’m always interested how, uh, attorneys organized themselves during trials and here, he sort of takes his notes and he kind of, I think, pulls it off the top and then shoves it under the podium. So you’re going to see him take this up and then shove it under the podium. And when he puts it under the podium, you’re going to see his head, like do this little shake. And he, and you see his, uh, cheek Jabil’s, uh, noticeably visibly kind of go, you got to go shake, say goes, like, woof, woof. Like I don’t know what that argument was. We’re going to, we’re going to listen to this full segment. And then we’ll, we’ll watch, uh, we’ll watch the facial Twitch. Once again at the end, here he is,

Is it? There’s three shifts, three changes in direction. That’s six gear shifts. They’re not audible. We know what happened. And I don’t care what Travis McMichael says. I don’t care what anybody else says. I’m looking at the video and I’m listening for the changes. You know that when this right here with Mr. Arbery turns around and whatever Mr. Brian thinks he’s doing with the wheel, I don’t see much actual movement. Okay. I see him at two miles an hour and then his foot’s off the gas pedal, whatever Mr. Brian thinks he did. I don’t think it was much, but you know that he’s driving away from Mr. Arbery at this point. Cause he can’t go back and then go back and then go back again. Cause there aren’t enough gear shifts,

Not enough gear says, watch, watch this watch is facing. You can hear it even in the audio. I don’t know if you can hear that on YouTube. You might need to have some headphones in, but after that he goes like, whoa, after that argument, watch it again. Here it is too many gear shifts.

So, so yeah, it’s an interesting argument. Now. I’m not sure that that’s to land with the jury, all the different gear shifts, you know, but it’s an attempt. This is a better argument. Now he’s talking about felony murder and about the relationship between the felony that is being committed as the predicate offense and the actual defendant here. He talks about that. Now this is in the weeds. This is some legal stuff and it’s boring, but it’s important. Here’s what he says. Hold on. I don’t know. I stopped playing one second. All right. We’re going to have to do a quick on the fly. Reset. What slide are we on? We got to do a quick replay on that sometimes. Uh, I think my hard drives full folks. I think that’s what’s happening.

And now I want to talk about something called proximate. Cause because to support any of the felony murder counts in this case, there has to be a causal relationship to the death of a Marbury. And there is no such relationship in this case that trying to put words in the court’s mouth. Uh, I think the court’s going to charge you. I’m not there yet. You may find the defendant guilty of felony murder. If you believe that Mr. Bryan caused the death of Mr. Arbery, regardless of whether Mr. Brian intended the death to occur, that’s felony murder, there must be some causal connection between the felony and the death. The court, I believe will instruct you that felony murder is not established simply because the death occurred at the same time or shortly after the felony was attempted or committed. Okay? So this is around the state is much greater. The felony must have been di rectally caused or both have directly caused the death or played both a substantial and necessary part in causing the death. In this case, you may also consider whether any intervening act. Those are my words, whether on the part of the McMichael and Mr. Arbor were sufficient to break the causal chain,

All right, back under the podium. Again, those notes go into the podium and then he goes on to the next point. Now that you know that that was like F minus closing arguments, did you see what he just did there? He just stood behind the podium and literally looked down and read from statutes. And so I have to think that this is some sort of a intentional strategy. I mean, why would you do that? In a case like this, he talks about some very capable

Lawyers here. And now I want to talk about something called proximate.

Cause Nope, I already had that. So this is where it gets really tedious. So this is where he’s going through the charges. Now he’s asking for a break,

I’m getting a look. Um, and I don’t know whether that means from, uh, I think the jury might want a break. It’s no, that’s up to them. Head shaking. No. Okay. Well then that’s the answer. Sometimes when people are shaking their heads, you don’t know what they all right.

So he is like a lot of times

People are shaking their heads. Yeah, he’s crazy. I get it. All right. Let’s talk a little bit about false imprisonment. Mr. Brian never denied.

Yikes. Okay. So I think he kind of lost track a little bit and then ask the judge that he got says, judge, I got a look. Judge says from hope. I think I might be from the jurors. I think they might want to break, looks over with the jurors. They’re shaking their heads. No, we’re good. This is Kay. Well, people might think I’m crazy and everybody starts laughing. It’s not good. Not good, not good at all. And so yeah, he wraps up, this is where he says, uh, what could he have done? What did he know? He put our trust in the government to do the right thing. Here’s what he said

Again. I’m going to posit these three questions to you. When did Rodney Ryan know the McNichols brought guns? When did Rodney Ryan? No. Travis McMichael would shoot Mr. Arbery. And at that point, what could Roddy Bryan possibly had done to stop him

Under the podium?

Mr. Brian put his faith in the Glenn county police department. And then he put his faith in the GBI. He put his trust in law enforcement. He put his trust in our government to do the right thing by him. His trust was not rewarded. And now he finds himself before you, we place Roddy. Brian’s fate in your hands. We ask you to return a verdict of not guilty on all counts. I asked you to send Rodney Bryan home. Thank you.

All right. So

Turns out that, uh, that was a, a very long and drawn out, uh, closing argument. And so of course we get the question now at the end of that, that was the end of Mr. Goff’s closing argument for Rodney Bryan. Now, ordinarily you would have the government come back and do their re closing arguments, their second closing argument. And we know that we just heard from three different defense attorneys plus a prosecutor today. So we’re probably running out of time, right? Yes. It turns out by the time we get to this moment, it’s 4 45 in the evening. And, uh, the, the judge is asking both sides. Well, what are we supposed to do here? We’ve started closing arguments, uh, state. Are you ready to proceed, uh, for your reclose? Here’s what she says

For almost 4 45, as far as the state’s remainder of closing.

Yes, judge. Um, I’m going to take the full two hours. I have way too much to talk to talk about and to look but given the excellent three closing

Arguments, uh, that were just done by the defense attorneys.

Okay. So let’s pause on that real quick. And what you heard from her, uh, judge, we need the full two hours. It’s 4 45. I just heard from three defense lawyers. Uh, what she’s saying internally, strategically is I would love to go home and spend all night dissecting all of their arguments every which way from Sunday, and then come back tomorrow morning, fresh and prepared and ready to go and deliver my second close. And that would be like a home run, right? Because she has all night to prepare. She wants that bad. The defense does not. They’re like, nah, what time is it? 4 45. It’s not five. She, she can go right now. So get her up there and tell her to go. It’s not time. It’s not five o’clock on a Friday. It’s 4 45 on a Monday. She can finish her closing arguments. We’ll wait two hours. Here’s what they say.

Yeah. Um, we’re ready to hear it. We’re hopeful to hear and complete closings tonight. It seems like the jury wants to keep going and we’re prepared to stay and listen attentively. And I guess then do charge in the morning.

That’s the position of Greg McMichael as well. They do seem to want to continue on. And you said they’ve been very actively engaged in wanting to keep this process moving.

Uh, 12 seemed actually quite attentive. Yes, I agree. All right, I’m going to, unless there’s an objection.

So the judge, ultimately there it is. Okay. So the judge ultimately decides that they’re going to pull the jurors and the jury is going to come back and give them some answers and they’re going to come back tomorrow morning. And so there’ll be fresh. Now there was shenanigans going on outside the courthouse today and they got asked about the, the, the defense attorneys brought this up to the judge today. Here’s what that sounds like.

Those are leaving today. If there is this commotion, I expect you got this all covered, but

With the Sheriff’s department and there’s plan in place. So that, um, uh, to my satisfaction, I don’t believe there will be any issues.

Okay. So that you and I are using the same idea when we talk about issues. I surely that I understand that there are safety would be productive. Will they actually be aware? However of what’s been going on as they leave.

Let’s go ahead and talk about this in

James. Very good. Thank you, Ron.

On that note, your honor, the issue that we have is making sure that the record is clear that they have heard or have it that’s number one, number two, that they don’t feel like or, or made to feel like they’re in danger by ushering them into internal rooms, which I understand is necessary. But I worry that the act of doing so creates an issue. Maybe that’s not the honest, a little bit more than so when I walked in, I could hear some noise outside. It’s muffled. You can’t really hear it, but I was listening for it because it was the first time I’ve been in that room during really the proceedings. Okay. I heard something and did, in fact say, oh, have y’all been hearing this? And the response was, oh, we just heard that, that’s it. So no. And it’s muffled. You can’t actually hear what it is. You just hear there’s a commotion. What I heard was just, it apparently right. As I went into the room, the, a group went around the side of the building. So it was on my radar. And just for the record, heard it and, um, no, it, it, it is not, it is not, I understand the concern

He goes on and he just keeps explaining, basically what they’re going to be doing is moving the jurors around, I think from a room that is closer to the, uh, perimeter of the core building into a more interior room so that they can’t hear a lot of the noise that’s going on out there. Apparently protesters were out front in the front of the courthouse, but they’re now doing laps around the courtroom building, uh, chanting and, and you know, protesting. And so the judge doesn’t want that to interfere with the jurors deliberations. And so they’re going to move them into an interior, uh, uh, part of the building. But the defense team is saying, that’s not good enough. You know, this is a mistrial. Everything is a mistrial at this point. And so they want to make sure that they keep renewing that argument and objecting, objecting, objecting over every single thing which they’re doing.

I mean, they’re doing a great job of that. Uh, you know, complaining about all of the externalities that might come in and interfere with this case. So, uh, that was the closing arguments and the trial today of the MC Michaels and Roddy Bryan, let’s take a look at your questions over from our friends at watchingthewatchers.locals.com and see what we’ve got here today. Let’s pull these up. And our first question this morning, or this evening was from just cos says, Hey, Rob, what do you give the odds for a non conviction of homicide here for the Nick? Michael’s, I’d say small, you know, 40% maybe, uh, maybe less than that. If I had to guess listening to today, I don’t think that they’re getting a, not guilty on anything, but malice murder, all prayers for Waukesha. Hope you had a great weekend. I did just cause I hope you did too. My friend. Yeah. I think that maybe the, the malice murder is probably the only one where I think there’s probably a, a good chance of not, you know, intentional murder.

Did they wake up that morning and go in and intend to murder a modern Arbery? I don’t think there’s good evidence of that. I think that the other murder charges like felony murder, false imprisonment, you know, being a felony, which then leads to the death is a better shot, but the, you know, the actual malice murder charges, if anything, I think that there’s probably not enough there for that, but, uh, but we’ll see a non please cover the Maxwell trial. So we are covering the Maxwell trial. I’m going to be releasing Maxwell videos every day. Probably not do them as part of the live streams because there’s no video recordings of the Maxwell trial. There’s no audio recordings either. It is a federal court trial. So there’s not going to be any, any way to, to see what’s going on in there. Other than reading through the minute entries and covering what, what journalists who are in the observatory rooms can see.

So we’re not going to be able to cover it. Like I’ve covered the other trials, but I am releasing videos every day. In fact, I’ve got three other Glen Maxwell videos that are queued up. I just released one today, introducing you to the prosecutors tomorrow. You’re going to meet the defense attorneys and tomorrow morning at 9:00 AM. You’re also going to see that there was a subpoena that Glen Maxwell’s defense attorneys are requesting. And so what I’m thinking about doing on the Maxwell case, let me know if this might be actually of interest is to just do a docket report every day. Take a look at the minute entries that come out on the federal docket and just go through those. There is so much activity. I mean, it really is a lot, but it’s a lot of reading. It’s a lot of documents. It’s not audio, it’s not video because it’s a federal trial, but we will, we will certainly cover it.

Uh, chairman of the board says a grueling trial. I see what you did there. Griller. If I did that, it wasn’t intentional. Good to see you chairman. Thanks for catching that. We have another one from news now says I am not sold. I am sold on not guilty for Brian on all counts. They couldn’t prove he knew they had the guns or that he knew anything more than, Hey, get in your truck. I think his trial should have been separated from the other, other two. And if tried on his own, I don’t see guilty verdicts due to the prejudice of the other two. I can see some of the charges being found guilty for all three. I really don’t think the prosecutor has proven malice murder. Yeah. That this sort of intentional murder. Right? I agree with you. I think that from what I have seen, and we’ve spent a lot of our time on the Rittenhouse trial, but the idea that these guys woke up, you know, these like racist white guys, wanting to go kill a black person that day.

I don’t think I’ve seen evidence of that. I think that they, they wanted to, to effectuate an arrest. It went bad. So I think that the better, the stronger claim that the prosecution has is the felony murder stuff. John Dolores says, I’m not interested in this case. I’ve used all my energy up on a written house. Oh well, it’s good. It’s almost over. So we’re not going to be talking a ton about it because it’s almost over. We have, uh, let’s see here former Lao says, okay, let me, this is a really long comment, former Leo. So let me read that. Let me save that because it’s a good comment. I do want to read it. Maybe we’ll hit that tomorrow on locals. Okay. So one second. Okay. So next question is from, uh, Glenn Glenn says, I think that mic Michaels are going to be found guilty, but Brian just got caught up in it and should be let off.

That’s from Glenn nine. Good perspective. We have another one from news now says I don’t like the prosecutor’s argument. When I watch the closing, she says she was, he was in no danger to them. That is a poor argument. He lunged for the gun after trying to get himself out of a dangerous situation. They had every right to feel like he was going to hurt them because they cornered him. They illegally tried to hold him. They did threaten him illegally every step of the way they were doing illegal steps with the judge ruling, the way he did, there was no way the jury can find that stopping him was legal. I agree with that. So he hid from the fact that this is so she hid from the fact that it is reasonable to believe that Arbery was a threat. He was a threat because of what they did.

I hope in tomorrow’s rebuttal. She tears into this. Yeah, I’m sure she will. She will. She’s she’s a skilled prosecutor. She seems very good at what she’s doing. John and Heather, Hal greener here says, listen to the closing on the drive in to the in-laws today. I thought the defense attorneys did the best when they, that they could with nothing. They were building sand castles with dry sand. Can’t catch the show tonight. Everyone have a great Thanksgiving. That’s from John and Heather Haugen. So shout out to them, hope they’re doing well. Uh, and drive safely LT. 13 says this is a real sexist thing to say, and I am a woman, but her tone is like nails down a chalkboard. I don’t know if it’s pitch or tone, but it’s awful. That’s from LT 13. So I didn’t, I didn’t pick up on that LT 13, but I’m used to listening to prosecutors.

So maybe that’s why Sergeant Bob says prosecutor diffusing. The objections was a brilliant move. Yes, she did a good job on that. She was deflating the defense arguments. Uh, we have Sergeant Bob says, wow, I love that chart by the prosecution. Well, you would Sergeant Bob wouldn’t you. Of course. You’d like a prosecution slide. I’m just teasing you. It is a good one. It really is good. I liked it too. I clipped it. I was like, Ooh, that’s good. Because I like to see what might pop up in our trials. And I’ve never seen a prosecutor use something like that. It is good. It’s like if you’re talking about the hula hoop chart, right. Sergeant Bob, which I think you are chairman of the board says, I recognize that PowerPoint template. I think that’s the one I use in my Microsoft office, 97 class in college to break down the Clinton Dole election.

I use the gold star for the page about Ross Perot. Good grief. Oh my gosh. That is so incredible. I, yeah, Microsoft, I, I, you know what chairman that is so specific. I, I, I think that’s probably true. Honestly. Clinton Dole election use the gold star page for the page about Ross Perot. Oh, it’s too good. It cracks me up. Amazing. I love it. All right. Another one, Sergeant Bob says often the explanations much must cater to the lowest common denominator. That’s from Sergeant Bob simplify, simplify, simplify. Sergeant Bob also says as a retired Popo, usually armed, I would never ever have taken those actions observe and report to 9 1, 1 period, being armed as a serious responsibility using the firearm has a serious consequences to many of course, that is true. And that’s from the good Sergeant we have over on YouTube. A couple of super chats came in.

We had my drin Emery’s says prosecution was an eight or nine out of 10 defense number, which I agree with. I thought it was quite good from what I’ve seen. Defense one was an eight out of a 10, which was Jason Sheffield representing Travis Smith, Michael defense, number two, that was Laura Hogue representing gray root McMichael. Miton migrant says seven out of 10, which is charitable. And then defense number three of Rodey, which was by Mr. Golf was a two to three out of a 10, which is pretty low. That’s where Mitra and Emery’s Lauren water coolers with a nice donation. Thank you, Lauren water coolers. John Paul McMahon says when the defense objected about Ms stating the law with the jurors have thought he was referring to not reading the immediate knowledge clause. Um, I don’t think so. I, I think that maybe I’m not sure specifically what he was keying in on, but, but maybe remember she was using several different examples in her analysis, her explanation.

So maybe it was one of those examples. It was sort of the explanation or the interpretation of the statute. And she just went back right to the language of the statute. Good question. Not sure. Kev white says Donna Kowsky is an awesome litigator. She looked pretty good from what I have seen. Very confident, very capable. We had instructor. Mike says, please talk about the aggressor statute where an aggressor can use self-defense if he attempts to back down after becoming the aggressor, but the victim now starts to attack. And so that’s from the Georgia statutes. Oh, I can’t copy and paste from there. Let’s see if I can type this in real fast. Let’s see if this pulls something up for us, Georgia law, Georgia code looking at section B three, let’s see, it says use of force in defense of self or others. Evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter.

B3 is where you’re referring us. So down here, a person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection a, when you’re allowed, when you are justified, if he was the aggressor or was engaged in combat by agreement, or unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates his intent to do so, not withstanding continues or threatens to continue to use the use of unlawful force. So it’s yeah. Okay. So these are complicated because we have different layers of self-defense that are happening. And in, in, in B3, they’re talking about sort of withdrawing. So here here’s how, here’s how the government would respond to this. Number one, that there was, there was no justification for any use of force because the citizen arrest statute was not valid, right? This is so we talk about the chain of causation and where we cut off certain legal arguments in this case.

And when I explain this to people that we’re working with, I talk about it in terms of chain links and that you have a different, a number of different chain links that connect different legal theories to each other. So in order for the Arbery’s, I’m sorry for the MC Michaels to be justified in using any force, they’ve got to be justified in making the stop in the first place. They have to be able to legitimize why they came upon Arbery to begin with. And they’re doing that on the basis of the citizen’s arrest statute. That’s really their only legal theory. The government has said, that’s not possible because they didn’t observe the felony in close proximity to time. So that’s the foundation than any of this use of force stuff. Any of the self-defense who was the aggressor, who sort of agreed to the combat and then withdrew from the combat, which you know, who changes all of those different things are very relevant.

And they’re, I think they’re important for just the legal operations, but the prosecution is, is, is, is cutting it off, further down the chain. They’re relying on the idea that, that the entire ordeal was unjustified because they were illegally stopping him outside of the legalities, codified in the citizens arrest statute. So that’s how the prosecution would respond to that. I’d be curious how this statute fits in with some of the others that we’ve looked at, but it’s a great question. And so if you’re, if you’re a defense lawyer, yeah. You’re keying in on all this stuff. You’re saying no. I mean, everything was justified up, including the point where Arbery was reaching for the gun. At that moment, everything was justified that triggered the need for self-defense because Arbery who had been lawfully stopped, became the attacker. It’s a great, it’s a great question. Thank you for that from instructor, Mike, I wonder if you’re a weapons instructor.

Thank you for that question. So, all right. Back over to locals, before we wrap it up for the day, another question from watcher 45 says they hunted this man down. Like they hunted Rittenhouse down as much as I feel Rittenhouse was true. Self-defense I equally feel these guys are our true offense. They hunted this man down with prejudice and assumptions. State law seems to be key for me here. Every state is different. Take all the laws out of it. Just enact my perspectives. These guys had bad intentions says watcher Rittenhouse had good intentions. Although I still think it was a stupid decision for him to bring a gun. They picked them off like a weak individual. I sure hope Arbery’s family is awarded justice and compensation equally hope Rittenhouse Sue’s every major media outlet that defamed him. And since this guy GFE, or however you spell his name comes off as a classic racist.

This, there is the true problem to our society. We are so divided as a country, even at the highest respected levels. Happy Thanksgiving, Rob, to you and your team and your family, and right back at you watch her 45. Thanks for being here and for that. Nice, nice thoughtful comment. Thunder seven says very impressed with the defense closing, particularly the first one. He’s a good storyteller, great storyteller, but the others were effective too. If I run the jury, I would not be able to vote guilty of homicide. I think it’s another self-defense case. No matter if they were wrong to chase him down in the first place, they never wanted to kill him. So good perspective there from thunder seven, voting to acquit on the homicide charges you’ve got Sergeant Bob says, I hope you get treated better by Yavapai county judges than the one in Tucson.

Yeah, the Tucson lawyers. Don’t like the Phoenix lawyers, uh, I’m sorry. The Tucson judges in my experience, you know, they just, oh, oh, oh, you’re from Phoenix. And it’s, it’s probably fair. Right there, there are a lot of lawyers out there who treat smaller courts as sort of less important. I’ve never done that. Never done that, but there are certain attorneys that will like, I, uh, I knew this attorney that used to not wear a tie into certain courts because he thought they were just too beneath him. So that didn’t work out very well for him. But, uh, but attorneys have some massive egos and so judges get tired of it and they, they scold you. Alright. News now says, just have to say it feels weird to see a judge who is able to make a decision and stick to it. I wonder if binger pulled his crap in front of this judge, what would have happened?

Yeah. This is a competent judge. Very competent. Uh, chairman of the board says Linda Donna Kowsky is really good at lawyering, but good to know if that, if she ever fails, if that ever fails her she’ll always have work as a middle school. Principal. Linda done a Kosky oh, we got to go to Donna Kowalski’s office again. Oh, principal done a Caskey shoot. What’d you do? What’d you say? What are we going to do? Don’t tell mom. Yeah. She seems like she might be a tough one. The dog says, so what do you think about the judge’s ruling that just knowing immediately after the fact and not seeing it with their own eyes, doesn’t give them the right to arrest against the defense argument that the law clearly says the opposite. Hence the sentence existing at all, the defense said the judge was basically making a directed verdict because he could only cause he only decided that after they gave their testimony seems slimy to me on the judge’s part.

So the, the conversation I think surrounding, uh, that, that I saw that previously, but they’re talking about jury instructions and they’re, and they’re basically saying if they interpret the jury instructions, one way the jurors have no choice, but to find that the defendants, the mug Michael’s, uh, actually didn’t have self-defense at all because they weren’t justified for the stop at the beginning. Okay. It’s sort of what I just explained with instructor, who is now, uh, who submitted another Superchat, says yes, I’m a weapons instructor. The aggressor argument changes once Arbery attacked Travis, I believe this was a detention gone bad. I wonder what would’ve happened if he would have stopped and all four waited for the police. Yeah. That’s a good question. Instructor Mike. So instructor Mike was saying, yeah, we were talking about provocation and withdrawal. Okay. So that was from the dark.

I don’t think that they’re attacking this further down the chain. It’s the same question to Darby that we just answered for instructor Mike. Sorry. So I’m getting confused. So it’s the same question. It’s if they didn’t have a basis to be there, they had no claim to any type of, of self-defense because they shouldn’t have stopped them in the first place. And if the judge, the, the, uh, citizens arrest statutes this way saying that you’ve got to have basically immediate knowledge and they didn’t, that makes anything that happens afterwards illegal. That’s why they’re calling it a directed verdict. If you interpret it this way, that there was no, no reasonable way to interpret the citizen’s arrest statute, then everything that follows is basically a felony. Right? It’s false imprisonment. And so now you, you know, for provocation talking about the aggressor statutes, uh, that, uh, instructor Mike sent over to us, it’s all irrelevant because they had no basis for stopping them in the first place and the prosecution one on that good question.

The dark monster one says, oh, a defense attorney who knows how to object after Rittenhouse. I thought it was like big foot or something. Yeah. And he’s objecting. Right. And some of it might seem like it’s minor minutia, but yeah, it’s uh, it’s, it’s a good thing to object. Monster. One says, ricotta is on Tim Poole tonight. Oh my goodness. He’s blowing up. Nick’s all over the place. Everyone needs to go check it out and show their support for Nick. Couldn’t agree more. First of all, thank you for that. I, I knew that he was going out there cause he, he alerted us in our top secret attorney group messenger. And he said that he was going out there, but I didn’t know that he was going to be on tonight. So definitely go out there, send some super chats in for Nick show, some love because he has done something very cool.

He sort of led the way on this real time lawyer commentary thing as trials are, are going on. And so super cool. I think that we need more people fighting for transparency and accountability in our justice system. And he is a big part of that. So go show some love over there. How cool is that? He’s on Tim Poole, huge show. It’s going to be great for him. Monster one says, did you see the verdicts on Rittenhouse came on different days, jump man, jump kick, man. And Huber came in on Wednesday, gage spicy biceps on Thursday and Rosenbaum on Friday. That means they took the longest on what should have been the easiest monster. I did not see that. How did I not see that? I missed that one. Thank you for that monster one. Sean O’Halloran says my goodness or all the closing arguments in the south.

So John Grisham mellow dramatic. It was wasn’t it don’t let your fellow coast guard American hero drift away into the abyss of the ocean. Extend your hand jurors and save this young man. Very, yeah, very melodramatic. But I like it. We have another good to see you. Sean chairman says there was a rumor on the internet that one of the jurors fell asleep during the trial. Is that common? Can a jury be removed from that? Uh, no, not for that. I mean the judge will just nudge them in their defense. The closings were so long monotone and boring. I don’t know how any of them stayed awake. I may put it on the next time I can’t sleep. And I was wondering if that was by design. So remember golf just kind of went off, man. And he’s been very interesting in this trial, from what I’ve seen from him.

And here, he just kept going and reading and reading and reading and reading. And so I started to think, is he trying to just wait like waste time? He has nothing to talk about. So he read through all the different indictments is that, that he wants to finish at four 30 so that they could try to make the government go today. If he would have finished earlier, then they would have had more time for their closings. If he would’ve finished later, it would have been certain that they come back tomorrow. So what was he trying to time that or what was he doing? But it was very boring and I don’t think effective at all. So I don’t know what he was doing there. See row says a little off topic. So apologies, Kyle Rittenhouse is thinking about becoming a lawyer. What are your thoughts on that?

Well, you know, it’s a good question. I, uh, he sorta has a prosecutor feel to me though, doesn’t he? So we’ll have to cross that bridge when we get there. Not sure he’s going to be a defense lawyer. Right. So as much as I happen to, you know, want to fight for, uh, Kyle Rittenhouse, if he becomes a prosecutor, we’re going to have to deal with it accordingly. I think let’s see what else? Uh, oh my gosh. Another really long comment. Okay. So these really long comments folks, I’m going to save for locals. We’ll get to those on locals. This one came from Vienna kiss. Another one came in from a former Leo there. They’re just really long. It’s hard for me to read it entirely, uh, on, on, uh, the show right now. So long comment. Thank you V Antica. So we’ll get to it tomorrow.

Morning news now says going, uh, golf really screwed up for talking for over two hours. If he’d cut his arguments down, she would have had to argue her rebuttal tonight instead of taking the video of her, of their closing home and being able to dissect every word. So, yeah, I’m not sure if he was trying to time that I just mentioned that on the last comment. Good question. Leafy bug says, Rob hope you had a great weekend. A lot of YouTube lost blenders have commented on the high quality of lawyering in this trial. And you’ve mentioned you’ve been impressed by the lawyering going on in the run-up tickle in Maxwell. Could you give a bit of detail about what makes all that good lawyering going on? Good. Maybe some examples that particularly stood out for you. Thanks. So it’s leafy bug with that question and we’re going to be covering a lot more of Glen Maxwell.

So we’ll, we’ll, uh, we’ll, we’ll break down some more details there. But basically when I say that, you know, I’m looking for good fundamentals really for, from lawyers, it’s not specific wins. It’s not like a lawyer comes out and says, aha, I found a statute section, uh, you know, 15.3. It’s not about that. It’s about the fundamentals. It’s, you know, do they have structure to their arguments? Are they thinking logically when they present their case? And so the prosecutor in this case, she did a lot of good things. She had an outline, she used slides. She gave them very clear instructions on how to apply the rules to the fact she defined what the boundaries of, of the scope is for them. And some attorneys don’t do that. Write, compare, compare her closing argument with, uh, you know, Mark Richards, closing argument. It was sort of, uh, no real framework, no real outline, no real structure to it.

Just kind of, you know, meandering through some things, playing some videos and you know, I just have a style, a different style. Now he got a acquittal. So you can’t really argue with that. But you know, when, when you talk about the fundamentals, it’s, it’s sort of, you know, sticking to the things that work that are repeatable, the basics of lawyering and a lot of lawyers just miss them entirely. The Richard’s example, for example, was very poor body language. I thought with Kyle Rittenhouse, whereas golden Maxwell’s lawyers, amazing body language with Glen Maxwell and the, and I know people think I make a big deal about this, but I tell you what, when I go to these continuing legal education seminars, when the, when I go to the trainings on how to be a better lawyer, they tell you 80 or more percent of all communication is non-verbal how you’re comporting yourself or what you’re doing with your face, how you’re carrying your body around how you’re interfacing with your clients, how you stand in the courtroom.

I mean, they, they, they beat these things into you because they matter. And they’re the first things to go. Lawyers forget about them immediately because they’re so interested in their legal argument about section 15 point 37 B, that they, they forget to make eye contact with the jurors and the jurors go, well, this guys, this guy’s a jerk. He’s not even looking at me. So all of the legal arguments go right out the window. They don’t care. 34.2 beat. Nobody cares. You won’t look at me, you’re a jerk, right? You look defensive, you won’t touch your client. You hit your client as much as we do. So I’m not going to vote for him. So it’s super important stuff. And you can see that in court, right? And you can see it almost in black and white. The difference between the two camps, three girls, he says, do you watch these cases for ways to better yourself in trial?

I noticed you pointed out good points in the arguments. And of course the bad ones. Yes, I do three girlies. You’re in on a little secret here. I am learning a ton about watching all of these trials and, and I’m learning a ton about how different courts in different parts of the country do these things, you know, and, and just watching, like, for example, yesterday three girls, this is a fun example, standing up with your clients when the verdict is being read, one of those things, nobody taught me ever how to do, they don’t teach you in law school. Do you stand up with them? Do you not stand up with them? All these things. And I watched yesterday, or last week, Kyle Rittenhouse stood up on his own with his defense attorneys staying seated, and I’m going, what, what happened here? Why didn’t they stand up with him?

And so then I go, well, I guess what’s the rule on standing up with your clients? I look around, there was kind of not really a rule. I just do it because that’s kind of how I’ve seen other lawyers do it. And so I have to look into that. And then I went back and I revisited Derek Shovan and they didn’t stand up at all in that courtroom. And the judge read the verdict. And so there’s all these different ways that that lawyers do things. And I’m always looking at how, uh, lawyers stay organized and how they structure their thoughts, because there’s a million different ways to do it. And it’s almost like I’m, I’m getting real training. You know, I’ve never done a murder trial that involves a homicide. I’ve never done a, you know, a double homicide murder trial. I can written houses case these things are national attention, you know, cases, tons of scrutiny.

Golin Maxwell’s case. That is a multi-million dollar defense, probably million dollars. If I had to guess to defend her, okay, I’ve never been hired for $20 million to defend anybody, not yet, but it’s one of these things where you can watch how other people do stuff. And you can say, man, there are some really interesting, neat things to think about that. I might be able to incorporate here in my practice in our law firm. And what’s more important that I’m seeing here three girlies, all the things not to do. And there’s a lot of them that, you know, you can sort of learn a lot by learning from the mistakes of others. And, uh, boy, I’m watching it right. And you can see it in real time. And I’ll tell you this of all the trials we’ve covered. I take a look at my team here and the work that we do and I say, we’re pretty good relative to a lot of this stuff.

Okay. I just know how we operate and how we conduct ourselves. We’re pretty good relative to these a total, a lot of what we see out there. So I feel very confident about it. It’s a good confidence booster as well. News now says reading that aggressor paragraph, the more important was mutual combat. It’s no relevance here. I read that too, but I think that sort of, um, not necessary, uh, I read that out of there, uh, Arbery ran and ran and ran and tried to get away. It wasn’t mutual combat. They were aggressors. Yeah. Yeah. So I, I, I see what you’re saying there. And again, it’s that, it’s that communication that you are withdrawing from the, the, the, the, the combat that you have that hard delineation there. It’s I have to read it a little bit more closely in context with some other things, but former Leo says the biggest problem is the civil suits that will follow spend 200,000 for criminal defense, 200,000 for civil trial showing the jury, the building blocks is usually a winner when my kids were growing up.

And to this day, when you are negotiating, just say, make your case. If you can, that’s from former Leo, good to see you former Leo. And another one says you’re not old enough to be a shyster. You know, I’m getting older. Maybe one day, Jeremy Murrieta says, slick, Rob didn’t the judge do something on Friday that ruined the defense’s chances. Why did the judge remove the self-defense? So he’s basically saying that the cities, if it’s the same message that I think monster, I forget who asked that question previously, but it’s the idea that there is basically no justification for the citizen’s arrest. If there’s no justification for that. Everything else that comes afterwards is now basically irrelevant. And that’s what the defense was very upset about last week, the Antica says in the final days of the trial, the defense team kept telling the judge that juror 12 looked like she was nodding off.

Interesting VMT kiss. I saw today, the judge said that, uh, they all looked very attentive. Actually. That was one of his comments because the defense wanted to continue on with the closing arguments. And they said, well, the jurors are pretty attentive. You saw that Mr. Golf wanted a break. And they said, no, so we can, can keep going. Three girls. He says, Sergeant Bob nailed it on the head working armed security. I would have gotten the best description I could at the time called the police. And I was not able to legally leave the property to follow anyone on top of that. I generally work properties alone. So the cops were always the best bet. Observe and report was always the name of the game. That is probably why I’m so frustrated with this case. That is a good comment. From three girlies on YouTube.

I saw a couple others come in, Seth Kaiser says, make Michael guilty on all charges, Seth, we’re going to see you. They’re going to wrap up closing arguments and it’ll go to the jurors tomorrow. Instructor. Mike says, I hated that Travis gave a statement right after the shooting. That became one of the main impeachment instruments. I tell my students to activate their legal be quiet. Simple silence is a no go Salinas versus Texas. Yes. Tell my students to activate their legal. Be quiet. Simple silence is a no go. Yeah. So a great point, instructor, Mike, and that’s awesome that you’re an instructor. If you’re, are you on YouTube? Go follow instructor. I’m sure he’s got some good stuff to follow him on. So he’s talking about the idea that, you know, uh, there was a case that the Supreme court listened to or a person was just sitting silent and that wasn’t enough to invoke their right to remain silent.

So they’re asking him a bunch of questions, this person, uh, you want to talk, you want to talk, tell us about this. What happened? Why did you do that? Why blah, blah, blah. Sitting there silent. And they just kept going and going and going and going and going hours later, person finally talks, confesses gets convicted. Defense lawyers say she invoked her right to remain silent by being silent. And they stepped all over that. They crossed it by continually badgering her and beating her into talking Supreme court said, no, she didn’t. She didn’t invoke her right to remain silent. Even though she was just sitting there silent. If you want to invoke it, you’ve got to affirmatively do it. You’ve got to go out there and say, I’m invoking. I want a lawyer, which is why in my law enforcement interaction training program available in the link down below over gumroad.com/robert ruler, I think is the link.

We talk about the 1, 2, 3 rule what’s rule. Number three, it’s stamping your feet saying, I want a lawyer. I want a lawyer. I want a lawyer. It’s not even saying I invoke my right to remain silent or anything like that. Don’t even know. Don’t even bother with that. I want a lawyer stomp your feet and scream it from the rooftops. And don’t talk. That’s rule number three, that’s a freebie, but you can buy the full course at, uh, my Gumroad page, which is down in the description below. All right, my friends. And that was it from all of our supporters at watchingthewatchers.locals.com and our amazing friends over on YouTube. Want to welcome some newbies over to our community? Big shout outs to Carrie C 7 1 5, who joined up? We’ve got Gino’s GRA Gino’s grad job is in the house. Welcome. Gino’s good job. I’m going to have to read that one.

Rugger bugger is in the house. Welcome. Jay marquee joined up. We’ve got Cantonese 79. We got Brody SAA 96. Welcome squirrel here. We’ve got oh, no. Five-O in the house. P Palin joined up red beard. Welcome Manique. Nicole, Dr. Facebook law, 1 0 1 hobo. Jim mom, Beano in the house. WV Ridge rider. 68 mayhem studios joined up. We’ve got Ben Tomlinson. Lauren Laurel seven 20 [inaudible] Tucker, Greg Tommy nukes, Fantasma, Gloria Black cat Meow. Nick McLeod. Dr. Brenton joined up. We’ve also got ti Blakemore Patriot minute, Chris. See Dr. Sami. D’s here. We got Paul pub crawl Jew, Julie fluffle woods. Oh eight karaoke princess, not the great Coro. Cora cocoa over 10 transparency. Ms. Sin land got desert pirate in the house. BJR Jay bought DC gen 74. David Orndorff, drew Johan nicety miles, Braeden time, Lord Stu tester, 22 T O G Raul and Coronas a day.

Welcome to the community, my friends over at watchingthewatchers.locals.com. And I’m always humbled and tremendously grateful for all of your support. We are going to be back here tomorrow to do the show again, but tomorrow morning, we’ll do another locals live stream where we’ll get to some of those extra questions that we didn’t get to today from VNT kiss prime and from former Leo. And we’ll also talk about what else is going on out there. I’m curious to see what else, other cases and other legal topics people are interested in following now that Rittenhouse has done now that Arbery’s coming to a close, I’ve got to turn our attention elsewhere. And so we’ll have a conversation about that and more over at watchingthewatchers.locals.com and that my friends is it for me for the day. I want to thank you for being a part of the program tomorrow. We’ll be back to do it all again. We’ll see if we got a verdict on the Arbery case, maybe. Yes, maybe no. If so, we’ll cover it. If not, we’re going to continue to cover all of the other legal news. And as we do here, Watching the Watchers, so join us, probably going to be 5:00 PM, Arizona time, 6:00 PM, central 7:00 PM on the east coast. And for that one, Florida, man, everybody else have a tremendous evening sleep very well. I’ll see you right back here tomorrow. Bye-bye.