Justice in the George Floyd Trial: A Conversation with Steve Schleicher

In this episode, we sit down with Steve Schleicher, the veteran trial lawyer who played a pivotal role in the prosecution of Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd. Steve shares the behind-the-scenes strategy and storytelling approach that shaped one of the most significant cases in U.S. history. We explore how Steve's meticulous preparation, experience, and ability to humanize the narrative for the jury helped secure justice. Listeners will gain insight into the legal maneuvers, courtroom dynamics, and the emotional toll of representing the state in such a high-profile case.

Key Points:

- Steve's journey from growing up in rural Minnesota to becoming a key player in one of the most important trials of our time.
 - The legal strategy behind the prosecution’s approach, including the use of bystander perspectives and focusing on the jury’s role as the new witnesses to the crime.
 - The cross-examination that dismantled the defense’s expert testimony and the power of simple, direct questions in the courtroom.
 - Reflections on the legacy of the George Floyd trial and its implications for justice and policing in America.

Thank you for listening. To learn more, visit Infinite Global and M Coffey.

Transcript

“Members of the jury, his name was George Perry Floyd, Jr.”

For the closing argument. In the case against former Minneapolis Police officer Derek Chauvin, the state of Minnesota turned a veteran trial lawyer Steve Schleicher, a partner at the law firm Maslon. Was part of a 13-lawyer team assembled by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, to prosecute what one law professor told the Associated Press was, “possibly one of the most important cases ever in the United States and possibly the world.”

The murder of George Floyd on May 25th, 2020, in broad daylight on a street corner in Minneapolis, laid bare in graphic detail, the stain of systemic racism in America. In a video captured on a smartphone by a teenager named Darnella Frazier, the public witnessed Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck for nine minutes in 29 seconds, all part of an arrest over a counterfeit $20 bill.

As horrific as the video was, history suggested convicting Chauvin would not be a given, as Ellison would later write in the book about the Floyd case, “The sheer numbers of officers who have been acquitted after killing unarmed citizens is impressive.”

Steve had the ideal resume to take on Chauvin. He had spent 13 years in the US Attorney's office in Minnesota and previously served in the Minnesota Attorney General's office. Throughout the trial, Steve had been responsible for putting on the state's affirmative law enforcement, case handling, key witnesses, including the Minneapolis Chief of Police.

He had also cross-examined the defense use of force expert, Barry Brodd, a pivotal moment in the trial resulting in Brodd’s stunning statement that Floyd had not been compliant because he was not “resting comfortably on the pavement.” 

As the trial wound down, it was up to Steve to make the final appeal to the jury. In his closing arguments, Steve trained the jury's attention on the same people that the government began its case with the bystanders who witnessed Floyd's murder. Steve wanted the jury to relate to the bystanders by their common faith, both randomly selected to pass judgment and bear witness to Floyd's murder.

But with one difference, the jury could do something. They were powerless to do anything but that

“…they gave it to you… randomly selected people from the community. You got a summons in the mail and here you are…”

On April 21st, 2021, the jury returned a verdict. Guilty on all counts.[00:03:00] 

Uh, Andrew, uh, hello. Uh, great to be with you again. Uh, for, uh, what I think is probably. One of the most riveting conversations about what is historically one of the most historically significant cases in the last decade. Um, and I, I'm, I'm so delighted that we were actually able to speak to somebody, uh, like Steve, who had such a critical role.

Right. Yeah, no, I'm excited, uh, for this conversation. Uh, Steve is, uh, uh, probably the perfect guest for Mm-Hmm for, for this, uh, podcast because he's just a storytelling junkie. He loves, uh, talking about the intersection of law and storytelling as much as we do. He talks about going into the courtroom before anybody's in there, and that's something I did.

That's something that most lawyers who are, are going on a trial, who have a trial to start out, or a public argument to make. Um, they'll go into that get [00:04:00] centered in the room because it's, it's a sort of, when, when you hear those words, you know, all rise. Um, game on. And, and you are, you are in motion and, and you want to, you want to have the complete feel for that room.

Let's roll it in. Let's roll it. Alright. Welcome back to the newest episode of, uh, reexamination. We're really happy to have, uh, Steve with us. Steve, first of all, welcome. Thank you so much for having me, Murray and Andrew, appreciate the invitation. Let's just start out with a little bit of, of background.

You know, you, you went to Duluth College, you attended law school in St. Paul. You're not one of the coastal elite. Um, and, uh, but you have, you know, these amazing credentials and a background as good or better than any white collar criminal defense in the country, or SOAs chambers. But, you know, you have choices.

Choices to where you can practice firms that you can practice with. Um, you decided to stay in the [00:05:00] heartland. I'm proud of Minnesota. Minnesota is where I'm from. Minnesota is my home. I can't imagine that leaving this place. I, I grew up in Minnesota and I've had the benefit of everything this great state has to offer.

And not originally from the Twin Cities, right? I grew up in rural Minnesota, west Central Minnesota, near a small town called Managa. I grew up on a dairy farm, so I spent my childhood and my teen years milking cows, taking care of animals, doing chores, um, you know, a very simple and idyllic, uh, lifestyle.

Uh, although very hard work. In fact, uh, uh, probably what motivated me the most to go to law school was the desire to get out of doing chores and, uh, working as hard as I saw right. My, my parents and my, my grandparents, uh, and my mom, uh, in addition to working on the farm was a, was a school teacher, which was also very influential.

Um, and, and where I grew up, it, it was a [00:06:00] place where, you know, not only my family lived, they were really from, and, and meaning they were from, I went to the same high school my parents went to and grandparents went to. Um, I had, uh, uh, an aunt who was a teacher at the school. My, my grandma was a, a cook, uh, at the school, uh, in the lunchroom, and I'd see her every single day.

And so, you know, really when I came of age, I was, I was always surrounded by people who cared about me and had an interest in what I was doing. A stake in what I was doing. And so, you know, for, for better or for worse, I had a lot of eyes on me. Um, but it was comforting. And, and, and I feel that, you know, there were so many things I went to, as you mentioned, I went to college in Duluth, university of Minnesota, Duluth.

I thought Duluth was about 80,000 people. Uh, the town I grew up in, or near, I should say I had about 900 people. Uh, I had 38 kids in my graduating class. And so I [00:07:00] thought this, this place, this 80,000 people dilute, like this was a metropolis Mm-Hmm. How am I ever going to navigate my way in this massive city?

How am I ever gonna learn how to, to, to drive and do all these things? But, you know, again, um, people were welcoming. I, I've had great teachers, I've had great professors and have really benefited from. The public education, uh, that they offer here, uh, the, the dedicated people and public servants who serve our communities, and I couldn't think of a better, uh, place to, to live and to practice law.

Uh, I'm very proud of our legal system here. I think that we have of good bench. I think we have good defense attorneys, good prosecutors, and uh, we're, we're filled with honorable people. And I was, uh, you know, in the, in the Chauvin case, I was proud to be able to display that to the rest of the country, the rest of the world.

Before we get into that, so Steve, we also want to kind of explore, you know, how you, your love for the courtroom and trials came from. [00:08:00] Right. Um, we, we know, uh, you have a long list of trials that you've been part of. Can you just talk about kind of how you fell in love with the courtroom and, and where your love for, for the, you know, storytelling comes from, you know, um.

Some people go to law school and become lawyers because they're really smart. And, um, and some people go to law school, uh, and they're motivated to do that because they love to argue. I love to tell stories. Uh, I really do. And that was something that I discovered about myself again, when I was in high school, I participated in, in, in speech and there was two different categories that I participated in.

One was storytelling. You'd actually, you know, get a, a grims fairy tale and they'd say, okay, you have six minutes to prepare, and then you have to tell the story. Uh, and I absolutely loved it. Uh, I just being able to, to get in front of an audience and to get them to, to bring them in and to listen to you.

[00:09:00] Um, it was fantastic. I also was involved in a category called discussion, which was like debate, but not like debate. In, in the discussion category, you have, um, eight people sitting around a table and you get a topic and you discuss it. Um, sometimes you're trying to find a solution to a problem.

Oftentimes it involves debate, it involves arguing. Mm-Hmm. Uh, but many times it involves compromise and, and uh, and I found that storytelling worked well in that forum as well, in, in trying to convince people to come to your point of view. And it merged a lot of different disciplines. And so that was something that I found inspiring.

And, you know, I like the competition of it. Uh, I love the performance aspect of it, but then I got to court. Mm-Hmm. And, and it was back in 1996, and I was a prosecutor in a small, uh, district in, in a small county in southeastern Minnesota. And I got to go and do a jury [00:10:00] trial and be in the courtroom. Mm-Hmm.

And that was just a whole different level. And that's where I really fell in love because I learned that you can have all of that, the, the, the debate aspect, the discussion aspect, the storytelling aspect, but for a purpose, really make a difference in and in, and cause an outcome in people's lives. And I just, I really fell in love with it.

I love everything about it. I love going into the courtroom first. Mm-Hmm. I love going in when it's empty and it's completely silent. And part of the way I center myself, I'll go into the courtroom. I'll go into the courtroom, uh, when there's no one else there. And I like to sit in my chair, just sit and look at the other chairs, all the empty chairs, and just imagine how they're going to fill.

And, and just kind of taking that moment for myself. I love the energy. Uh, you know, the, the shuffling of people's feet when they start to file in, uh, the different roles. The, the [00:11:00] bailiff, the courtroom security people, the courtroom deputy. Uh, I married the first courtroom deputy that I met, by the way, and, and, and just the, i I I love the way the, the wooden seats creak when people sit down.

Yeah. The, the just sort of the electricity that pops through the air when the bailiff says All rise and that judge enters the courtroom. Yeah. That the excitement and the anticipation. Yeah. I couldn't think of a more exciting forum, uh, to be a storyteller. Who, who, who do you think has big, had had the biggest influence on you in terms of your storytelling approach?

Honestly, so many. Yeah. And I will say that it was never really so much, uh. An individual in terms of like Yeah. A, a a lawyer that I wanted to particularly emulate. Okay. It was all of them. Mm-Hmm. And, and I thought of them all as my teachers, my adversaries as my teachers would go in a small jurisdiction where people have been practicing law for 25, 30 [00:12:00] years and, um, they just go into court and, and, and kick you in the head repeatedly.

Mm-Hmm. And then take you out to lunch afterwards and tell you how you could have been better. It was very collegial. I learned so much from all of them. I tried to copy, uh, them. Yeah. I tried to copy different people, uh, and different styles and, and, um, and found that, you know, as I developed, I, I could take some things that I thought were effective, but, you know, you're most effective when you're your authentic self, but all the great artists steal from each other.

Right. I mean, that's kind of the whole, that's what, that's what they do. But, but being authentic is ultimately that makes true short. But great speakers. Now that's a difference. I remember, um, seeing in particular, um, you know, when I was young Jesse Jackson's Democratic National Convention and just watching the way held the attention of, of, of an audience, right.

And there was a, that was very influential and that was what I saw on tv, you know, fast forward. Um, it was [00:13:00] 1988, uh, when I went to college at, uh, in Duluth Mm-Hmm. And Jesse Jackson, um, came to our school and, and gave a speech. Mm-Hmm. And I had to go, I wanted to go. Right, sure. And, and, um, and I remember he was introduced by someone you may have heard of, a, a fiery professor from Northfield, Minnesota by the name of Paul Wellstone.

No, we never heard of this guy. They would and knew. When he was delivering that speech and giving that introduction. And so I just watched him and the way he made the crowd so excited and so hopeful. Yeah. And then watched, uh, Reverend Jackson deliver his speech. And I just remember thinking to myself, you know, if I could ever be in a situation where I could hold someone's attention, if I could ever speak even a third as well as, as these guys now that would be something, you know, I, my understanding it was the attorney general Keith Ellison asked you to get involved in the case.

What was that like? Where were [00:14:00] you, what were you feeling? What was going on? I'll never forget that call and. I didn't feel it was monumental right away. Right away. I thought it was a prank. I didn't think that it was the attorney general calling me. Yeah. Uh, asking me for, for anything. Just a little bit of a backdrop, right?

Yeah. The, the murder of George Floyd happened in front of everybody's eyes. Yeah. Right on tv. We all watched it. Mm-Hmm. And I'd spent over two decades as a prosecutor, uh, working hand in hand with law enforcement. This was, um, uh, conduct. I just didn't recognize as, uh, any sort of legitimate policing at all.

It was outrageous. Uh, it was heartbreaking. And to understand, you know, this happened in, in our backyard, uh, this was in our home in Minneapolis, and so many people were just sad. And, uh, but because I'd spent so much time as a prosecutor, I'd get a lot of phone calls and, and, uh, people in my firm, people, you know, friends, [00:15:00] uh, family members just calling saying, can you please.

Help us process this. Can you, can you give us some context, some explanation? And, and I spent a lot of time talking to people, just at least taking 'em through the process and everything. So I'd spent some time talking about the case. And so I'm at home and I get a phone call and the, the voice on the other end of the phone claims to be the attorney general of the state of Minnesota.

Mm-Hmm. And Keith Ellison. And I kind of laughed and said, yeah, right. And then he repeated himself and I recognized his voice. Then I knew, okay, uh, this is, this is important. Um, and, and I was so honored that he would call and what, what, what he called and asked me is, is have, have you seen Mm-Hmm. What happened?

Watch what happened. And I told him yes. He said, I just, you know, I've been, uh, I'm taking the case. I'm gonna be prosecuting the case out of my office. And, um. I just wanna know what your thoughts are, what can I do with this case? And, [00:16:00] and so I guess I thought that he was more or less just kind of asking for some general advice.

I, I've been involved in a number of high profile cases, right? And then as a prosecutor, I managed a lot of high profile cases, both as lead prosecutor and as a supervisor. And so what, what I talked to him about was the need to really give your staff, your people, your prosecutors, what they need. Mm-Hmm.

All the tools and resources to focus on the case. Because when you get something like this that gets so much attention, your people get pulled in a hundred different directions. And, and they end up spending, uh, 90% of their day working. Not on the case, not on what they're supposed to do, but on all these sort of side issues, right?

And if you really want to be effective, an effective manager of litigators, you need to clear that, you need to get rid of all that noise and have your people spending their time doing [00:17:00] what prosecutors, what lawyers are supposed to do, reading the reports, developing your direct examinations, developing your themes, and, and really working on the case itself and not all these other side issues.

And I told him that. Um, and he, he, he told me, he thanked me and he said, um, well, I just want to know then what you think about the case just from a legal point of I know that you prosecuted, uh, police officers before civil rights cases, and talk to me about that. And I just gave 'em a very candid assessment of what, um, my view is, of what I saw it.

That, that having worked in law enforcement as long as I have, that was not policing, that was not proper. It was, uh, just a want and disregard for the life of a, of a fellow human being and that it needs to be prosecuted as murder because that's, uh, clearly what it was. Hmm. Um, he asked me about the other officers and what I thought of them, and I told him that [00:18:00] I, I felt that under the law they were aiding and abetting homicide that had gone on too long and they were too many signs, uh, for them to not know and understand what they were doing.

And it also appeared to me, of course, I'm just looking at some clips of video, um, that they were hands-on, uh, in, in the, in the process. And so, you know, I believe that they needed to be prosecuted and held accountable as well. Um, but I caution him and, you know, it's, you know, going, um, into a situation where you're prosecuting a police officer is just different.

Mm-Hmm. Everything is different. Everything flips. As, as a prosecutor prosecuting a police officer, really, um, you become almost a defense attorney in your mindset. The, the jurors you might select are gonna be different than the jurors that you would select in, in a case that doesn't involve a police officer.

Uh, and you have to understand [00:19:00] that you're used to, as a prosecutor, getting all of your information from the police, from, from that agency. And you have to understand that you need to be skeptical and, and you need to be guarded in, uh, how you obtain information from a plea in a case like this. Because all of them, just as human nature.

Are going to in one form or another, no matter how heinous the conduct, they are still police officers that are gonna somewhat identify, uh, as such. And I also knew that the defense would be well-funded and vigorous, uh, that the, that the, that the union, the police federation would back their people as they should, um, and, uh, provide, uh, funding for very good defense attorneys as they should.

I mean, the system only works when both sides are well represented, but that it was going to be a challenge. Um, it was gonna be difficult, but, you know, probably the biggest challenge is understanding the mindset [00:20:00] of most folks when it comes to their relationship with police. Um, some people are sort of skeptical of police, uh, generally, um, some people are supportive of police, it seems no matter what.

But I think at our core. Is a trust and belief that the police are going to help. And, and I get a lot of people say, ah, no, come on. No, that's not true. That people are skeptical. You know, you have some people, I, um, I guess I, I think that it's just part of our culture. Mm-Hmm. And it's part of our indoctrination that we believe that police are there to help.

And, and, um, even a small child will know what happens if you get in trouble. What happens if mom and dad, uh, can't help you or they're unconscious or something you call 9 1 1. Right? And, and so my discussion with the, the Attorney General was that you are going to have to overcome a, a really a, a [00:21:00] mindset, an inherent trust in police and police officers.

And no matter how much someone says, um, that they're anti-police or they're skeptical. There, there's something there. Um, there's something there. I give an example. I prosecuted, uh, a police officer, uh, for an assault, uh, that was caught on video. Right. And, and, uh, after the assault happened, the victim of the police officer, Mm-Hmm.

Called 9 1 1. Wow. Wow. Wow. It just reflects, it reflects it. Can you imagine? I mean, can you imagine any other group that one of their members does something like this? Yeah. And that you would turn to other members of the same group expecting them to, to help. Yeah. Um, freshly after an assault. So that's what we're gonna have to, to, to work.

You know, that's what you're going to have to be prepared and, and focus on in, in presenting this case. And, [00:22:00] and towards the end of the call, he said, um, well, I really want to thank you for these perspectives. It's been very helpful and I wanna ask you one more thing. Would you consider, uh, helping? Would you help?

And, um, and I said, yeah, I, I, I, I would let, let me talk to my firm and, uh, let me talk to the, to the folks who help make these sorts of decisions. But I, I'd love to help. Mm-Hmm mm-Hmm. Um, and, and, and let me tell you that that is a gift being asked to help it, it really is when you are feeling helpless yourself.

Mm-Hmm. And trying to explain to your loved ones, to your families, to your children, your colleagues, what just happened, and, and, and how to bring some context and not really having words to be able to, um, take what you have learned, uh, your craft, your profession, and put that to use to actually help, uh, something [00:23:00] important.

Um, that request really was, was absolutely a gift. I know that, that, that you and your. You know, have a, a strong commitment to pro Bono. Done some amazing work with Innocence Project. I would assume that it was a pretty quick decision to, to support it. It was, I mean, our, our firm has, uh, quite the history.

One of our founders actually prosecuted war crimes in Nuremberg, and it, it goes back that far. It's in the, it's in the DNA of our firm. And I called our at the timer managing partner and, and talked to him and he, it was immediate. He said, I will do what we, what we need to do anything I can to, to clear it so that you can take this assignment.

And, and he and other members of the firm worked for days nonstop to clear conflicts. You can imagine that, you know, where's the prospect? Mm-Hmm. Go to your business partners and say, I got a great [00:24:00] idea. I'm gonna work for the government for free. Um. And I'm gonna do it for three years. But, you know, I think they, they were, they were honored and, um, and really relieved to be asked for help as well.

I mean, you actually do something. And so they were, they were very supportive and, and got right behind it. It, it was a process. They, they worked on a, a special counsel appointment. We cleared conflicts and, and at that time, I guess I believed my role was going to be more as a legal advisor. Mm-Hmm mm-Hmm.

I wasn't really sure what the division of labor was going to be, and I didn't know who else was going to be asked to participate in the case. But I did know that as far as like the substance of what I was gonna be asked to do, um, was going to really focus on the use of force aspect, the policing aspect of the case.

Mm-Hmm. You know, based on my experience and, and I thought that that would be something I'd be well [00:25:00] suited to do. I know storytelling, the passion of yours, uh, but storytellers in the courtroom have, uh, you know, extra hurdles and challenges, uh, to, to face. Um, and you have, you have different, different tools to tell your story.

It's not, you're not sitting and, and just sort of, sort of telling the story and your discussion group in college, right? It, you have to carefully put together all the pieces. So tell us about that. Tell us about how, how you take the skill that you have and then take the framework of a trial, um, and how do you put it all together?

So, Marie, I, I, I like that analogy of a framework because I think that's exactly what the law provides and, and, and the forum of a trial provides, it provides a framework and, and rules and confines in which you have to work to tell your story. And so understanding that and knowing that the first thing I do.

When I'm taking on a new case or, or, or [00:26:00] thinking about how I'm going to tell this story is I look at the law, I turn to the law first. Mm-Hmm. Uh, and, and not just the law, uh, specifically I want to know what the jury instructions are going to be, uh, at the front end. Because, you know, when you think about, uh, a trial, a trial is, uh, it's, it's an ask.

Mm-Hmm. We're asking these, uh, jurors to make a decision. We're trying to persuade them to make a deci the decision that we want them to make. And so I want to know every word that the judge is going to be saying to them during that, during that close, with that warmup to the ask before I get in there and make that, make that big request.

Um, I think it's important because you can tell a compelling story. You can tell a narrative that will hold, uh, people's attention. But to what end if you're not focused, uh, properly on, on the elements of, of the [00:27:00] offense or the elements of the cause of action or the, or the defenses, right? So I start there and, and, um, not only do I wanna understand like what exactly the judge is going to be saying, I want to know what words, what specific words are going to be used.

'cause those words are important, right? They're critical. The words all have, uh, you know, meaning. And, and then I work back from there. As I think about my story and I think about what happened, I try to think about how can I tell the story, um, using words. That are going to be the same or similar to what the judge is going to be instructing the jury at the end.

Mm-Hmm. How do I tap into that language to create sort of a, a, an expectation and a resolution If, if they're learning about something and then they hear the judge use the same terms, I think that that brings them some sort of comfort that they're on the right track. And so I, I, I think that that's the first thing you have to do in terms of a [00:28:00] framework.

Then, then you really have to, in storytelling, um, in this particular format, you can't forget that the format can't overcome sort of what it is, the basics of storytelling and what you have to accomplish, right? So I keep a few things in mind that, that I've learned, and I would tell everybody who is going to be in front of a jury, just never forget.

First and foremost, people are very smart. They really are. Don't underestimate that. Right? You have to, you have to remember that and keep that in mind. And, and that said, people learn in different ways. Um, they take in information in different ways. Some people can hear something, some people can read something, some people need to hear it and read it.

Some people are very visual. I'm very visual. I like to see maps and timelines and things to keep things straight. And so, you know, you, you have a role as a [00:29:00] teacher, uh, to teach the jury what happened and, and teach them concepts, uh, and, and big concepts and things that are gonna help you later when you do that final ask.

Uh, and you also have to remember that, you know, just like anything else, it has to be interesting, uh, attention span. It's precious. It's a precious commodity. Yeah. I clerked for a year for a trial court judge and watched a lot of trials and, and what I learned and have learned is that, you know, the, the only people that time is moving by quickly for are the of the lawyers.

And that's when they're talking the rest of everybody who has to listen. I mean, it's a challenge and even the most interesting, uh, criminal case, you can, you can have people yawning, um, because it is just really hard to stay that focused for that long. So it has to be interesting. How do you, how do you make people interested?

And, and, and the prime rule, I think in all storytelling is [00:30:00] developing a connection, um, developing a connection both between yourself and and the jurors. But you have to draw a connection between the people you want them to care about and themselves. You have to let the see themselves in the story.

Relate things to an experience that they may have had that's going to, that's going to pique their interest and it's gonna facilitate comprehension. And so, um, one of the biggest parts of that, um, I, I guess in writing it would be character development. You see, um, a great series on Netflix or whatever streaming service you use or read a great book.

Um, why is it a great book? Is it because interesting things happened? Or is it because you care about the people that some maybe ordinary things happen to or maybe some interesting things happen to? So you really have to develop that and, and let the jurors know who the different people are and not [00:31:00] present them as sort of this two dimensional, flat, you know, the victim this or, or the defendant that, you know, depending on what side you're on, you, you have to develop them as a person.

I so. I, I call it the Anakin Skywalker theory. This is, you know, something I thought of over the years. So I I I came of age in the eighties, right? Yeah. About Star Wars. Well, think about Darth Vader. Okay. Yeah, yeah. When I was introduced to Darth Vader, Darth Vader was just pure evil, a terrifying two dimensional figure who just did horrible things and, uh, and, and you didn't care about him at all, did you?

But, but then the next generation of, of people who were watching the Star Wars series were introduced to Anakin, um, a boy. And they saw him as a, as a child. Mm-Hmm. And they saw him as a, as a teenager and young adult. And they kind of went on that journey from, from little boy to the, to the monster really, [00:32:00] that he became.

But those viewers think about Darth Vader in a different way. Mm-Hmm. And I thought about Darth Vader when I saw the first movie Yeah. Character. And he told the horrible things. And you still, um, you know, believed that he needed to be held accountable and, and probably ended up the way he should have.

Yeah. Uh, in the end. But there was a sadness, um, and there was a recognition that this was, uh, uh, this was a person. And, and you understood that. And so you, you think about that and think about any, um, whether it's a victim who maybe has done some things that you, uh, that they regret Most of us have. Uh, or a defendant.

If you're on the other side, it's important for you to let the jury see their humanity and know them in order for them to care. To develop that connection and, and to, and to hold their interest. I think that's, that's critical in all storytelling. Yeah. Is having interesting characters. Well, in the George Floyd trial, you had to humanize George Floyd.

You had [00:33:00] so many, I guess, so, so many goals. You had to humanize George Floyd. You know, you had to open the possibility that, you know, police officers can do bad things. With that in mind, you know, what were the biggest decisions from a storytelling point of view that you had, that the team had to make and under help us understand kind of the pros and cons of those tough decisions?

Yeah, so I I, one of the toughest, as you indicated, we had to humanize George Floyd. Sad that you have to humanize a human. Uh, but you do, I mean, I think to, to develop a story and, and understanding the degree to which you do that, the manner that you're doing that, right. We have this, uh, concept in Minnesota homicide law called Sparkled Life.

It might even be a little bit unique to us, but Spark of Life, uh, testimony allows the prosecutor to put a witness on the stand to just talk a little bit about the victim. Um, just to establish that they were a person, a human, they had family, they had people who loved [00:34:00] them and cared about them. They had some, some dreams and aspirations.

Not all of them panned out to, to be able to do that, and we knew we were gonna be allowed to do that. But to what extent then do you open the door? Character evidence. And so really, um, going and understanding how we would present George Floyd as a, as a human being without trying to, um, you know, we could have introduced all sorts of evidence talking about, uh, his gentle, uh, disposition and demeanor.

Mm-Hmm. You know, but we also knew that he had a criminal history that included acts of violence in his past and, and were to do that and, and open that door there. There's a price to be paid for that. And, uh, and, and we wanted to keep the jury focused on, you know, who he was in that moment as opposed to, uh, some things that he did in, in his past.

And so we had to, to very carefully consider that testimony. But I think that one of the biggest structural challenges in telling this [00:35:00] story in, in organizing the trial is where to start. Who to put on first. Where do we begin this story? Oh, um, I was a prosecutor for about 22 years, and here's how all of my cases would start, right?

Officers arrived on the scene and they see X and then we kind of take it from there. We can go a little bit back in time. We go forward in time, but it's always is there was a call for service. The officer arrived at the corner of this and that, right? But think about what you're doing when you start the story there.

You're orienting the jury to see the story, to see the facts from the perspective of the law enforcement officer. And we didn't wanna do that because, um, from the perspective of the law enforcement, obviously I think about the Rodney King case. I thought about it a lot during, you know, you know, preparation.

You, you, you know, you see something that's just plainly horrible and shocking. Um, and then have it. Broken down and dissected and [00:36:00] explained away such that a jury acquits and, and, and, um, and we didn't want that. Mm-Hmm. Right. But, but what was so powerful about that viral video like that, that the, that the bystanders, they came upon what they saw and they were just absolutely shocked and they were horrified.

And then when you saw it, Andrew, when you saw this on tv, how did you feel? You, oh, Murray, what did you think when you saw this? Uh, and and so recognizing that and deciding, we're going to tell the story and we're gonna start from the perspective of the bystanders, because really, um, that is the case. Right.

And, and that's the perspective. That's if you're, if you're, if you had a, a director, you know, they Right. Zoom in on that person. Yeah. Right there. And, and, and the jurors can imagine themselves being just walking down the street themselves, right. Because we've all Absolutely. Yeah. And, and, and then leaning into that a little bit, Marie, the, so the, the [00:37:00] jurors and the perspective of the bystanders and drawing some of those parallels.

So we start from the perspective of the bystanders and, and they come upon what they see and they're shocked and they're horrified. And one of the themes that we developed to try to, you know, understanding that the, that the defense was gonna try to explain away everything was believe your eyes. Believe your eyes.

You saw what you saw and what you saw was a murder, right? And, and then taking that bystander perspective and bringing it back to the jury. One of the things that I did in closing, and this was intentional, is I wanted to convert. The jury into the bystanders. I wanted them to be the new bystanders, our first set of bystanders.

Mm-Hmm. Right. Were a group of people randomly selected just by fate, by the fact that they were walking down the, the, the area of 38th and Chicago on that particular day, through no choice of their own, and saw [00:38:00] something horrible, but were completely powerless to do anything about it. They couldn't intervene.

I mean, these were the police. They, they would've been arrested. They could've, uh, been hurt themselves. Yeah. Right. But then to, to bring that to the jury, to, to, to, to draw that connection and say, you know, you're a group of people who were randomly selected. You got a jury summons in the mail, and here you are, and, and you're bearing witness to this.

You're seeing the same things that they saw, but here's the difference between them and you. You can do something. You have the power to do something. Right. And, and, and that was a, that was an intentional choice, both from the perspective of starting, so that when we're ending and we're making that, that ask, we want the audience, we want the jury to identify with those people.

Um, most. So Steve, even before, you know, um, you, you started putting this case together. I mean, you were already thinking about the closing. [00:39:00] I mean, at least from a strategic perspective, from a storytelling perspective, that's what you wanted to do. You're always thinking about the closing. Mm-Hmm. You're always thinking about everything at the same time.

You're all thinking about the closing. Yeah. It's you, you're writing things down, you're trying things out. Uh, yeah. I try to, I try a lot of things out on my, on my dog. Um, you know, for the first one it's back. You're back at the farm, you know, you're with the cat. Exactly. Right. And the dog is really the bystander.

That's, that's, they have no choice. The dog has to, but, but also, you know, um, people, uh, it, it's important to test these, uh. These things out. Uh, family members, colleagues, friends, people who won't be afraid to tell you that's not very good. You can't just use chat. Bt Steve, your closing. Yeah, I don't know. I haven't tried that.

I'll see if maybe they, what do you, that's, uh, what do you think of this? Yeah. Like, because, because your jury is gonna be comprised of people who are very, very different. It's [00:40:00] really important to, to talk about, um, what you plan to say with others to see to what extent it, it resonates. And to understand that you have to, you have to double up, triple up on, on this messaging.

Um, there are some people that message is going to resonate with, uh, a lot, but there's some others that it's not, or it's gonna blow by. It just isn't gonna do it for 'em. And so you need to find other ways to communicate that, but just in a different way, um, to reach as many people. Um, uh, I I, I remember running past the, um, the closing.

Uh, with a jury consultant, uh, who I used and, um, uh, my first, uh, cut of it and she said to me, you know, that's a great closing to give to a bunch of people who agree with you. Um, now why don't you try doing one where you actually have to persuade someone? Ouch. Right. But absolutely. Uh, spot on advice. You know, you, you do have to get out of your own head in your own bubble.

Yeah. [00:41:00] And not be afraid to, to take some criticism and, and to revise and understand that really, you know, the most important thing is reaching, um, those jurors. Let, let's talk about that pivot. You just talked about the, the, the, the idea that you need to be willing to change maybe mid midstream. You, you conducted the cross-examination of Very broad.

Yeah. Uh, and, uh, he was the state's use of force expert defense, uh, sorry, defense's, uh, expert. You were able to. I dismantle the, that witness, that theory. And, and I think you, when we were prepping for this, um, you talked about how, you know, how that, how you were able to incorporate that. Can you talk a little bit about, about the cross-examination and, and you know, it's interesting because you're, you're now kind of flipping roles and where you've been, you know, you've, you're, you're now, you're now, you know, cross, you're the prosecutor who's actually doing a [00:42:00] cross examination of a, of a, of a, of a witness that would normally be somebody who you would, as, as a prosecutor, be hiring to, to come in and, and, and, and testify on behalf of the state.

So the, the cross examination of, of very broad was one of the pivotal moments. Mm-hmm. For me, in my role in the trial, because I, I put on the law enforcement expert, you know, the affirmative law enforcement case put on our own experts, the chief of police, the trainers, everything. Um, I really immersed myself in the, in the use of force and, and uh, and I knew that, you know, again, in other use of force cases, you see something, you're convinced it's very plain, but then they're able to explain things away, frame by frame, really dissecting it.

And so I. To prepare for Broad's cross-examination. Um, well first I prepared much in the same way I prepared for this, uh, podcast Marie, like how I stalked you on the internet. [00:43:00] Um, and I listened to every single episode that you've done, uh, before me because I want to be prepared. I want to know, um, what the territory is.

So, and, and the same with this witness. Um, I got my hands on everything that I could, uh, find that this person had written, uh, prior opinions he had, he had made, I found some video of him, uh, testifying in a different case and really sort of familiarized myself with the person. And that's sort of a level set.

I think it's important that, you know, the personality. Uh, of the person to the extent you can Mm-Hmm. Um, because that is going to let you, you know, know where your, you know, cross-examination isn't just a question answer, it's kind of a dance. And you, you wanna know where the other person may be going in.

In addition to that, of course, I, I, I thoroughly immerse myself in use of force law and, and, uh, um, in the Minneapolis Police Department policies and procedures on use of force. And so I had all of that in, [00:44:00] and I had an outline. The outline was hundreds of pages, uh, long, um, with clips and transcripts and all sorts of places where I thought he may go.

And I was particularly concerned about, um, positional asphyxia. And, and, and, uh, you know, for, for everyone listening, positional asphyxia, the danger is that if you place somebody in a prone position, I. And they're restrained that that compresses their lungs. It makes it difficult for them to get oxygen and they can die.

And this is something that, uh, has been known in policing for about 30 years. It's, it's a known risk and there's a way that they can, um, um, try to mitigate that risk. And that is rolling somebody into the side position, or they call it the side recovery position. I was thinking that he may, uh, try to minimize the, the risk of positional asphyxia.

Right. And so I really, you know, done a lot of research and was ready to go. So that was, that was the, the prep. [00:45:00] Um, he very quickly, uh, he, he didn't, he didn't back away from things that he had said previously, uh, about positional asphyxia that just really wasn't the fight. Um, and so there's a lot of stuff that you prepare for that's sort of on the, on the cutting room floor.

Right? Right. Where, where he brought it, uh, really was kind of. Fundamental to the whole case in that he, uh, he wrote a report in which he gave the opinion that what the officers were doing, it was not really a use of force. And the theory being it's, it's not a use of force. It was a simply a hold position.

Um, and just a hold position to hold somebody temporarily in place, uh, until such time as you can take the next step. Which, you know, in a, in a vacuum could sound, uh, could sound okay. Right. But, but you know, here's where starting at the law is, is helpful. [00:46:00] Mm. And, and also the, the policies of Minneapolis Police Department.

And, you know, first when we were preparing this case and, and talking about the use of force, right? You can take a look from start to finish there. Dozens of examples of use of force along the continuum. But what are we talking about? What's the, what's the thing that the officers did wrong in this case?

And there's an exhibit, if you Google it, you know, Chauvin exhibit 17. Exhibit 17 is a freeze frame of George Floyd in the prone position with Derek Chauvin on his neck and back looking at the camera. Okay? That's the position, right? So, and, and so we say when we're talking about the use of force, we're talking about this Exhibit 17, this specific thing.

I'm not talking about asking them to get outta the car. We're not talking about drawing the firearm, we're not talking [00:47:00] about swearing. We're not talking about any of these things. We're talking about this specifically. So let's talk about this thing. Right. And, and, and get the witness to focus on exhibit 17.

And then to take that, um, remember the, the gram factors in, in use of force, uh, and, and how police officers actions are going to be evaluated and what the jury's gonna hear. And they're gonna hear that officers actions can't be viewed in 2020 hindsight, right? They're allowed to make split second decisions.

But what is a split second decision? Well, what is not a split second decision is nine minutes and 29 seconds. That that's not a split second. It's not even a split minute. And that's a long, long time. And so we take exhibit 17, the, the what, they did this, and then for this long, that's our use of force. Is it reasonable for an officer to hold a man down like this for nine minutes and 29 seconds?

And, and it certainly is not, but that's, you know, [00:48:00] boiling the question as as simple as that. And so then, um. In his testimony when he, when he renders the opinion that this was not a use of force, it was merely uphold, I brought him back to the Minneapolis, um, uh, department policies and procedures and definitions, and they define use of force.

And the use of force is defined as anything that could, uh, or does cause pain, simple as that cause pain. And so to get him away from kind of the academic sort of explanation of you hold someone like this and you're waiting, et cetera. And it's like, could this showing him exhibit 17 cause pain? Did it cause pain?

And he, he was unable to answer that question. No. Um, of course it caused pain. It caused pain. It took him a little bit to get there. Right. But we get him to acknowledge that it caused pain. So when it, [00:49:00] when, when he, when he gives us that concession. Then by definition it is a use of force and his entire opinion that this wasn't a use of force that's gone.

So we've, we've eliminated that portion of it. That actually happened fairly quickly, uh, in the cross examination. I wasn't expecting that, but I had a wealth of body camera, um, footage and things that, for him to back up. Uh, I would just simply go to the section where you hear George Floyd crying out and, and, and crying in pain and stating, um, very clearly, my, my neck hurts.

My head hurts. Everything hurts. That's what he said. Loud enough for the officers to hear loud enough to be, to, to put them to, to pick up on it. You could hear Derek Chauvin even responding when, when he was saying this, my head hurts and, and Chauvin responds. Uhhuh, my neck hurts. Uhhuh. [00:50:00] Mm-hmm. Everything hurts.

Well, it takes a lot of oxygen to say that. Okay, that's what, that's what Chauvin's response, uh, callous, uh, cruel, uh, but clearly notice that what he was doing was causing pain. Then it gave me the opportunity to show, um, the witness the injuries that, that George Floyd sustained, the, the, the, the marks on his wrist and on his face, and the bruising, the blood.

Clearly this man was in pain and, and it caused pain because he was a human being, being pressed on the pavement and, and, uh, and, and very broad could not deny that. So then we get to, okay, it's a use of force now was, you know, on the, on the force continuum that the officers have to, to live by, you know, was, was, uh, George Floyd resisting?

He wasn't [00:51:00] resisting, he was lying there. Um, he was simply trying to, to, to breathe and pleading for help and saying, I'll do anything. I'll get in the car, I'll do, you know, he was, he was complying. And so, um, as I was drawing, and this was the thing that was unexpected as I was drawing this out of, uh, the witness, uh, and asking him about, you know, complying, he wasn't resisting.

Right. And, and you're supposed to discontinue force when, Mm-Hmm. There's no threat. So-called threat when they're not resisting. Um, so he's not resisting. Um, you see, he's complying and, and he said, well, he's mostly compliant. Well, what part of this is not compliant? I know that they say you're never supposed to, to, um, ask a question.

You don't know the answer to always ask a leading question. I, I, I take all these rules with a, a, a grain of salt. I think that, um, never only ask leading questions unless the the non-leading question, there's no good answer. [00:52:00] Right, right, right, right, right. If you're, if you're in this situation, and so what part of this is non-compliant?

And that's when, uh, Mr. Broad said, well, a perfectly compliant person would've been lying there, um, with his hands relaxed and sort of resting comfortably. And I've heard that. That's those words resting comfortably. And that's what, you know, the outline just kind of goes out the window. And, you know, you have a lot of things going on in your head at once.

You're thinking about the law, you're thinking about the jury. Have I on too long? Have I, you know, am I starting to beat the person up? Is this, you know, um, and so you think about all these things. And then that just, that moment just kind of stopped everything and in my head, and I heard him say that, and, and, and I knew, um, that was something that was a big mistake for him.

And I simply paused and repeated back to him what he said and just said. Did you, did you say [00:53:00] resting comfortably? I, I, I, I think that, you know, if you, and, and it maybe it could be a Midwestern thing too, where sometimes we don't say things quite, uh, directly, but it would've been very tempting to just point at him and say, that's ridiculous.

Resting comfortably. He's being pinned to the, you know. To kind of get into that, but just sort of to pause and to, to ask him, did you just say that? And, uh, and then he said, yes. And I said, resting comfortably on the pavement. And he said, yes. And just kind of going, how ridiculous. And, and he said, well, I, I think it ended with the, is, is it, is it resistance to try to breathe?

Is that non-compliance? And he said, no. And I just looked at him and repeated no. Um, and, and, and so in, in that cross. And I didn't, I didn't end it there. But that was a part that [00:54:00] was unexpected. And what that requires is for you to have, um, you have to have knowledge of the law first and foremost. I mean, you always, always, always start with the law.

Mm-Hmm. And know what that final ask is going to be. But then also to recognize in the moment, um. That there's, there are times that you don't need to be an attack dog. You just need to sit there. Um, and, and if a, and if a witness is sort of, uh, cross-examining themselves, uh, let digging their own grave, give 'em the shovel, maybe.

I dunno. Yeah. I like, I'm gonna steal that, Andrew. Uh, and, and, and, uh, and, and it was, it was a, it was a powerful moment. And I think that, uh, when he left the stand, his, his testimony really had been thoroughly discredited and in fact just really emphasized that, um, this is not a use of force case because, um, George Floyd wasn't resisting during that period of time.

When they were doing that specific act of laying [00:55:00] on top of him, as he, as he struggled to breathe, and the horrified crowd begged them to, to stop. Um, and, and that was very, very clear. They couldn't, they couldn't believe their eyes. And then, and then, uh, um, we had to move on to the, to the medical case, right?

Because that's, that was going to be the next phase Mm-Hmm. But I felt a sense of accomplishment after that. I felt that, uh, sure. You know, really that year of preparation, all of, uh, my anxiety, my desire to, to really show that this was not, um, this was not the program. This is not what police are supposed to do.

This was wanton. It was callous. Uh, it was, it was a criminal act. It was a murder. And I felt that, uh, that we'd done that. You know, you talked about anxiety and I, um, I, I, I can certainly understand that anxiety, you know, on the one hand, you know how difficult these cases can be. Um, you have a lot of experience in the area.

However, just to a, you know, a lay person looking at [00:56:00] that video and saying, you know, this is a slam dunk that puts a lot of pressure on you, I would imagine. Um, and, and so, you know, we, we want to kind of put this case in perspective, just not only from, I mean this is a landmark American history and its legacy is gonna be examined.

You know, for years. There's already been, you know, lots of books on it. Curious what you, you know, take away. I mean, from the experience, it, it was a lot of pressure to show that, you know, the law does work and we get to the right, uh, the right conclusions. Um, but that's. It's not easy. Uh, and, and, but, but the right conclusions happened and, you know, we're now several years away, you know, um, removed from the verdict.

Have your views of the, of its legacy changed and what, you know, what are they and what do you think they should? Yeah, I, I think there's, there's so much to take from the, from the George Floyd case and I in the, in that trial, [00:57:00] I am grateful. Uh, now wasn't at the time that it was, uh, it was broadcast, uh, at the time we opposed televising.

It, there are all kinds of considerations there. I was very concerned that about the privacy of the witnesses, the bystanders who didn't, certainly didn't ask to see this, didn't ask us to subpoena them and, and, and compel 'em to, to have to tell their story, uh, and relive the, the trauma of this experience.

I mean, this, this was, uh, something I was not in favor of. Now as I look, you know, I think at the time there was a lot of, um, you know, a, a lot of folks really agreed with what happened, um, especially those who actually watched the trial. But as we get further away from that point in time, there are of course those courses that want to rewrite history and, and wanna say, um, George Floyd died of a drug overdose.

They repeat that. Um, that was [00:58:00] something that was tested, um, in the courts subject to cross-examination and scrutiny and experts. And, uh, and a group of 12 people listened to that and said, it's absolute nonsense, which it was. But if it wasn't televised, if it wasn't recorded for posterity, it'd be very easy to let that history be rewritten, um, by those who have a motive to try to shape the debate a certain way.

And I can simply respond by asking, first, did you watch the trial? And then say, watch the trial. So you're saying he died of a drug overdose. Why don't you watch that testimony? Why don't you watch the testimony of Dr. Tobin? Why don't you watch the testimony of the medical experts who testified, and I don't have to, to, to try to keep re-explaining that nonsense.

I can simply tell them, go to historic record and, and see for yourself. Um, and then those who, uh, they really don't care about the record. They just want to sort of try to, you they're gonna do what they do and I guess they get to do [00:59:00] that. But for anyone else who has a question, I'm just grateful, uh, that there is that transparency that they can do it.

I think, um, one of the things, two of the things I guess I'd like people to take from the case, uh, no one is above the law and no one's beneath it either. Mm-Hmm. Um, people don't come into contact with the police on their best day. They just don't. There are thousands and thousands of calls for, um, emotionally, uh, and behaviorally disturbed person, people who might be going through something, whether it's a, a struggle with addiction or just finding out that they're getting a divorce or just finding out that they've lost a job or lost a child, or any of the myriad things that make us as humans not act in the moment the way society might otherwise want us to act.

And we all have a loved one who maybe consistently [01:00:00] doesn't, um, act that way and you wish they would act something different, but you love 'em and, and, and you yourself have had those moments where maybe just maybe in that moment you couldn't have gotten in the car. And society has to have allowance for that and the tolerance for that and understand that policing is a very hard job.

Um, uh, and, and I, and I've worked with some fantastic police officers who are trained and who know. On a day-to-day basis, they encounter people not on their best day, on their worst day. And, and, and they can't pay for the worst day, um, with their life. That's just not the way society can work. And so I, I hope that's a takeaway.

It's something I've thought about and reflected on a lot. Um, and I also think that from a policing standpoint and, and to my friends in law enforcement, and I have a lot of 'em, I always say this, and I think it's so [01:01:00] universally true. Um, standing up to your adversaries is challenging. Um, it's, it's, it's not an easy thing to do, but you know, what's more challenging standing up to your friends and, and in that moment, um, when Derek Chauvin had pinned a.

George Floyd to the ground, and they're pressing down upon him, and this time is ticking by and ticking by for all of these agonizing minutes. If one of the other three would've spoken up in a meaningful way and intervened and said, Hey, um, enough, we have to, we have to do something. We, this is not, this isn't right.

This isn't what we're taught. This isn't the procedure. This is dangerous. If any one of them in that time, um, would've done something, um, George Floyd may be alive, and all of the damage, all of the fallout, all of the pain wouldn't have happened [01:02:00] if in that moment, instead of kind of going along, um, they would've stood up to their friends and their, and their colleagues, you know?

But that's a really hard thing to do. I think we have to acknowledge that. I think after the fact, it is easy for me to say that. Um, but all of us have been in situations I imagine, at one time or another where things aren't kind of going the way you think they should. Um, did you say something? Should you say something?

And, and, and I think the lesson there is, is yes, because there would've been no greater active friendship or heroism or, or whatever you wanna call it, then in that moment saying, you gotta get up. Um, we, we have to, we have to roll 'em into the recovery position. We have to get a medical attention. All of those things.

Steve, how we usually end is just asking if there's something that you wanted to make sure, a message you wanted to make sure that was heard. A question we should have asked. Counsel. Um, is there anything [01:03:00] that you left out, anything you wanted to add before we close? You know, I just, I want to encourage people Mm-Hmm.

Um, lawyers, people in my profession to really understand the value. Of doing pro bono work, of, of, of taking that panel case of, of picking up the phone and of saying yes. Um, most of the most rewarding, exciting, and important things that I've been able to accomplish as a lawyer has been a result of, of saying yes when you could have said no.

Uh, I think, as I said before, being asked to help is a gift. We are in a profession. Um, it's a, it's a wonderful profession. Uh, I'm proud to be in it. Um, and it's a privilege. It is a profession. It's not just a job. It's, and it's a privilege to be able to practice. And you think about all of the people who lifted you up along your way and your journey to becoming a lawyer.

[01:04:00] Um, think about when you're asked to do something, when you're asked to contribute something back. To, to just saying yes and, and not overthinking it, uh, but just doing it because, uh, you will find it, uh, rewarding. Personally, uh, I, I will be thinking about this case, uh, for the rest of my life, and it's something I will always be proud of, and I'm proud, uh, for my family and my children to, to know that I was a, was a part of it.

Um, but it's also important for justice. Uh, if you believe in our system and we profit from our system, we benefit from our system. If you believe in it, it's critical that all sides, uh, be represented by good, competent, passionate counsel. Um, and, and, and, and so I, I ask you to consider doing that and, and saying yes to pro bono work.

Hmm. A hopeful, a hopeful note to end on. So Steve, uh, we really, really appreciate your time. Thank you so much for joining us. [01:05:00] You know, wow. Andrew, uh, that was, uh. Mesmerizing storytelling about storytelling. Yeah. You know, the, uh, yeah, there are lot, lot, lots of, uh, interesting lessons to take away. The deep thinking, the strategic choices that, that you make when you're trying to tell a story.

And, and it starts at from the very beginning. You're worried about that closing argument. Um, what are you gonna kind of close with? 'cause everything has to be leading up to that point. And, and, um, and I'll just, you know, just say one last thing about him and it's just that, that that connection that he's trying to make with jurors and, and making sure, um, that their eyes are trained on the right things.

Yeah, I, I was, I was struck by something that, that he said kind of at closer to the end of our discussion, which he said he was willing to ask questions that he did not know the answer to, which is, you know, if, if you do any, any research into doing trial work, you know, you, you're not, not supposed to do that.

However. [01:06:00] He had the agility to ask that question a very broad at the end which, which, which, which we heard, which you heard about. Um, because of all the exceptional preparation, he wasn't making it up on the spot. He heard something, he heard the opportunity, he heard a way to connect with that jury in a real definitive manner.

And quite honestly, that question and then the ideas that spr out of that question, uh, that that answer to that question, uh, may have been the def deciding factor in this case. In the end, you know, Steve and the team that worked on this were defending justice because Justice was had in this, in this. And, uh, we don't, we don't see that.