DN-LB-545 Beta SP
Universal International Newsreels
00/00/00 A0011065 ATLANTA -- BANK ROBERY ATTEMPT FALLS. (F - SA1 - ABC - SAMPLE - KTVI)
00/00/00 A0011065 ATLANTA -- BANK ROBERY ATTEMPT FALLS. (F - SA1 - ABC - SAMPLE - KTVI) NX 30971 "BANK ROBBERY" SHOWS: (1) EXT BANK 3 SECS: (2) CU SIGN 2; (3) INT BANK 4; (4) POLICE OUTSIDE 4; (5) SCHOOL BEING EVACUATED 4; (6) POLICE OUTSIDE EMPTY SCHOOL 5; (7) FIRST GETAWAY CAR 8; (8) ROAD SIGN 2; (9) EMPTY CAR - TWO SHOTS 4; (10) POLICE BY SECOND CAR 8; (11) TELLER AT POLICE LINE - UP 6; (12) LINE - UP 4; (13) TELLERS LOOKING 2; (14) KEITH MOORE BEING LED AWAY 8. (38FT -- 1:05, SHOT 12/9/64) CUT THEFT - GEORGIA, ATLANTA MOORE, KEITH NX / XX FT / D 5478 (AH233PES)
ATLANTA AIRPORT SHOOTING (7/13/1998)
Gunfire at the Atlanta Airport this morning. Police say a robbery suspect pulled a gun and an officer fired back hitting the man in the leg. Four people are in custody for attempted robbery.
Iran - israel. Tensions of relations - the three options of war
TF1 News (Private - August 1982 ->)
Gunman who attempted robbery in Georgia take people in bank hostage
KAKHETI, GEORGIA - SEPTEMBER 09: An armed robber broke into a branch of the Bank of Georgia in the Kakheti region and took the people in the bank hostage on Thursday, Sept. 9. Due to the hostage crisis in the city of Kvareli in the Kakheti region, a large number of police were dispatched to the scene. The Georgian Interior Ministry said that the security forces in the region are taking all necessary and urgent measures. According to the local media, the security forces at the scene began preparations for the operation. (Footage by Davit Kachkachishvili /Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
Georgian police detain gunman who attempted to rob bank
KAKHETI, GEORGIA - SEPTEMBER 09:Georgia police on Thursday evening, Sept. 9, detained an armed robber who broke into a branch of the Bank of Georgia in the Kakheti region. On Thursday afternoon, an armed robber took the people in the bank hostage and attempted to rob the bank in the city of Kvareli in the Kakheti region. Due to the hostage crisis, a large number of police were dispatched to the scene. Keti Kovziashvili, one of the senior officials at the Georgian Interior Ministry, told reporters at the scene that the gunman in the bank was caught as a result of the operation that lasted for about two hours. Kovziashvili said all the hostages were rescued and everyone is in good health. According to local media, the armed robber tried to steal about 160,000 dollars from the bank.(Footage by Davit Kachkachishvili /Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
TF1 20 hours: [show of 12 August 2008]
TF1 News (Private - August 1982 ->)
MEXICAN TOURIST KILLED
POLICE IN GEORGIA ARE SEARCHING FOR TWO SUSPECTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE FATAL SHOOTING OF A MEXICAN TOURIST. CESAR GARCIA, 33, OF MEXICO CITY WAS SHOT ONCE IN THE HEAD DURING A ROBBERY ATTEMPT AS HIS WIFE AND TWO YOUNG CHILDREN WATCHED IN HORROR. GARCIA, A CANCER SPECIALIST FROM MEXICO CITY, HAD REPORTEDLY BEEN TOURING THE UNITED STATES WITH HIS FAMILY. THE MEXICAN CONSULATE IN ATLANTA IS CARING FOR GARCIA'S WIFE AND CHILDREN.
DOUGHERTY SIBLINGS CAPTURED / LAW ENFORCEMENT REAX
LOCATION/STORY: 16:9/ Pasco Co., FL: Pasco Co. Sheriff Chris Nocco and other FL law enforcement reax to arrest of Dourgherty siblings in Colorado. WFTS - ABC / embargo WWSB ADVISORIES/RESTRICTIONS/EMBARGOES: ***Embargo WWSB FORMAT: SOT VIDEO SHOWS/SHOTLIST: --Quick SOTs from newser SUPERS: Pasco Co., Florida Sheriff Chris Nocco / Pasco Co., Florida ??? ??? ??? VIDEO PROVIDED BY: WFTS - ABC / Tampa LENGTH: 1:29 INFORMATION FROM WFTS' WEBSITE: Three siblings wanted for shooting at a Zephyrhills police officer and robbing a Georgia bank have been captured, according to authorities. 21-year-old Ryan Edward Dougherty, 26-year-old Dylan Dougherty Stanley and 29-year-old Lee Grace Dougherty had been on the run for more than a week. Pueblo County Sheriff Kirk Taylor told ABC Action News that the three suspects were captured after a 20-mile chase that exceeded 100 mph Wednesday morning. Kirk said shots were fired, but couldn't elaborate any further. The chase ended in a crash. Two suspects were immediately captured. Another fled on foot but was caught a short time later not far from the crash site near Walsenburg, Colorado. One suspect, believed to be Lee Dougherty, reportedly was shot in the leg. A break in the case came when a witness spotted one of the suspects in a Canyon City Walmart. Law enforcement officers converged on the area and located the car the suspects were driving, A Subaru Impreza with Texas plates, at a convenience store. The suspects then fled. "They were headed south. They crashed," Sheriff Kirk said. The Dougherty siblings went on the run on the morning of August 2nd after they reportedly shot at a Zephyrhills police officer in his patrol car. He tried to pursue them, but a bullet had hit one of his tires. Later that day, the three suspects allegedly robbed a Valdosta, Georgia bank at gunpoint. A nationwide manhunt was launched as the case made world headlines. Witnesses said on Tuesday they had seen the trio in Colorado. The three siblings were expected to be booked into the Pueblo County Jail. They face about two dozen charges in Florida and Georgia, including the attempted murder of a law enforcement officer and armed robbery
US Surrender
AP-APTN-0930: US Surrender Saturday, 26 March 2011 STORY:US Surrender- REPLAY Suspect in Georgia police officer's death surrenders and releases hostages LENGTH: 01:19 FIRST RUN: 0530 RESTRICTIONS: Part No Access NAmerica/Int TYPE: Natsound SOURCE: ABC STORY NUMBER: 681421 DATELINE: Athens - 25 March 2011 LENGTH: 01:19 ABC - NO ACCESS NORTH AMERICA/INTERNET SHOTLIST ++NIGHT SHOTS++ 1. Wide of charged man Jamie Hood and former hostages exiting house with hands up 2. Wide of police officers handling former hostages 3. Wide of police officers entering house 4. Wide of police officers escorting former hostages away from house 5. Wide of police officers walking toward house 6. Wide of police officers escorting suspect Jamie Hood away from house 7. Wide of police officers and Hood 8. Close of Hood outside police car 9. Close of Hood's cuffed hands 10. Mid of Hood being placed in police car STORYLINE The man charged in the shooting death of a police officer in Georgia, US, surrendered on live TV late on Friday after he emerged from an apartment in Athens surrounded by several people whom police say he was holding captive. Jamie Hood, 33, emerged shirtless and with five other people, all holding their hands in the air. Officers in green fatigues with high-powered guns swarmed Hood, patted him down and ordered him to the ground. The tattooed, head-shaven Hood was not armed and did not resist police. Hood turned himself in after Georgia Bureau of Investigation Director Vernon Keenan went before TV cameras and promised that Hood wouldn't be hurt if he gave himself up unarmed and freed the hostages. Police had been searching for Hood since Tuesday, when Athens Clarke-County police officer Elmer "Buddy" Christian was shot and killed while police say he attempted to apprehend Hood. Another officer, Tony Howard, was shot in the face and upper body, and is recovering from his wounds. Hood's family members and residents of the apartment complex, which sits in a neighbourhood just off a busy road, gathered to watch the hostage situation unfold. Those who emerged with Hood were led away by officers. Hood was led to a police car, where TV cameras showed him talking to someone. After hours of negotiations, Hood agreed around 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time (0100 GMT Saturday) to give up what police said were four of eight hostages, which authorities saw as a good sign. Television cameras trained at the apartment's door showed him emerging along with the hostages around 11:15 p.m. Eastern Time (0315 GMT Saturday) Police are expecting thousands of people to attend Sunday's funeral for Christian, who was an eight-year veteran of the Athens police department. Christian, 34, was married with two young children. Hood was sentenced to 12 years in prison in 1997 on armed robbery charges and was released in 2009. In 2001, while Hood was serving time, his 22-year-old brother Timothy Hood was shot and killed by an Athens police officer. Investigators said at the time that Timothy Hood pulled a gun on an officer, and was shot and killed when the weapon jammed. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 03-26-11 0606EDT
DOLLAR STORE KO
On September 27, 2010 around 8:45 pm, two black males entered the Dollar General located at 3230 Hwy 155, Locust Grove, GA 30248 and robbed the clerk of an undisclosed amount of money. Both males were armed with handguns. One suspect punched the clerk in the face during the course of the robbery. The first suspect is a black male, about 6 feet tall, wearing a blue t-shirt, khaki pants, white shoes and a camouflage hat. The second suspect is a black male, about 6 feet tall, wearing a blue sweatshirt, khaki pants, black shoes, and a blue hat.
Landing simulation
TF1 (State-run until July 1982)
RAPIST GUILTY PLEA (1989)
A GEORGIA MAN, ACQUITTED OF RAPE CHARGES IN FLORIDA EARLIER THIS FALL, TODAY PLEADED GUILTY TO RAPE AND KIDNAPPING CHARGES. TWENTY-SIX-YEAR-OLD STEVEN LAMAR LORD WAS SENTENCED TO LIFE IN PRISON FOR RAPE AND WAS GIVEN A CONCURRENT 20-YEAR SENTENCE FOR KIDNAPPING. LORD ALSO FACES CHARGES OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT , AGGRAVATED ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO RAPE, ATTEMPTED RAPE AND ROBBERY IN A SEPARATE CASE ALSO IN GEORGIA. LORD S OCTOBER 6 AQUITTAL ON RAPE CHARGES IN FORT LAUDERDALE, FLA., SET OFF A STORM OF CRITICISM NATIONWIDE BECAUSE THE JURORS CITED THE WAY HIS ALLEGED VICTIM WAS DRESSED AND SAID THEY BELIEVED THE WOMAN, AS IT WAS PUT, HAD ASKED FOR IT.
AHMAUD ARBERY MURDER TRIAL BRUNSWICK GA CAM 1 POOL 11172021 0845
COURTROOM FTG OF THE TRIAL IN THE AHMAUD ARBERY CASE / TRAVIS MCMICHAEL, GREGORY MCMICHAEL AND WILLIAM RODDIE BRYAN ARE CHARGED WITH THE MURDER OF AHMAUD ARBERY / CAM 1 CORE 3943 AHMAUD ARBERY MURDER TRIAL BRUNSWICK GA SWITCHED FEED POOL 11172021 084500 [09:05:51] Good morning, everybody. Boy, we are back on. Mr. President, represented by counsel, only broke last night. We were addressing motions before the court. [09:06:15][24.4] [09:06:17] Most efficient. [09:06:18][0.2] [09:06:18] Way to go about this is the state had indicated a little bit of time to take a look at the demurrer on count seven, the state of any additional argument after reviewing the demur that had been filed on behalf of Mr. Brian. No, no additional argument. We stand on what we had originally filed and on the court's order on the demurrer to count seven, which is tracks the language of the statute and informs the defendants of what they are to defend against and therefore is sufficient. And there's no reason to grant the demerjian count seven for which you have to address. [09:07:05][47.1] [09:07:06] That. Then let's get through any additional motions and all sorts of motions. As far as we go, I probably should have gone around ask the question that normally leads to some time before the court, before we get started. Anything from the state,. [09:07:19][13.1] [09:07:20] From Travis MacMichael, from Greg, with Michael and I. We're ready for our motion and from Mr. [09:07:26][5.3] [65.7] [09:07:29] Motions that I'll just go around saying, Mr. Speaker,. [09:07:35][6.1] [09:07:35] That both Craig and Michael entered this time on behalf of Greg McMichael. And I will speak for Travis Mineko with permission of co-defendants counsel and invite them to add anything you may wish to add. That does apply specifically to Travis that I may not mention it. I'm going to try to cover both in this motion for directed verdict of acquittal. And I'll start with the statute that applies to. [09:08:21][45.3] [09:08:21] Such a motion and then go through the counts in the indictment that I think we have some argument to make regarding first the statute. It's Okja nine one A, which says where there is no conflict in the evidence and the evidence introduced with all reasonable deduction and inferences there from shall demand a verdict of acquittal or not guilty as to the entire offense or to some particular count of our offense, the court may direct the verdict of acquittal to which the defendant is entitled under the evidence and may allow the trial to proceed only as to the counts or offenses remaining, if any. So I start with. [09:09:08][47.6] [09:09:10] Count one and let me get my indictment up here, which is malice murder. And to make this argument for acquittal on malice murder, allow me to review initially what the elements of that offense are and then talk about. [09:09:31][20.7] [09:09:31] The evidence in the case. The statute, of course, is sixteen five one, A and B and sixteen five one A says a person commits the offense of murder when he unlawfully and with malice aforethought either expressed or implied causes the death of another human being. [09:09:58][27.3] [09:09:59] So starting with just subsection a malice, of course, in Georgia, law means a specific intent crime as opposed to a general intent crime and then a specific intent crime. The subjective desire [09:09:59][0.0] [146.9] [09:10:18] of the defendant is to bring about the exact illegal consequence that his action is intended to produce. So in and of malice murder count, that means that the that that malice means the defendant has the specific intent to commit an act that the cause of which is the death of another person and that that result was the desired result. It was not an unintended consequence, as we'll see as the case with felony murder. So malice, that sort of specific intent can be shown in two ways by proof. And that subparagraph B in sixteen five one. [09:11:08][49.6] [09:11:09] And. [09:11:09][0.0] [09:11:10] That paragraph indicates two types of proof of this malice. The specific intent, of course, I always mention that as the definition of malice because it's certainly confusing to jurors. But that's a different issue. For later when we talk about charges. But it means no in no ill will or hatred, of course, but it's just a specific intent to types expressed malice. Is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take the life of another human being, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof? Now, case law indicates that would be things like verbal threats, lying in wait the kind of circumstances or actions for which the state can produce evidence that says this person had expressed malice. It's out there in the world for us to see it. We can hear it. We can determine from the circumstances in which the killing occurred. The other type of malice, much more sticky is malice shall be implied. We're no considerable provocation appears and we're all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. 091157 DEFENSE COUNSEL>> So to further define that type of malice, I need to go to a different place here in my notes to look for a definition of implied malice in our law. What we're looking for is that specific intent to kill where there are no external circumstances capable of proof. But inferences must be made. It's implied. And first of all, it's -- you -- you have to find that there's no considerable provocation, which would be, say, voluntary manslaughter. [09:12:43] And there's no other justification for it. And then in one of our cases, under Georgia law, which is park or the state, and I'll get the cite here, 270, Georgia 256 in 1980, 88 case essentially in Parker, the court tries to define that poetic matter of metaphor we find in the implied malice sentence, which is the abandoned and malignant heart. I find it of interest that there are only four states left out of 50 that use that phrase in their definition of murder, abandoned and malignant heart, having its roots somewhere in the dark recesses of medieval English. But here it is still in Georgia, Idaho, Nevada and California. The three states still use that phrase. And so, George, in attempting to say what it means, says that it's a reckless disregard for human life. And Justice Herrnstein in Parker v. State tries to give some sort of definition for it. It's not a substitute for implied malice. That is reckless disregard is not a lower mental state or lower standard of proof. It's not equivalent if it's as she said in this opinion, especially concurring opinion. She says the difference between instructing a jury that a presumption of malice may arise from reckless conduct and this is for malice murder and instructing them that reckless conduct and malice are equivalent that can be substituted for one another. [09:11:10][0.0] [49.6] [09:15:28] Is not just a matter of mere semantics. A jury is entitled to be instructed how to determine a defendant's state of mind based on the evidence. Addus. It is not entitled to be instructed that a lesser mental culpability may be substituted for the required higher mental culpability. And then she goes on to criticize the charge, even in that case in Parker. But what it comes do. [09:15:55][27.2] [09:15:55] Wn To, and it's even cited later in a U.S. Supreme Court case, actually, it was the case earlier than Parker and also an attempt by Justice Brennan to define it. And the case is a rave. Are a a r a. [09:16:15][19.8] [09:16:17] I'm sorry, Let me start that a r. [09:16:19][2.0] [09:16:20] A v, a rave, the screech CRTC, age five seven U.S. for sixty three. A 1993 case. Justice Brennan wrote this homicides committed without considerable provocation or under circumstances demonstrating an abandoned and malignant heart, a term of art that refers to an intentional homicide committed with extreme recklessness. And then I just use ellipses there because it goes on to another matter. But the examples given would be, say, somebody shooting a gun into a crowd of people. You aren't intending to kill any specific person, but you certainly know by that reckless act, somebody will die or driving a car into a crowd at a protest rally. Somebody is going to die. This could be an abandoned and malignant heart. So that all aside, now the facts of our case going back to the standard of 79 one A where directed verdicts premised upon no conflict and evidence and all reasonable deductions and inferences therefrom from 091700 In this case, the state's case in chief, which we've just now heard for the last week and a half, the expressed malice does not seem to be there. [09:17:15] Speaking about Travis McMichael in particular, he's not saying anything or doing anything that could be provable by external circumstances to be expressed malice. And as we've all seen in the video, the shooting doesn't occur until he and the Marberry are locked up in mortal combat, hand-to-hand, face to face and in contact with one another with a gunshot wound that's fatal. That's close contact or near close contact, one to three inches away. Now, none of that is in dispute. There's no conflict in the evidence there. Obviously, the issue that we expect will go to the jury is whether that was an act of self-defense or whether it's some felony murder. And there are counts in here that that address that there is a pair of counts that talk about using a shotgun is an aggravated assault, which results in the death, and that's felony murder. Those are two separate counts in this indictment. It's always interesting to that malice murder added in the same case with felony murd. [09:19:19][87.1] [09:19:19] Er, while not legally inconsistent. And, you know, of course, Georgia has done away with the concept of legally inconsistent verdicts is is somewhat logically inconsistent when you ask a jury to consider finding a defendant guilty of malice murder based on proof you think you have if you're the state that he specifically intended by his act to cause the death of a person who died. [09:19:50][31.3] [09:19:51] And at the same time argue to them, but hey, also consider that he used a shotgun in an aggravated assault without malice, as the felony murder statute says. And the unintended consequence of that aggravated assault was the death of another person. Therefore, it's bootstrapped up into felony murder. So. [09:20:16][25.0] [09:20:18] That is the. [09:20:18][0.6] [09:20:18] Argument against [09:20:18][0.0] [284.5] [09:20:20] count one under 79 when a as a count that should not be presented to the jury because there is no conflict in the evidence. All of the reasonable deductions and inferences from the evidence do not support a finding by a rational trier of fact that expressed or implied malice have been exhibited here in the act of shooting a Madama. Now, you and I can go on to each of the other challenges. In turn, our stop. Let's go. [09:20:54][34.4] [09:20:56] The second challenge is to the combination of counts five and nine. And I can get my indictment back up. [09:21:11][15.1] [09:21:13] Count five charges, felony murder premised upon count nine. And of course, we know that felony murder. And I'll get the definition of that is in sixteen five one. See, a person commits the offense of murder when in the commission of a felony, he or she causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice. So we can forget all of what I just said about malice because it doesn't apply here. The state would have to prove the underlying felony and then show a causal connection, proximate cause between that underlying felony and the unintended death. Without malice, And in this case, Count nine is the criminal attempt to commit a felony, namely false imprisonment on see if it says it in here. Burford Drive Count nine. Then, as we know, is the allegation that on Burford Drive the beginning of the encounter with a Montabaur that Travis and Greg McMichael, along with Roddy Brian. But I'll leave his lawyer to argue his case here, but that Travis and Greg McMichael using their Ford F 150, attempted to commit the crime of false imprisonment. And then they combine that with count five to say that's felony murder premised upon that attempted felony on Burford Drive. Will the causal link between the attempt to falsely imprison someone. [09:23:25][131.3] [09:23:26] Three or four minutes before shooting them with a shotgun is just too tenuous to support under the proximate cause analysis, a felony murder charge in count five? I'm not saying that Count nine can't stand and be presented to the jury, but when you combine it with count five as the underlying felony for felony murder, what we're facing then is a complete lack of a causal link. I mean, you can. [09:24:01][35.1] [09:24:04] Add several lengths to get to Holmes Road where the shooting occurs, but there is nothing about the attempt to force in prison a Marda Brian Burford drive with a pickup truck, particularly Travis Travis McMichaels, Ford F 150 and his ultimate death on Holmes Road. And if you try to do it by party to the crime 16 to 20 and connect Travis and Greg McMichael to William Ronnie, Brian, as that count does, because it also names him in count nine names, his truck, his Chevy Silverado and count nine and then connects them both back to count five for felony murder. But sixteen five, I'm sorry, 16 to 20 party to the crime statute. And I'll read. It's not long. Every person concerned in the commission of a crime is a party there too, and may be charged with and convicted of commission of the crime. Be a person is concerned in the commission of the crime only if he one directly commits the crime. And here where we're talking about directly commits the crime of criminal attempt to falsely imprison a Marda [09:24:04][0.0] [215.9] [09:26:14] Brian Burford drive and then finally intentionally advisees encourages Hyers counsels or procures another to commit the crime. So is the evidence was produced here in this case. [09:26:27][12.4] [09:26:29] Raddy Brian saw the white truck and saw Marberry made some driveway assumptions, according to Miss Donna Caskey, and then went and got in his truck to do what it what he did. But as we heard, he hollered something that the McMichaels did not hear. The evidence from the state was uncontroverted, that whatever he said, that there was no indication, no evidence whatsoever that the McMichaels heard it. There was no phone communication of any kind between either McMichaels phones or Raddy. Brian's phones ensure there was no coordinated and there was no participation, no planning, no intentionally aiding and abetting or intentionally advising, encouraging and so forth between the two McMichaels and Roddie Brian, on Barford Drive or Count nine concerns my argument here. So. [09:27:37][68.0] [09:27:38] The criminal felony. [09:27:52][14.2] [09:27:53] Murder, because of the tenuous causal link, approx causal chain, that's just not going to reach. And secondly, if it's a party to the crime theory, there's no evidence at all that there was. [09:28:07][14.2] [09:28:08] Any participation intentional. And that's a key word in the party statute between them and Ronnie. Brian Burford Drive. So that's my directed verdict argument to count five. And I make it in connection with count nine. And yet I am conceding that Count nine could survive directed verdict and be presented to a jury. There is a conflict in the evidence there about what the McMichaels were doing on on Barford. Obviously we're saying that excuse me, that they attempting to make a. [09:28:49][41.3] [09:28:50] Citizen's arrest. The state says they're attempting to do a false imprisonment. That's a legitimate jury, but connecting it to count five felony murder, that that should be directed in favor of the defendants as an acquittal. All right. My third attack here under the motion for directed verdict of acquittal will be the combination of counts three and seven. Again, count three is a felony murder count and refers to the allegation, count seven. And when you go to count seven, the argument there is that the defendant committed an aggravated assault with a Ford F 150 and a Chevy Silverado, which they allege are objects, devices and instruments which, when used offensively against a person, are likely to result in serious bodily injury contrary to our laws. But then they connect it to murder in count three. Again, however, the trucks were used in this case by the McMichaels. The trucks were used, yes, to attempt to detain, to block in, to trap Ahmaud Arbery. But again, the argument here will be for the purposes of citizen's arrest, not for the purpose of falsely imprisoning, imprisoning him or assaulting him with a truck. But. [09:29:55][105.3] [09:30:05 More than that, that would be a legitimate jury issue in count seven. But in count three, neither truck was the causal link in the death of a Harbury. It was the means by which to get to the place where the death ultimately occurred. Of course, it was the conveyance in which the defendants road, but the truck itself did nothing to cause serious bodily injury or death. At least the Ford F 150. And this is not alleging in count seven that Ahmaud Arbery received some injury when he encountered Rodney Bryan's truck, Burford Drive. That's not alleged in this indictment anywhere, even though there's some evidence of contact between him and that truck on Burford Drive this is actually not saying anything about that, but connecting it back to count three felony murder. So it's the same problem as we just had in counts five and nine. It's a failure of a causal link, no proximate cause to show that the truck is connected to the murder [09:31:11][0.0] [255.3] [09:31:53] in a causative way. And the same with party to the crime. The other thing is count these this combination of counts, does it? It doesn't say whether this aggravated assault with the track is occurring on Burford Road or Homes Drive. We're left to gas, which it is. It simply does not specify. And that's a demurrer type issue. And that may have been addressed earlier, but here for directed verdict, if if the allegation is that the felony murder occurred on homes by use of the truck on homes, will, the undisputed evidence in the case is while the truck got driven, two homes drive. When we see the video, it's undisputed that the truck is parked. The driver is out of it. The truck is not moving, and it bears no connection at all except as a a device around which the. [09:32:20][65.9] [09:32:25] Defendant stood. Want one pregnant, Michael, in the back of the truck, Travis out of the truck and a marberry going around the truck. So the truck is not a a causal element in the death of a Montabaur and therefore, count three should be directed as a verdict of acquittal for the defendant. Count four. [09:32:56][36.8] [09:33:38] And eight are connected for felony murder. Referring to the allegations in county count eight is the false imprisonment allegation, this time on homes Drive and Homes Drive, of course, is the final place where the events transpired and the tragedy occurred. But this Count eight alleges that on Holmes Drive, using the two pickup trucks, the three defendants in concert with one another as parties to the crime falsely imprisoned Amanda robbery. And then the shooting occurs and they make the causal link back to count four for the felony murder charge. But again, the evidence in the case was that, you know, there was no place on Holmes Drive where the truck was used to block in a modern robbery where the truck is finally parked. As Agent Dialed testified yesterday, I believe under cross-examination with Kevin Gough, he conceded that there were escape routes. There were places Ahmaud Arbery could have chosen to run through yards across a yard and on to satellite drive if he had chosen to do so. How one can be falsely imprisoned when the case agent is testifying under oath that he could run kept on running. I the truck itself did not impede his decision to [09:33:38][0.0] [102.8] [09:35:25] turn right and run across this yard on the satellite drive and continue down. Still drive until he left the neighborhood or until he calendar encountered the police, which we also have heard with undisputed evidence, was on Sadil satellite drive when the shooting occurred. So he would have run into a police car at the very least, and then possibly Matt al Binsey. If that police car was not where the undisputed evidence as it was. So again, count for felony murder should fail because it's based on count eight, which count eight, it's fair enough to send to the jury. It's a disputed allegation. But count four can't support be supported by it. Finally, count two and six are connected and our motion applies to them in this way. Count two is felony murder. This time premised upon count six. And count six is the allegation of aggravated assault with the use of a shotgun, a firearm, a deadly weapon to hit a 12 gauge shotgun. This one's a little stickier in this regard because the evidence has come out that Travis McMichael pointed his shotgun at a modern robbery on two separate occasions. There's been evidence presented by the state that as a Montabaur, he is running towards the back of the pickup truck. On the driver's side of the truck, Travis Michael raises his shotgun and then he lowers it and moves to the left, right front corner of the truck as a moderate, takes a couple of weaving maneuvers and then comes around the right side of the truck and then the gun is raised again and this time discharged. And that those shots are what were fatal to Marberry. The count does not specify here in count six which of those two gun raising's is the aggravated assault. Certainly the first one where no discharge occurred. Could not therefore have been the cause of death and it could not support count to felony murder since there was no discharge of a deadly shot from the shotgun. And because the count doesn't specify applying a rule of lenity, this should be read as as applying to that because that by itself could be charged as an aggravated assault. Had the case stopped right there. Adaminaby stopped in its tracks and the state had chosen to say, well, this is no citizen's arrest. This is just a garden variety aggravators saw. You're pointing a shotgun at somebody for no good reason. He didn't discharge you, didn't kill him, but it still could be charged as an aggravated assault. Well, it certainly couldn't be ever under those circumstances, the underlying felony for felony murder. If the guy was still alive, if no shot had been fired. So that aggravated assault, though, is still in play. It's been put in evidence. It's not charged in the indictment or is it? We can't tell from count six because count six only refers to one act of aggravated start with a shotgun. And I guess the jury will be left to presume that it's the second pointing that results in the shooting, which results in the death, which results in the felony murder of count two. Those are my argument, Your Honor, for directed verdict on counts one. [09:38:55][251.2] [09:38:56] , Two, three, four, and five. Thank you, Judge. Let's go ahead and address that motion from the state and then we'll get Mr. Bryant's motion. Thank you, Judge. Yes,. [09:39:24][30.1] [09:39:25] Oceguera. Seventy nine one is the statute that governs directed verdicts. And there's also case law out there that, of course, the court is to view all the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable [09:39:40][0.0] [281.3] [09:39:23] to a guilty verdict and ask whether any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 0943948 PROSECUTOR>> So that includes judge, not just direct evidence, but circumstantial evidence as well. In this particular case, all the defendants have been charged in this as a party to the crime. And of course, we've got directly committing the crime and then helping, which is intentionally aiding or abetting in the crime. And then we've got intentionally encouraging someone to commit the crimes. [09:40:13] So we've got all of that charged together, looking, of course, at count one, malice murder. You may also find malice when there does not appear to be significant provocation. And all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. No specific length of time is required for malice to arise in the defendant's mind. Malice may be formed in an instant and instantly a fatal wound may be inflicted. That, of course, is the current pattern. Jury charged two point one zero point one zero on malice murder. In this particular case, there isn't significant provocation. Mr. Arbie ran away from these men for five minutes, tried to get away and was being forced down the street by Mr. Bryant in his dark pickup truck. Accelerating towards him. He tries to go around Travis Michael Travis MacMichael steps out into the street, blocking the street, pointing a shotgun at Mr. Aubrey. And Mr. Aubrey tries to go around the passenger side of the vehicle. Travis McMichael traps him and tracks him with that shotgun up to the front of the vehicle and basically encounters him right there. He's so close that Mr. Aubrey, he passes this. He is so close that when he does this, he's instantly shot, instantly shot. The video itself speaks for itself. There is that much time and that shotgun blast goes off. And Mr. Bush shot point blank. The trajectory was, as you saw from the medical examiner right here, right here, straight through. That's where the shotgun pellets are. That's where that injury is. So at this point in time, we have the burden to prove it's no significant provocation except Mr Abbott coming around the front. [09:42:47][144.7] [09:42:49] Medical examiner talked about fight or flight. And I understand the defense is going to argue, well, it's the victim's fault. He should have kept running. It's the victim's fault. He shouldn't have been exhausted. It's the victim's fault. He shouldn't have gone to defend himself. It's the victim's fault. He had all kinds of options and alternatives in the face of their five in an attack on him. And therefore, it's his fault. But that's not what the law is. The law is about the defendant's doing a five minute attack that eventually resulted in malice murder. How do you see the malice here? Abandoned and malignant heart. You take a shotgun, you pointed at somebody, you track them around as they try and run away from you. And when they turn on you, you immediately fire and shoot. The state asks you not to deny the directed verdict for malice murder. For Travis McMichael and also for Greg McMichael, he is charged as a party to the crime. Greg McMichael had his 357 Magnum on him. He is also yelling at Mr. Arbrey. We know that he previously had threatened Mr. Arbery with stop or I'm going to shoot your effing head off. So he'd already told this man, I'm going to execute you if you don't stop. So at that point in time, we've got Mr. Brian coming forward, coming forward. He sees the shotgun. He sees it pointed not only at Mr. Arbi, but it's actually pointed at himself because he's right behind Mr. Arbrey and he doesn't do anything. He doesn't stop. He doesn't slam on the brakes. He doesn't yell, oh, my God, he doesn't swerve immediately out of the way to get off the road. To a ditch to avoid the shock. And he keeps going. He keeps accelerating. He keeps driving, Mr. Arbery, toward the man with the shotgun, thus aiding and abetting intentionally aubury having to run towards a man with a shotgun. Mr. Arbery could not turn around. Mr. Arbery could not run way back because Mr. Brian is accelerating toward him with his black pickup truck. Therefore, he is also a party to the crime of malice murder because it shows an abandoned and malignant heart on Travis McMichaels part and aiding and abetting in that by both the defendant, Greg McMichael, and Mr. Williams. Roddie Bryant, Brian,. [09:44:30][140.3] [09:44:32] With regard to felony murder specifically, as the court is aware, felony murder must have directly caused [09:45:12][0.0] [285.0] [09:45:22] a death or played a substantial and necessary part in causing the death. This, of course, is from our new jury charges, two point one zero point two zero on felony murder. And in this case, all four of the underlying felonies played a substantial and necessary part in causing the death, because without those four felonies, Mr. Aubrey wouldn't be dead. 094509 PROSECUTOR>> So we've got our old fashioned, â?obut forâ?? and that's what we're talking about here, â?oplayed a substantial and necessary part in causing the death, but for these actions, Mr. Arbery would still be alive.â?? [09:45:21] So when we look at specific, they'll take them in the order. Mr. Hogue went, we're talking about count five felony murder and count nine, which is criminal attempt to commit false imprisonment. On Burford, the indictment reads, in violation of the personal liberty of a moderate, did unlawfully chase a moderate through the public roadways of the Shaw's neighborhood in pickup trucks did attempt to confine and detain armed Aubrey without legal authority. On Burford using a Ford F 150 and a Chevy Silverado. So they attempted to confine him, but he managed to get away. They basically both use the pickup trucks. So we've got Mr. Brian Principle actively attempting to detain Mr. Aubrey. We've got Travis McMichael in his pickup truck, circumstantial evidence that he is actively attempting to detain Mr. Aubrey because why Mr. Aubrey turns around from a white pickup truck and runs back the other way. And this is after Greg McMichael is in the truck yelling, cut him off, cut him off, cut him off. So at this point, we've got all three men acting in concert to attempt to confine him there. Well, how do they do that? They go ahead and do that by aggravated assault with their pickup trucks, by placing him in reasonable apprehension of receiving serious bodily injury. Well, what does that mean? It means their actions. What were they doing? They're using these pickup trucks with the aggravated assault to confine and detain him. So the state has proven that they use these pickup trucks in a manner that would reasonably put someone in fear and apprehension of receiving bodily injury. What does that mean? They scared him. They scared him with the aggravated assaults. And that was part of the Fallston imprisonment. We're going to scare you into stopping by using these pickup trucks to cut you off and run you into a ditch. They were doing it in concert with each other. I want to be real clear. 094712 PROSECUTOR>> The defense is attempting to conflate conspiracy, which is we pre planned this thing or conspiracy, which is wink and a nod. No, we're talking party to a crime. OK, conspiracy is a completely different charge. We are going to ask for it. [09:47:33] But in this case, this is a party to a crime which is intentionally doing these things to aid and abet Mr. Brines in his driveway. He intentionally gets in his pickup truck to aid and abet the McMichaels who he sees are actively trying to detain Mr. Arbrey in violation of his personal liberty, falsely imprison him. He's actually in the top of his driveway looking down the white pickup truck. He can see it and strawberries running back toward him. They can see that Mr. Bryant is now pulled out. They make a decision based on this to go around homes, but for their decisions on Barford, but for their attempt to falsely imprison Mr. Arbrey, Mr. Arbrey would not be dead. The false imprisonment on Barford substantially contributed to his death because it's what made him stop running it. They didn't allow him to run up Burford and onto Sellwood, which would have then led right out of the neighborhood, because if he'd gone up, Barford gone over would he'd eventually gotten to satellite drive and could have gotten away and he wouldn't be dead. So this substantially contributed. But for these actions on Barford, none of the rest of it would have happened. 094851 So what did happen? Well, he then has to run back. Mr. Bryan, of course, once again, cuts him off. He then immediately turns up Holmes to get away from Mr. Bryan and his pickup truck, which is now cut him off from his route, going out Satella Drive. But for those -- aggravated assaults, which were used to falsely imprison him there on Burford, he would not have been going up Holmes, which then led him to encounter the white pickup coming down Holmes. We have him trapped like a rat. He ends up with no place to go and he ends up exhausted, fight or flight, turns around the corner and is shot. 094926 So all of this led up immediately to the death, and therefore, it's a question for the jury. And in this case, the standard, as the court knows, is â?owe view all of the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the verdicts, and ask whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.â?? That's for the jury to decide. They're going to go ahead and look at this. And â?obut forâ?? those actions on Burford, would he have ever been trapped like a rat between two pickup trucks on Holmes Drive? No, we wouldn't have been. So it materially and substantially contributed to his death by getting us to that point. 095006 And this is all one continuous event. This is five minutes of this going on. So it's not these separate little vignettes. This is continuous. They're going around. Mr. Bryan's driving him this way. They're going this way to go ahead and capture him and trap him on Holmes. That was their intention, all because they wanted to talk to him. So we've got that. We ask that you deny the motion for directed verdict on counts five and counts nine. 095033 Then we've got I believe Mr. Hogue then did three and seven, which is our aggravated assault with the pickup trucks. Count seven â?odid make an assault upon the person of Ahmaud Arbery with a Ford F 150 pickup truck and a Chevy Silverado pickup truck. Objects, devices and instruments, when used offensively against a person are likely to result in serious bodily injury. 0951005 2.20.21, aggravated assault with a deadly or offensive weapon assaults another person with an offensive weapon to prove assault. The state does not have to prove that the other person was actually injured. However, the state must prove that the defendant committed an act that placed the person in reasonable apprehension or fear of immediately receiving a violent injury. [09:51:28] And then, of course, an offensive weapon is any object that is likely or actually does cause death or serious bodily injury. If used against someone, it's not in dispute at a 5000 pound lethal weapon like a pickup truck can cause serious bodily injury to someone. The question is, were there acts what they did such that they would put a reasonable person in reasonable apprehension? In other words, did what they do cause fear? Yes. Now, we don't have Mr. Aubrey to go ahead and take the stand to go. Yes, I was afraid he's dead, but the jury's allowed to go ahead and look at this and go, OK, let's look at their acts. Did they commit an act that placed Mr. Aubury in reasonable apprehension or fear of immediately receiving a violent injury? Yes, both direct and circumstantial. They did with aggravated assault with these pickup trucks. So once again, now felony murder, we're back to ah, but for situation. So but for them attempting to strike him, cut him off, run him into a ditch, impede him, run up next to him. I mean, strawberries just running down the road and they pull up with a pickup truck right next to him and start yelling at him, stop, stop. We want to talk to you. So at that point, just that alone, is that an action that would put somebody in fear straight? Total strangers have pulled up next to you. You're you don't have a car. You're running. That's a question for the jury. Now, the aggravated assault with the pickup trucks state feels not a problem, proving that beyond a reasonable doubt did play a substantial necessary part in causing his death. Yes, now is Mr. Hogue pointed out at the time of his death, the white pickup truck, which had already been used offensively against him, trying to falsely imprison him on Barford and then once again coming down homes drive goes ahead and passes. Mr. Carbury, we know this, OK? Because what do we have? We've got Mr. Brian and the video. Mr. Aubrey suddenly turns around. Now, whether you can see the white pickup truck or not, he suddenly turns around and runs back down. Mr. Brian goes up, Mr. Brian turns around. He comes back up and the video is there. And what do we have? That truck is parked at the end of the road. Based on their statements, Agent Dialis testified they went up Sellwood and came down homes that means they passed Mr. Aubrey once again with that white pickup truck. He is pinned between the two of them, the black pickup truck and the white pickup truck. The white pickup truck passes him when he turns around and then parks in front of him. That is the aggravated assault. But for them, using those pickup trucks in that manner, he would not be dead because he's trying to run up homes and the white pickup trucks come in. He runs back down. Now, Mr. Bryan's at the top of homes and the white pickup trucks at the bottom of homes. He is pinned. Greg McMichael said he was trapped like a rat and he knew it. That was what Greg MacMichael said. So when he's trapped like a rat between these two pickup trucks, did that substantially, materially? Well, playtest did that play a substantial and necessary part in causing the death? It was absolutely necessary because they had in between these two pickup trucks, they had caused him fear actions put in reasonable apprehension of receiving serious bodily injury with the pickup trucks. And at this point in time, as a party to the crime, they've stopped their pickup truck. But Mr. Brian hasn't stopped his pickup truck. Not at all. He is coming up behind Mr. Arbery. He is revving that engine. You can hear it on the video. And as a party to the crime, they can see [09:50:17][0.0] [09:55:56] that pickup truck coming. Seeing that pickup truck coming didn't stop Travis McMichael from pulling up that shotgun and pointing at Mr. Aubrey. And then he tracks them around and then shoots Mr. Aubrey. The fact that Mr. Brian and the McMichaels has a party to the crime of the use of that pickup truck at that moment, it becomes felony murder for the aggravated assault with the pickup truck. The state will argue, of course, that the use of the pickup truck the entire time. But for that, he would have been where he was. But for all the actions that the McMichaels took in their white pickup truck, Mr. Aubrey would not have been where he was and would not have been trying to escape this particular attack and assault. So we ask that you deny directed verdict on counts three and count seven. Then we have, of course, count four and eight. This was the fourth one that Mr. Polk mentioned. Some order, Judge for the end, I'm sorry, I count eight of the indictment in violation. The personal liberty of Marbury did unlawfully confine and detain a Marbury without legal authority to it said accused did chase tomorrow robbery with Ford F one fifty pickup truck and a Chevy Silverado pickup truck through the public roadways of the city of Shaw's neighborhood and did confine and detain Ammara Brown homes Drive using said pickup trucks, grabbing Michael's statement. He was trapped like a rat. He was trapped between the two pickup trucks. State has gone ahead and proven count eight. So how did that materially, substantially, unnecessarily cause the death of Marbury? Because he's trapped between these two pickup trucks. He's right there in Homs. He's running toward a man pointing a shotgun at him. And that man is relentless. He doesn't give up. He doesn't stay on the side of his pickup truck. So here we've got the ultimate confinement. And Judge, the ultimate confinement is death. Here he is ultimately falsely imprisoned because he was shot right there. Ultimate false imprisonment. But what they actually did is when they put Mr. Aubury in reasonable apprehension, fear of receiving bodily injury with the pickup trucks, they had him trapped like a rat. Once again, fight or flight. All he did was flee from these people. All he did was try and get away. But according to Michael, he was trapped gravely. Michael is standing in the back of that pickup truck yelling at him, Stop, God damn it, stop. Previously told him he was going to kill him. It's going to blow his head. So at this point in time, if he had not been falsely imprisoned and trapped between these pickup trucks, he would not have been shot. Killing is the ultimate confinement and I get that the defense is saying, well, he had options and he should have run this way. He could have run that way. Well, they're parked right in front of that driveway. They didn't actually go up to the stop sign at the end. They parked in that driveway. He was going around this side. There's a driveway to a house right there. He comes around the very front of it. They want to make it seem as if he's the one at fault for not continuing to run. He's the one at fault because they made him afraid. He's the one at fault because he didn't want to. I don't know. It would be speculation, but nobody wants to get shot back with a shotgun. He's already been told they're going to kill him if he doesn't stop. So at this point in time, falsely imprisoning him there and keeping and confining him there substantially and necessarily caused his death, blaming him for not continue to run on or him utilizing his options to defend himself. Is that really I put this what Mr. Aubrey chose to do in his intent is not relevant. The acts of the defendant are what are that's what's relevant here. And trapping him like a rat between two pickup trucks, one of which he was actively running away from as it pursued him, forcing him towards the white pickup truck. And Travis Michael and his shotgun. That was actual false imprisonment because he never, ever got away from them on Holmes Drive, he was killed. So it substantially contributed [09:55:56][0.0] [10:00:32] to his death when we look at counts. So we ask you to deny the directed verdict as to four and eight, when we look at counts two and six once again to being felony murder based on the aggravated assault with a shotgun, count six is to make assault upon the person of armed robbery with a firearm, a deadly weapon to hit a 12 gauge shotgun to prove assault. The state does not have to prove that the other person was actually injured. However, the state must prove that the defendant attempted to cause a violent injury to the person. All right. So, Judge, I hear what Mr. Hogue saying, that pointing the shotgun, Adam, where it's up against here is an aggravated assault. And it is. And if he had never fired at him, if he'd just done that, he'd be guilty of aggravated assault. However, as you know, our Supreme Court has recently told the state state you can't go charging different moments in time in a continuous action. They've told us that they said you can't do it. It's all one aggravated assault. There has to be an intervening factor, meaning I think the I think the one case that we're talking about is it was aggravated assault on a woman boyfriend girlfriend. And he went ahead and slashed her face. So we've got aggravated battery. Then there was an intervening time period where she got away from him. Then he went up. I think he stabbed her in the neck. Those were two separate things solely because of the intervening time factor. But the courts have said meaning our Supreme Court has held, it's all one thing. But in this particular case, the state's not contending that it's two separate aggravated assaults. It's aggravated assault when he pulled the trigger and shot him. So I just want everybody to be really, really clear. The state is arguing the state must prove that the defendant attempted to cause a violent injury to the person and he attempted to cause a violent injury to the person when he shot him point blank in the torso with that shotgun. They are all parties to the crime of this because Michael's already threatened to shoot him with a, you know, stop or blow your head off. Mr. Brian sees that shotgun, sees it come out, sees exactly what's going on. We might not see it on the camera, but he's driving. The truck is driving right driving. Mr. Aubrey right towards that man with the shotgun, helping him to go ahead and commit this crime. So at this point in time, we've got the aggravated assault here. Travis with Michael actually pulled the trigger. Gregory Michael helped and encouraged Travis MacMichael. Travis MacMichael grabbed his shotgun in his driveway, decision at his house, chose to bring that shotgun along. Greg Michael knew it. There's absolutely no evidence that Gregory Michael told him not to bring it along. Don't bring that shotgun. Nothing like that. Everybody who got into the truck with his son knowing he had that shotgun. It's a circumstantial evidence. Greg. Michael's in the truck with Travis. Look, Michael, the entire time that he has the shotgun, both in the pickup truck and then when Greg Michael gets in the back of the pickup truck, Gregory Michael's yelling at stop, stop driving. Michael's giving Travis Michael directions. Cut him off, cut him off, come off in a moment that Travis McMichaels outside drove back. You can see he's got the shotgun. Stop, God damn it, stop is what he's saying to Mr. Aubry. That is helping, intentionally aiding and abetting, knowing full well that the shotgun is being pointed at Mr. Aubrey. And it's kind of encouraging. It's tacitly basically authorizing this and encouraging him because it's not telling his son to stop doing that. But that's, you know, here, put the shotgun down. You don't hear what the heck are you doing? Don't do that. You hear. Stop. Goddamn it, Travis. If Michael is driving and the the one thing that's kind of important here, Judge, is that Mr. Hogue, when it was we came to trap to Gregory Michael's statement, actually asked Parker, Marci a question. And it was subjected to by Greg McMichaels counsel. But I know the court noticed it. I noticed it. It was my attention and I know it was my son's to arrest him or at least to get him identified. There was no objection from Travis McMichaels. So at this point, it's before the court on objected to by Travis McMichaels counsel is what their intentions were here. And of course, they're going to argue, well, it was to arrest him or at least get him identified. So if this is Travis McMichaels intention, it was Greg McMichaels intention and that's what they were doing and they were doing at the point of a shotgun. With regard to Mr. Brian, Mr. Brian never called nine one one. Mr. Brian continues forward recording despite the shotgun coming out, Mr. Brian says absolutely nothing on the recording. He doesn't go, oh, my God, there's a shotgun. Oh, my God, what's he doing? He doesn't, like I said, swerve out of the way and into a ditch. He doesn't put it in reverse and back up. So he's out of the line of fire. He pulls forward and accelerates despite the shotgun coming out, doesn't slam on the brakes, does not protest, does not yell, doesn't honk, doesn't do anything. But keep driving forward, driving a marberry forward. We get to this location by Mr. Brian pursuing Mr. Aubrey because as we saw in the video, Mr. Aubrey had actually run away from the white truck. Again, Mr. Aubrey runs. We see that he's going down homes towards the tilla. Mr. Brian goes up and he turns around. At this point, we actually see Mr. Aubrey back at the blue mailbox, having turned around, being forced to run back toward the white pickup truck. Therefore, he helped by chasing Mr. Arbitraged, the white F 150 pickup truck despite Aubrey's obvious attempts to get away from the white pickup truck. But he encounters Mr. Brian in the Silverado, so he has to run back toward the white pickup truck once again. A party to the crime in making this happen. And we all know that even if your fingers non trigger, you can still be held responsible. I mean, we all know the getaway driver doesn't go into the convenience store, is just as guilty as the guy who goes in to the convenience store and pulls the trigger because he's there to help make it happen. Helped make it happen. And here we have Travis with Michael actually pulling the trigger, Greg McMichael helping to make it happen, and William Brian helping to make this happen. Because without their help and assistance, without there Michael, especially his encouragement, Travis McMichael would not necessarily have been able to complete this had not Mr. Brian driven Mr. Aubrey toward the parked white pickup truck. If Mr. Brian had actually kept going and up around Sellwood or had left, Mr. Aubrey would have been able to keep running up homes and maybe get to Sellwood and Stila. Thus, Mr. Brian, confining him there, contributed substantially and materially, materially to the felony murder and the aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. So we ask that you go ahead and also deny the directed verdict. Four counts, two and six of the indictment. As to Greg McMichael and Travis MacMichael, Anderson, thank you. Any final word. [10:08:01][449.7] [10:08:02] From the MacMichael defendants on their motion? Yes. Just very briefly, are can. [10:08:10][8.8] [10:08:11] You hear me from here citing the language in State B Jackson 287, Georgia six forty six, 2010 Georgia Supreme Court case. Justice Nahmias. We have also said the proximate cause is the standard for homicide cases in general. And then he cites cases and is quoting from Wilson, the state. We set out the following test for determining causation in homicide cases where one inflicts an unlawful injury. Such injury is to be counted as the efficient proximate cause of death. Whenever it shall be made to appear. Either that there are three subparts. One, the injury itself constituted the sole proximate cause of [10:08:11][0.0] [458.5] [10:09:08] death or to the injury directly and materially contributed to the happenings of a subsequent accruing immediate cause of the death. Or three. The injury materially accelerated the death, although approximately occasioned by preexist causes that one doesn't apply. So the proximate cause issue in counts two, three, four and five is at the heart of our motion. And I think the state failed to make that connection between the underlying felonies that are named in count six, seven, eight and nine and the accruing death based on this test from this case. And of course, that's a completely different problem than the malice murder and I will say anything more about that. So that's our response to the state's our reply to the state's response. All right. I'm sorry to distinguish that case. Having just heard it, not knowing in advance that case was a code word, meaning a whole bunch of people running a crime and victim fought back and it ended up with one of the co-defendants murdered. So they're talking about proximate cause for the armed robbers. What would be responsible for the death of his car driver? That's what that case is about, not this sort of situation. I will just add the next paragraph is consistent with this general rule, which I just read. We have held in many cases and for many decades that the proximate causation is the standard for murder cases prosecuted under the murders, that you can't find another CGA. Sixteen five. One particular facts of this case or in material, it's the rule that I'm talking about. Mr. Goff, on behalf of Mr. Criminy Director Marie. Good morning, Your Honor. First thing I'll do is I'll formally adopt the. [10:11:38][150.1] [10:11:41] Very cogent arguments made by cocounsel in this case. Uh, and without tracking through those, you know, but for the. [10:11:50][8.5] [10:11:51] Best break, Mo giving birth to Roddy Brian, God rest his soul many years ago. But for that, Roddy Brian wouldn't have been out there that day in his pickup truck when we use this. But for causation that that there's a lot of baggage that comes along with that. And with all due respect to Mr. Kosti, it. [10:12:11][20.2] [10:12:11] Feels like they are stretching that term beyond recognition. The legal. [10:12:14][3.1] [10:12:15] Standard is proximate cause. And we'll come back to that in a moment. But when you look at it as proximate cause and not simply reducing it to two words, but for I think the court understands why the defendants are here making motions with respect to count one, malice murder. You know, I'm really at a loss here to understand, but it was the state that decided to present what we sometimes call a kitchen sink indictment to the grand jury, where every defendant is charged in every possible way with every possible crime. In this case, that was a decision the state made. And I certainly appreciate the challenge to the court in trying to assess these issues. As. [10:12:59][44.1] [10:12:59] I look at the malice murder charge, there is no contention that Roddy Brian shot anybody. There's no contention that Ray. [10:13:05][5.9] [10:13:05] Brian tried to shoot anybody. There's no contention here that Mr. Brian is acting as a principal. This is if I misunderstood based on Kasky, I'm sure she'll correct the entire theory. Here is aiding and abetting third section of that statute. And where is it that Mr. Brian is intentionally aiding and abetting the shooting because he's not? [10:13:30][25.2] [10:13:31] Now, maybe some decision came out of the Supreme Court last week or last month. I'm unaware of. But when I went back through Kurt's last night or used to be called Kurts offenses in defense, it's in Georgia section on parties to the crime. I know the court knows the treaties that I'm talking about. You know, they list like thirty different ways that you can be a party to a crime. You can be aiding and abetting in a murder case. [10:13:57][25.8] [10:13:58] But none of those are like the case before this. [10:14:01][2.8] [10:14:02] Court, which is why, although Mr. Dunn Acasti has cited this court well over. [10:14:08][5.9] [10:14:08] One hundred cases, oral argument, probably thousands of cases, and all the pleadings that have been filed motions in response is going back and forth. Mr. Tokarski cannot say to. [10:14:18][9.8] [10:14:19] A single Georgia case that is remotely comparable to the one that we have before the court. This isn't the case where Mr. Brown driving down the street in his pickup truck and Travis McMichael is standing in the back of it, shooting at Mr. Arbery. This isn't that case. [10:14:35][16.0] [10:14:37] There is. [10:14:37][0.3] [10:14:38] No case. And she can cite no case remotely close to this one. The closest cases that I've been able to find and of course, the referenced in there in what. [10:14:48][10.8] [10:14:49] I call the distraction, aiding and abetting cases in which one person intentionally distracts another person while someone else behind them either takes a knife and stabs them with. [10:15:02][13.0] [10:15:02] It or shoots them. There are, I call them, distraction. [10:15:06][3.7] [10:15:07] Cases. You're aiding and abetting by distracting. There is no evidence and no suggestion here that Mr. Bryan's conduct has somehow distracted Mr. [10:15:16][9.4] [10:15:16] Arborio. He's well aware of the pickup truck in front of him from the video. He's well aware from the video that they are both armed. So and Mr. Arbery is not shot with his back turned. [10:15:29][12.5] [10:15:30] That might pose a different and a closer question for the court. But in this case, unless Miss Dunn, a Karski. [10:15:36][6.3] [373.4] [10:15:38] Sight, some Georgia case suggesting this, which I still don't understand, theory of aiding and abetting the shooting. [10:15:45][7.1] [10:15:47] Of Mr. Avery, there. [10:15:48][1.7] [10:15:49] Simply is no malice murder case here. And, you know, cocounsel points out some pretty good cases on what. [10:15:55][6.3] [10:15:56] The meds raise required here. Where is any of that for Mr. Bryan? There's no malignant heart in this case. There's nothing from which that could be presumed. And, you know, that takes us back to the whole concept of a citizen arrest. If I understand the state's theory here, the state contends that the McMichaels and I believe they're contending the mission, Mr. Bryan, was. [10:16:19][23.3] [10:16:20] Assisting them or aiding them in attempting to make a citizen's arrest, which in the opinion of the state is not or was not authorized under Georgia law. And that may be true, Your Honor, but the fact that Mr. Bryan aided and abetted a citizen's arrest if he did that doesn't establish malice. [10:16:41][21.3] [10:16:42] In this case. It doesn't establish an intent to aid and abet an intent for a shooting. You know, and. [10:16:49][6.8] [10:16:49] Your Honor, I would urge the court to ponder the larger implications of the legal ruling that the state is requesting here, because in this one case, it might serve the interests of the state. But in the. [10:17:03][14.3] [10:17:03] Larger question, if 10 police. [10:17:06][2.2] [10:17:06] Officers respond to a call, ten police officers pull their cards up around the scene. And. [10:17:12][5.7] [10:17:13] In there, they're maybe they're still moving. [10:17:14][1.7] [10:17:15] Your and inexplicably, a police officer discharges. [10:17:19][4.8] [10:17:20] His weapon and shoots the person that they're after in the. [10:17:24][3.6] [10:17:25] Maybe they had probable cause, maybe they didn't. But are we going to try? Every police officer who's present at the scene of an attempted arrest for malice murder. [10:17:34][9.1] [10:17:34] Because somehow. [10:17:35][0.6] [10:17:36] In aiding and abetting an attempt at an arrest, lawful or lawful, that that translates into aiding and abetting the shooting that follows. That can't be the law. And. [10:17:47][11.0] [10:17:47] We should be creating special rules of law. There are enough of those. We shouldn't be creating any more special rules of law for one case, because we know the reality is that these things have unintended consequences and they take on a life of their own. We don't need to start down this theory that anybody who's attempting to arrest someone, which. [10:18:05][17.8] [10:18:06] After the last legislative session is pretty much limited to police officers, that any time police officers are attempting to arrest somebody, particularly if they're attempting to do so unlawfully, that they're aiding and abetting the arrest, lawful, unlawful is. [10:18:21][14.8] [10:18:21] Aiding and abetting a shooting or other unlawful use of force that follows. [10:18:25][4.0] [10:18:27] There is no malice murder case, as Mr. Bryan. There is no authority for this case, Your Honor, the state wants to talk. [10:18:35][8.0] [10:18:35] About. But for I want to talk about intervening factors. And before I do that, Your Honor, I would maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to keep up this McCaskey here. But the way Mr. Tokarski is presenting this now of malice murder argument to the court is in essence, collapsing malice murder into felony murder. What distinction is left here between malice murder and felony murder? When Mr. Tokarski makes these arguments because it's winding up being the same thing? Well, you know, he intended to shoot. Therefore, he intended to kill or he intended to falsely imprison, must intend to shoot. How do we distinguish at the end of the day with the arguments made by the state between malice. [10:19:19][43.7] [10:19:19] Murder and felony murder? Your Honor, this is a case and this feeds into the severance issue. With all. [10:19:26][6.7] [10:19:27] Due respect, Mr. Tokarski, I would humbly suggest to the court that if Mr. McCaskey continues. [10:19:33][6.4] [10:19:34] To proceed along this line with malice murder and we go into the defense case here, we are going. [10:19:38][4.5] [10:19:38] To have at some point antagonistic. [10:19:42][3.2] [10:19:43] Defenses that cannot be overlooked. The state, as I understand it, has not submitted a charge on manslaughter. My understanding that LERN counsel for the McMichael defendants have not submitted a jury charge on manslaughter. And part of that, I think, well,. [10:19:58][15.4] [10:19:58] There's different strategic reasons why people do things. But my point, Your Honor, is in terms. [10:20:03][4.8] [10:20:03] Of proximate cause, do we not have not one but two intervening factors here, factors that are not reasonably foreseeable to Roddy Brian. [10:20:12][9.3] [10:20:13] May be logically foreseeable and something that's conceptually possible, but not reasonably foreseeable in the sense that the law would imply you have [10:20:13][0.0] [258.1] [10:20:23] in the video, and unless I missed it, that this part of the video that state contains is undisputed uncontradicted. In the video at the last minute, you see Mr. Aubury, instead of turning right towards the exit of satellite because he turns to the left. That's not for me to judge. Question why Mr. Aubrey does the things he does. [10:20:46][23.4] 102005 DEFENSE COUNSEL>> But when he turns left instead of right, regardless of his justification or his reasons(?) for doing so, that is an intervening cause, an intervening circumstance, I submit under Georgia law. And at that point, it's not foreseeable to Mr. Bryan, it's not foreseeable that some, just like on the street with the police officers, suicide by cop, is not reasonably foreseeable, nor is suicide by citizen's arrest. [10:20:35] When Mr. Arbery turns towards Mr. [10:21:20][31.9] [10:21:20] MacMichael, that is an intervening circumstance that breaks any causative chain here with respect to the shooting and death itself. Likewise, and I'm certainly not taking sides in this. It'll be for the jury and the court to determine the guilt or innocence of the McMichael defendants. But at the same time, you have a second. [10:21:39][18.9] [10:21:39] Intervening factor in first intervening factor. Is Mr. Aubury pivoting to the left instead of heading for the exit? The second intervening factor is Travis MacMichael discharging his weapon and I'm not questioning why Mr. Arbor's doing what he's doing. I'm not questioning why Travis McMichaels doing what he's doing. What I'm saying is you have a second intervening factor, which is the choice of Travis make Michael to discharge his weapon. It doesn't really matter for purposes of evaluating count one malice murder. If the court can see that whoever's in the right here, whoever's in the wrong,. [10:22:14][34.6] [10:22:14] Whichever party is using excessive force, maybe both parties are using excessive force. Maybe there's some kind of mutual combat theory out there. [10:22:21][7.2] [10:22:22] But for Mr. Bryan's perspective, in terms of proximate cause, in terms of which reasonably foreseeable to him, none of these things are reasonably foreseeable. And I think the court understands the. [10:22:31][9.1] [10:22:32] Consequences. If the court were to go that any other road and if we're going to persist with this issue, we're going to wind up in a severance posture and maybe premature. We haven't heard whether any of the other defendants have testified yet, but I would submit the easiest way to resolve the severance issue is to grant the motion for directed verdict for Mr. Bryant as to malice murder. [10:22:51][19.2] [10:22:53] Moving on to count to felony murder, which is tied to aggravated assault to a shotgun. Again, the arguments come down very much the same way because that the state's position on malice murder is a sense, essentially, although not in so many words, collapsing and felony murder. [10:23:12][19.2] [10:23:13] Where is. [10:23:13][0.6] [10:23:14] The intent on the part of Mr. Bryant to facilitate an aggravated assault with a shotgun? Again, it's one thing to say if the state contends that's what the evidence shows, that Mr. Bryant is attempting to assist in a citizen's arrest, aiding and abetting a citizen's arrest. [10:23:32][17.9] [10:23:32] But there's nothing reasonably foreseeable about killing someone in a citizen's arrest. Just as on the street, there's nothing reasonably foreseeable police officers when a fellow officer without cause discharges a weapon in these days, maybe even a Taser and kills somebody. Again, there is no proximate cause and there is no mens rea. There is no aiding and abetting the shooting. Now, it's done. Karski wants to make a big deal of the fact that the gun is visible. [10:24:06][33.1] [10:24:08] That Mr. Bryant's truck is still moving, although obviously at a slow rate of speed. And therefore, because he doesn't run in a ditch, he doesn't back. [10:24:18][10.5] [10:24:19] Up that he somehow is now joining in the shooting. But again, the I think I understand the state's position is pretty clear, almost uncontradicted, that this is a purported attempted citizen's arrest, again, in the context of a citizen's arrest is the fact that Mr. Bryant is maneuvering his car, his truck, rather, and positioning his cell phone to follow Mr. Aubury and document what Mr. Aubury is doing. [10:24:46][27.1] [10:24:47] Has that circumstance,. [10:24:49][2.2] [10:24:49] Whether he's traveling at two miles an hour, four miles an hour, six. How does that establish his aiding and abetting the shooting itself? Because Mr. Bryant only has knowledge of the existence of the weapon, as we see on the video at the very last moment and still at that time for Mr. Bryant's perspective, even if he's attempting to aid and abet a citizen's arrest, that's not the same thing as aiding and abetting a murder. I mean, would. [10:25:16][26.6] [10:25:16] It be [10:25:16][0.0] [281.6] [10:25:16] It's the same thing, Your Honor, whether Travis McMichaels shooting him or not or whether he's pulling out a club and beating him on the side of the road with a billy club like a police officer would do again,. [10:25:26][9.7] [10:25:26] How is Mr. Bryant's assisting, if that's what it is, in a citizen's arrest showing that he's attempting to aid and abet the shooting, aiding and abetting lawful, excessive use of force. [10:25:38][11.7] [10:25:39] In the making of an arrest that that's just not there. That's just not Georgia law. And again, you know, the state wants says the jury should consider the fact that they had their guns drawn. [10:25:53][13.4] [10:25:54] OK, well, what is Mr. how is Mr. Brian again to know that they have any intent in drawing a weapon, whether it's in the down position, a position, not a use of force expert, but whatever position. [10:26:08][13.9] [10:26:09] Again. How is that telling Mr. Brian that they intend to use excessive force, that they intend to kill him, that they're not trying? Maybe that's the state's theory, that they weren't really trying to make an unlawful arrest. They were just looking for an excuse to kill him or they were just waiting for the opportunity, notwithstanding the fact that they had lots of opportunities to shoot this gentleman over five minutes. He's clearly in terms of proximate cause. When you look at the video, you. [10:26:35][26.0] [10:26:35] See Mr. Aubury, he's well within range. He's well within shotgun range. He's also well within range of driving Michael's handgun at the time that Mr. Brian is pulling for Mr. Bryan's perspective, he didn't have any reason to think they were trying or intended to hurt these people. They had ample opportunity to do that long before he got there. Long before he pulled up. Again, I'm asking the court to grant a direct a verdict on count two felony murder based on the underlying count. Six, aggravated assault with a shotgun. [10:27:04][28.4] [10:27:05] Count three, felony murder, aggravated assault with a pickup truck. Your Honor, although. [10:27:15][10.1] [10:27:16] The statute defines the grounds for a directed verdict, I believe Miss Dunn Tokarski his acknowledged that Casey I'm sorry, has acknowledged that it's not that simple, that the standard essentially goes back to Jackson v. Virginia. It's not just whether there's, quote unquote, any evidence to submit something to a jury. There has to be sufficient evidence from which a rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [10:27:40][24.1] [10:27:41] There is a severe lack of. [10:27:44][2.9] [10:27:44] Evidence in this case. There's no evidence that Mr. Bryan intended to do so. What they're doing is they're basing that on words. And I'm going to incorporate it here for purposes of the motion for directed verdict, the arguments made in connection with the special demur in this case. And of course, those have also all already been addressed to some extent by counsel for the McMichaels. There's no witness there, no other there is no witness to what Mr. Ryan did. There's no video of an aggravated assault. It's all contradicted by the physical evidence in this case. And I don't have the citation in front of me. But with respect to aggravated assault with a motor vehicle, I think the case law is a case specifically out there. This is speculation as to aggravated assault is inappropriate. And there are some times when there's insufficient evidence and where the jury is basically being asked to speculate as to what happened. And this is that case, Your Honor. And with terms of felony murder, again, you get back to the same issue, assuming for the moment that Mr. Brian was committing an aggravated assault with a pickup truck down on VAFA. How does that establish how is that. [10:28:55][71.1] [10:28:55] The proximate cause of a felony murder that takes place down on HomeStreet Street later? [10:29:02][7.0] [10:29:03] And for the jury to be able to return a verdict because of the way this indictment is phrased, the jury can return a verdict of guilty without specifying. [10:29:12][9.4] [10:29:13] Where takes place. How do we know that the juror, certainly all 12 of them have made. [10:29:17][4.1] [10:29:17] A decision as to that, because without that, how can they make a determination as to proximate cause? This is a huge problem. [10:29:24][6.8] [10:29:26] And I'm going to get back to count seven in a moment. 102850 DEFENSE COUNSEL>> But in terms of felony murder, there's just no proximate cause here. It's not reasonably foreseeable. And it's a huge stretch to say that what Mr. Bryan is doing out there in his truck is causing the death. [10:29:05] In fact, I think was very pointed out that the their truck is stopped. It's not even moving. And Mr. Unicast talked about the engine, but I think the video speaks for itself. Certainly, Mr. Aubrey is not assaulting at this time. [10:30:05][38.4] [10:30:06] Your there's no proximate cause. There's insufficient connection to the death. I'm going to turn to count four felony murder, which is based on false imprisonment. [10:30:15][8.9] [10:30:16] Your Honor,. [10:30:16][0.6] [10:30:16] I do believe that there was a special demurrer filed in this case previously about false imprisonment. And if I recall, the court cited a case, I don't have it in front of me. [10:30:26][10.3] [10:30:28] About you can assault, you can imprisoned by with a pickup truck. My recollection of that. [10:30:35][6.6] [10:30:35] Case [10:30:35][0.0] [303.3] [10:30:35] with that case were not just where someone was being chased, but where they actually were struck and went. [10:30:41][5.9] [10:30:42] Over the hood. And then the person in the car got out of the stabbing. [10:30:44][2.9] [10:30:45] That's certainly factually distinguishable. But again, what is it if the falsus at the time of the shooting, there is no false. [10:30:54][9.0] [10:30:54] Imprisonment. Your Honor, at the time of the shooting, Mr. Aubrey, to borrow a football phrase, has broken containment. He is past both trucks at that point and has a clear line to the exit to the neighborhood. So I don't understand how you have. [10:31:14][19.4] [10:31:14] A proximate how you could have proximate cause between a false imprisonment, if that's what it is, and the shooting itself. And because there is it not. [10:31:24][10.1] [10:31:24] Also notwithstanding Georgia law to the contrary, that false imprisonment is not the kind of felony that will support a felony murder charge. There are other jurisdictions that disagree with Georgia and that can under their laws, they do not view false imprisonment as a violent offense. That would that would be a felony based on false imprisonment on. I certainly want to preserve that argument. [10:31:48][23.3] [10:31:51] Because it's just I guess the best way to phrase it in terms of Georgia law is false. Imprisonment really belongs is more like a status offense. Than it is a violent offense. And in that respect, it should not be the underlying felony for a felony murder charge. We still have issues with the mens rea. We still contend that the false imprisonment is unsupported factually. But again, in terms of foreseeable. [10:32:18][27.4] [10:32:20] How is the shooting, Your Honor, reasonably foreseeable to Mr. Bryan, assuming that there is a false imprisonment. [10:32:28][8.5] [10:32:29] How is how. [10:32:30][0.7] [10:32:30] Is the shooting itself? It's one thing to say to Mr. Bryan aided and abetted a false prison. That's not the same thing as saying he aided and abetted a shooting. And that again goes back over Grant. I think I've already covered and I won't do that to the court again. [10:32:44][14.0] [10:32:50] Count five, felony murder again. We contend the criminal attempt to commit felony murder is not the kind defense upon which a felony murder charge can be created. We would suggest to the court that that is even a step further removed from Folsom Prison in itself, and that furthermore, that the attempted felony, attempted false imprisonment is not the proximate cause. Again, of the shooting or death of Mr. Aubrey. [10:33:19][28.3] [10:33:21] There are real problems there of the causal link. Count six, aggravated assault with a shotgun. Again, there is. [10:33:29][7.7] [10:33:29] No aiding and abetting for Mr. Bryan, aiding and abetting a citizen's arrest, even if a lawful is not the same thing as aiding and abetting a shooting. And I won't go back down that ground any further counts, said an aggravated assault with the trucks cocounsel has already spent a good bit of time addressing this. I've addressed it in the special demurrer. It's troubling to me that the state comes in here when three police officers, your honor, three seasoned police officers about two. Well, season one, we could argue about all interview, Mr. Bryan. And that's the basis of this count is Mr. Bryan statements himself. There's no other evidence other than that in this case. And three of these all three. [10:34:21][52.5] [10:34:22] Of these officers interview Mr. Brown or populist Brian at length. All three summarized those interviews. None of them refer to Mr. Bryant's conduct as an aggravated assault. None of them do that because it's not there. The jury, your honor, is required to get to the truth of the matter. It's not just the words Mr. Bryan uses, which could be anybody's words can be twisted out of context is the context in which you are given. It's the meaning that's meant to be conveyed. And it's clear from the testimony of the state's own witnesses. But that meaning is not there. There is no aggravated assault with Mr. Bryan jumping. [10:35:03][41.0] [10:35:03] Back and forth here. I guess make sure where I am. [10:35:06][2.7] [10:35:08] Your. [10:35:08][0.0] [10:35:08] Honor, the evidence is in terms of the speed, for example, that while the state refers to Mr. Bryan is chasing, that the evidence is on the video at two miles an hour. [10:35:19][10.6] [10:35:22] Your Honor, with respect to count eight, the false imprisonment we are,. [10:35:27][5.0] [10:35:27] The indictment alleges in the state is stuck with the language in the indictment that he was that the confinement. [10:35:32][5.5] [274.5] [10:35:33] And detainment occurs on Holmes Drive. But the evidence that the state is relying on is coming from Burford. And. [10:35:43][9.6] [10:35:43] He can't he can't be convicted at this point of that. And how the court would charge a jury, I have no idea. [10:35:50][7.0] [16.5] [10:35:57] Your Honor. On count eight, the false imprisonment. I talked earlier about the breaking containment. There is some Georgia case law out there. And for example, I guess this is the best analogy I can come up with here. [10:36:16][19.3] [10:36:17] In a bank robbery when. [10:36:20][2.6] [10:36:20] An individual committing a bank robbery pulls out a gun and tells everybody to get down on the ground. [10:36:24][4.0] [10:36:25] Under Georgia law, that is a false imprisonment because they get on the ground. But this case isn't the case when they get on. [10:36:34][9.1] [10:36:34] The ground. Mr. Aubrey never submits to being arrested. And in this case, this is what the state is pursuing here is equivalent to someone of store saying, everybody get down on the ground and the person just continuing to run right out the door. That's what we have here. And. [10:36:53][19.2] [10:36:54] That is not a false imprisonment under Georgia law. And again, if this Dunn Tarkovsky has a case citation for this court to any Georgia case that is remotely factually close to this one, I'm sure she'll present it, but. [10:37:08][13.7] [10:37:08] I can't find it, your honor. Attempted false imprisonment. That's count nine. [10:37:13][4.6] [10:37:14] We. [10:37:14][0.0] [10:37:14] Contend that the evidence is simply insufficient to submit that matter to the jury. Moreover, we think the evidence that was presented during the Cates case, state's case in chief is shows affirmatively abandonment, that. [10:37:32][18.2] [10:37:33] Mr. Bryant has abandoned this chase, as they call it. And the video itself, I think, demonstrates that the time of the shooting, Mr. Brown, is simply a witness to the shooting itself and to those events. And under those circumstances, we believe that he is entitled to have an acquittal as to count nine and all the other counts in this indictment, we would ask that attracted very few grand on all counts and that Mr. Bryan be released forthwith. [10:37:58][25.6] [10:38:00] From the state insurance that we break briefly for restaurant. Yes, we're going to take a ten minute recess. Let's go and take ten minutes. We'll reconvene at 10:00 [10:38:00][0.0] [116.4] [10:38:08] for. All right. We are back on defense. President from the state judge Musharraf talked a lot about citizen's arrest and that being the defense in this case. But there has been any evidence that anyone was making a citizen's arrest. Citizen's arrest was never said by any of these three defendants at any point in time. The evidence has been presented is that Mr. Ryan and Mr. Gaborik, Michael, never once said we're making a citizen's arrest, that we're placing you under arrest for the crime of this, that we saw him commit a crime that day. That was not it. It was all we wanted to stop and talk to him, and then we wanted to detain him. In fact, Mr. Rubin said in his opening statement that the intent was to detain him so that the police could show up and do whatever they were going to do after the detention. It's not citizens detention. It's citizen's arrest. So while he talked about that, that is really not something to be considered in a directed verdict motion. And just because a set of facts hasn't yet been specifically identically brought before a court, this sets of facts. No two cases are going to have the same set of facts. They're just not. And so the fact that there is felony murder based on false imprisonment, case law out there where someone has been found guilty, felony murder based on false imprisonment, someone's been found guilty of prior to crime, based on aggravated assault with a shotgun. Someone's been found guilty of party to a crime for aggravated assault with a motor vehicle. Those cases are out there, maybe not with these specific facts. So that argument doesn't really hold water either. In this. [10:54:00][951.3] [10:54:00] Particular case, when it comes to Mr. Bryan. And this will apply for all of the charges here. Once again, it's party to a crime, and that means intentionally aid and abet his statements to Agent Seacrest and actually at the scene to Officer Minshew were about yeah, I thought they had done something. You know, I thought I thought I was trying to help them get this guy Folsom in prison. This guy captured this guy, and that was what his intent was. It was to falsely imprison this particular person and he intentionally used his vehicle to go ahead and do that both on Barford when he intentionally committed an aggravated assault, putting Mr. Aubrey and reasonable apprehension of receiving serious bodily injury as part of his intent to falsely imprison him on before those two things contributed to his death. Because but for those things happening, Mr. Aubrey would still be alive. So it is as the pattern charge will be, given his actions played a substantial and necessary part in causing the death, because without him doing those things, Mr. Aubrey would not have been trapped like a rat over on Holmes Drive between the two pickup trucks. As we noted before, Malice chased him through the public roadways in the pickup trucks, tried to stop him, cut him off with the pickup trucks. He drove them into a ditch. He assisted, pinning him between the two pickup trucks, trapping him like a rap between the two pickup trucks. Mr. Aubrey had not threatened anybody, had shown no aggression. Mr. Aubrey had no weapons. He was totally unarmed. And here Mr. Bryan never called 911. He continues pursuing Mr. Arbrey. Mr. Bryan never says anything on the recording. He pulls forward despite the shotgun coming out, despite the stalking being pointed at himself. Doesn't slam on the brakes, doesn't yell, doesn't protest, doesn't honk, just keeps driving forward driving. Mr. Forward, he helped to get Mr. Aubrey to this location by redirecting him up homes. The most important thing is when you have [10:54:00][0.0] [951.3] [10:56:18] common criminal intent. 105536 And here the state's position is, is that if parties to the crime, there's common -- criminal intent to attack Mr. Arbrey via false imprisonment, aggravated assault with the pickup trucks, aggravated assault with a shotgun and false imprisonment ultimately on Holmes. [10:55:55] And that common criminal intent to do all those things, not necessarily the conspiracy. I'm not talking about conspiring in advance and coming up with a plan to sit around the kitchen table, we're talking about what they actually did, acted in concert with each other. The white truck came down homes. Mr. Bryan was going up, homes Mr. Aubrey had already turned around, was running back in the white truck past him. Mr. Bryan did not abandon this. He turned around. He kept going, and then he accelerated to catch up to Mr. Aubrey past the blue mailbox, saw the shotgun and kept going. Common criminal intent, which resulted in malice murder, resulted in all the felony murders. All of his actions did substantially contribute to the death of Mr. Aubrey. And they were necessary because without those actions, Mr. Aubrey would be alive. We ask that you deny the directed verdict for all of the counts. As to Mr. Brian, thank you. [10:57:46][88.6] [10:57:48] Any final word from Sprunt. [10:57:49][0.8] [10:57:54] Your Honor, in the state, it is constrained to acknowledge that they have no legal authority for their position, for example, on malice murder. And I think the court should take seriously the motion to grant the director there is no malice murder or take a case against Mr. Bryan. With all due respect to the state, there never was that there are some other issues in the case. There are more challenging and more troubling. But that's an easy call. I think it's an easy call on count two, felony murder for Mr. Bryan. Only again, the state has no flop. It doesn't even pretend to give an explanation as to how Mr. Bryan thinking that he's Haitink, a citizen arrest lawfully or unlawfully, how that translates into an intent to shoot or an intent to injure. And it's deeply troubling to me that the state can't have the Canada acknowledged the court that maybe in retrospect counts one and count two. As to Mr. Bryan, we're not well thought out. There's no proximate cause. There's no reasonable foreseeabili. [10:58:54][60.4] [10:58:54] Ty Here. And, you know, I'm impressed with the argument that was made. But still, Mr. Bryan is entitled who directed verdict? Certainly on count one, almost certainly on count. [10:59:07][12.5] [10:59:07] Two. And arguably, as to every count in the indictment, thank you. [10:59:11][3.5] [10:59:13] Error. I apologize profusely. I had pulled up a case and I forgot to cite it. And it is both the state of Georgia. What Moore vs. the state in Millburn versus the state it is three eleven Georgia five six. And in this particular case, a group of eight hundred of a drug dealer and one person stayed downstairs to keep the boyfriend away while they went up to go ahead and search the apartment. Unfortunately, the girlfriend was in the apartment and the two that went up there, one executed the girlfriend. They came downstairs. The state obtained a malice murder conviction on man downstairs who simply kept the boyfriend from protecting the girlfriend upstairs. And that is a case that does show someone who doesn't have their finger on the trigger, who's downstairs doing some other action, the same sort of criminal intent which we feel that's here, state criminal intent to falsely imprison [10:59:13][0.0]
ONE DEAD IN ARMORED CAR HOLD UP (11/9/2001)
WHAT LOOKS LIKE AN ATTEMPTED ARMORED CAR ROBBERY GOES BAD INSIDE A HOME DEPOT STORE.
AHMAUD ARBERY MURDER TRIAL BRUNSWICK GA SWITCHED FEED POOL 11172021 0845
COURTROOM FTG OF THE TRIAL IN THE AHMAUD ARBERY CASE / TRAVIS MCMICHAEL, GREGORY MCMICHAEL AND WILLIAM RODDIE BRYAN ARE CHARGED WITH THE MURDER OF AHMAUD ARBERY / SWITCHED FEED CORE 3943 AHMAUD ARBERY MURDER TRIAL BRUNSWICK GA SWITCHED FEED POOL 11172021 084500 [09:05:51] Good morning, everybody. Boy, we are back on. Mr. President, represented by counsel, only broke last night. We were addressing motions before the court. [09:06:15][24.4] [09:06:17] Most efficient. [09:06:18][0.2] [09:06:18] Way to go about this is the state had indicated a little bit of time to take a look at the demurrer on count seven, the state of any additional argument after reviewing the demur that had been filed on behalf of Mr. Brian. No, no additional argument. We stand on what we had originally filed and on the court's order on the demurrer to count seven, which is tracks the language of the statute and informs the defendants of what they are to defend against and therefore is sufficient. And there's no reason to grant the demerjian count seven for which you have to address. [09:07:05][47.1] [09:07:06] That. Then let's get through any additional motions and all sorts of motions. As far as we go, I probably should have gone around ask the question that normally leads to some time before the court, before we get started. Anything from the state,. [09:07:19][13.1] [09:07:20] From Travis MacMichael, from Greg, with Michael and I. We're ready for our motion and from Mr. [09:07:26][5.3] [65.7] [09:07:29] Motions that I'll just go around saying, Mr. Speaker,. [09:07:35][6.1] [09:07:35] That both Craig and Michael entered this time on behalf of Greg McMichael. And I will speak for Travis Mineko with permission of co-defendants counsel and invite them to add anything you may wish to add. That does apply specifically to Travis that I may not mention it. I'm going to try to cover both in this motion for directed verdict of acquittal. And I'll start with the statute that applies to. [09:08:21][45.3] [09:08:21] Such a motion and then go through the counts in the indictment that I think we have some argument to make regarding first the statute. It's Okja nine one A, which says where there is no conflict in the evidence and the evidence introduced with all reasonable deduction and inferences there from shall demand a verdict of acquittal or not guilty as to the entire offense or to some particular count of our offense, the court may direct the verdict of acquittal to which the defendant is entitled under the evidence and may allow the trial to proceed only as to the counts or offenses remaining, if any. So I start with. [09:09:08][47.6] [09:09:10] Count one and let me get my indictment up here, which is malice murder. And to make this argument for acquittal on malice murder, allow me to review initially what the elements of that offense are and then talk about. [09:09:31][20.7] [09:09:31] The evidence in the case. The statute, of course, is sixteen five one, A and B and sixteen five one A says a person commits the offense of murder when he unlawfully and with malice aforethought either expressed or implied causes the death of another human being. [09:09:58][27.3] [09:09:59] So starting with just subsection a malice, of course, in Georgia, law means a specific intent crime as opposed to a general intent crime and then a specific intent crime. The subjective desire [09:09:59][0.0] [146.9] [09:10:18] of the defendant is to bring about the exact illegal consequence that his action is intended to produce. So in and of malice murder count, that means that the that that malice means the defendant has the specific intent to commit an act that the cause of which is the death of another person and that that result was the desired result. It was not an unintended consequence, as we'll see as the case with felony murder. So malice, that sort of specific intent can be shown in two ways by proof. And that subparagraph B in sixteen five one. [09:11:08][49.6] [09:11:09] And. [09:11:09][0.0] [09:11:10] That paragraph indicates two types of proof of this malice. The specific intent, of course, I always mention that as the definition of malice because it's certainly confusing to jurors. But that's a different issue. For later when we talk about charges. But it means no in no ill will or hatred, of course, but it's just a specific intent to types expressed malice. Is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take the life of another human being, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof? Now, case law indicates that would be things like verbal threats, lying in wait the kind of circumstances or actions for which the state can produce evidence that says this person had expressed malice. It's out there in the world for us to see it. We can hear it. We can determine from the circumstances in which the killing occurred. The other type of malice, much more sticky is malice shall be implied. We're no considerable provocation appears and we're all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. 091157 DEFENSE COUNSEL>> So to further define that type of malice, I need to go to a different place here in my notes to look for a definition of implied malice in our law. What we're looking for is that specific intent to kill where there are no external circumstances capable of proof. But inferences must be made. It's implied. And first of all, it's -- you -- you have to find that there's no considerable provocation, which would be, say, voluntary manslaughter. [09:12:43] And there's no other justification for it. And then in one of our cases, under Georgia law, which is park or the state, and I'll get the cite here, 270, Georgia 256 in 1980, 88 case essentially in Parker, the court tries to define that poetic matter of metaphor we find in the implied malice sentence, which is the abandoned and malignant heart. I find it of interest that there are only four states left out of 50 that use that phrase in their definition of murder, abandoned and malignant heart, having its roots somewhere in the dark recesses of medieval English. But here it is still in Georgia, Idaho, Nevada and California. The three states still use that phrase. And so, George, in attempting to say what it means, says that it's a reckless disregard for human life. And Justice Herrnstein in Parker v. State tries to give some sort of definition for it. It's not a substitute for implied malice. That is reckless disregard is not a lower mental state or lower standard of proof. It's not equivalent if it's as she said in this opinion, especially concurring opinion. She says the difference between instructing a jury that a presumption of malice may arise from reckless conduct and this is for malice murder and instructing them that reckless conduct and malice are equivalent that can be substituted for one another. [09:11:10][0.0] [49.6] [09:15:28] Is not just a matter of mere semantics. A jury is entitled to be instructed how to determine a defendant's state of mind based on the evidence. Addus. It is not entitled to be instructed that a lesser mental culpability may be substituted for the required higher mental culpability. And then she goes on to criticize the charge, even in that case in Parker. But what it comes do. [09:15:55][27.2] [09:15:55] Wn To, and it's even cited later in a U.S. Supreme Court case, actually, it was the case earlier than Parker and also an attempt by Justice Brennan to define it. And the case is a rave. Are a a r a. [09:16:15][19.8] [09:16:17] I'm sorry, Let me start that a r. [09:16:19][2.0] [09:16:20] A v, a rave, the screech CRTC, age five seven U.S. for sixty three. A 1993 case. Justice Brennan wrote this homicides committed without considerable provocation or under circumstances demonstrating an abandoned and malignant heart, a term of art that refers to an intentional homicide committed with extreme recklessness. And then I just use ellipses there because it goes on to another matter. But the examples given would be, say, somebody shooting a gun into a crowd of people. You aren't intending to kill any specific person, but you certainly know by that reckless act, somebody will die or driving a car into a crowd at a protest rally. Somebody is going to die. This could be an abandoned and malignant heart. So that all aside, now the facts of our case going back to the standard of 79 one A where directed verdicts premised upon no conflict and evidence and all reasonable deductions and inferences therefrom from 091700 In this case, the state's case in chief, which we've just now heard for the last week and a half, the expressed malice does not seem to be there. [09:17:15] Speaking about Travis McMichael in particular, he's not saying anything or doing anything that could be provable by external circumstances to be expressed malice. And as we've all seen in the video, the shooting doesn't occur until he and the Marberry are locked up in mortal combat, hand-to-hand, face to face and in contact with one another with a gunshot wound that's fatal. That's close contact or near close contact, one to three inches away. Now, none of that is in dispute. There's no conflict in the evidence there. Obviously, the issue that we expect will go to the jury is whether that was an act of self-defense or whether it's some felony murder. And there are counts in here that that address that there is a pair of counts that talk about using a shotgun is an aggravated assault, which results in the death, and that's felony murder. Those are two separate counts in this indictment. It's always interesting to that malice murder added in the same case with felony murd. [09:19:19][87.1] [09:19:19] Er, while not legally inconsistent. And, you know, of course, Georgia has done away with the concept of legally inconsistent verdicts is is somewhat logically inconsistent when you ask a jury to consider finding a defendant guilty of malice murder based on proof you think you have if you're the state that he specifically intended by his act to cause the death of a person who died. [09:19:50][31.3] [09:19:51] And at the same time argue to them, but hey, also consider that he used a shotgun in an aggravated assault without malice, as the felony murder statute says. And the unintended consequence of that aggravated assault was the death of another person. Therefore, it's bootstrapped up into felony murder. So. [09:20:16][25.0] [09:20:18] That is the. [09:20:18][0.6] [09:20:18] Argument against [09:20:18][0.0] [284.5] [09:20:20] count one under 79 when a as a count that should not be presented to the jury because there is no conflict in the evidence. All of the reasonable deductions and inferences from the evidence do not support a finding by a rational trier of fact that expressed or implied malice have been exhibited here in the act of shooting a Madama. Now, you and I can go on to each of the other challenges. In turn, our stop. Let's go. [09:20:54][34.4] [09:20:56] The second challenge is to the combination of counts five and nine. And I can get my indictment back up. [09:21:11][15.1] [09:21:13] Count five charges, felony murder premised upon count nine. And of course, we know that felony murder. And I'll get the definition of that is in sixteen five one. See, a person commits the offense of murder when in the commission of a felony, he or she causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice. So we can forget all of what I just said about malice because it doesn't apply here. The state would have to prove the underlying felony and then show a causal connection, proximate cause between that underlying felony and the unintended death. Without malice, And in this case, Count nine is the criminal attempt to commit a felony, namely false imprisonment on see if it says it in here. Burford Drive Count nine. Then, as we know, is the allegation that on Burford Drive the beginning of the encounter with a Montabaur that Travis and Greg McMichael, along with Roddy Brian. But I'll leave his lawyer to argue his case here, but that Travis and Greg McMichael using their Ford F 150, attempted to commit the crime of false imprisonment. And then they combine that with count five to say that's felony murder premised upon that attempted felony on Burford Drive. Will the causal link between the attempt to falsely imprison someone. [09:23:25][131.3] [09:23:26] Three or four minutes before shooting them with a shotgun is just too tenuous to support under the proximate cause analysis, a felony murder charge in count five? I'm not saying that Count nine can't stand and be presented to the jury, but when you combine it with count five as the underlying felony for felony murder, what we're facing then is a complete lack of a causal link. I mean, you can. [09:24:01][35.1] [09:24:04] Add several lengths to get to Holmes Road where the shooting occurs, but there is nothing about the attempt to force in prison a Marda Brian Burford drive with a pickup truck, particularly Travis Travis McMichaels, Ford F 150 and his ultimate death on Holmes Road. And if you try to do it by party to the crime 16 to 20 and connect Travis and Greg McMichael to William Ronnie, Brian, as that count does, because it also names him in count nine names, his truck, his Chevy Silverado and count nine and then connects them both back to count five for felony murder. But sixteen five, I'm sorry, 16 to 20 party to the crime statute. And I'll read. It's not long. Every person concerned in the commission of a crime is a party there too, and may be charged with and convicted of commission of the crime. Be a person is concerned in the commission of the crime only if he one directly commits the crime. And here where we're talking about directly commits the crime of criminal attempt to falsely imprison a Marda [09:24:04][0.0] [215.9] [09:26:14] Brian Burford drive and then finally intentionally advisees encourages Hyers counsels or procures another to commit the crime. So is the evidence was produced here in this case. [09:26:27][12.4] [09:26:29] Raddy Brian saw the white truck and saw Marberry made some driveway assumptions, according to Miss Donna Caskey, and then went and got in his truck to do what it what he did. But as we heard, he hollered something that the McMichaels did not hear. The evidence from the state was uncontroverted, that whatever he said, that there was no indication, no evidence whatsoever that the McMichaels heard it. There was no phone communication of any kind between either McMichaels phones or Raddy. Brian's phones ensure there was no coordinated and there was no participation, no planning, no intentionally aiding and abetting or intentionally advising, encouraging and so forth between the two McMichaels and Roddie Brian, on Barford Drive or Count nine concerns my argument here. So. [09:27:37][68.0] [09:27:38] The criminal felony. [09:27:52][14.2] [09:27:53] Murder, because of the tenuous causal link, approx causal chain, that's just not going to reach. And secondly, if it's a party to the crime theory, there's no evidence at all that there was. [09:28:07][14.2] [09:28:08] Any participation intentional. And that's a key word in the party statute between them and Ronnie. Brian Burford Drive. So that's my directed verdict argument to count five. And I make it in connection with count nine. And yet I am conceding that Count nine could survive directed verdict and be presented to a jury. There is a conflict in the evidence there about what the McMichaels were doing on on Barford. Obviously we're saying that excuse me, that they attempting to make a. [09:28:49][41.3] [09:28:50] Citizen's arrest. The state says they're attempting to do a false imprisonment. That's a legitimate jury, but connecting it to count five felony murder, that that should be directed in favor of the defendants as an acquittal. All right. My third attack here under the motion for directed verdict of acquittal will be the combination of counts three and seven. Again, count three is a felony murder count and refers to the allegation, count seven. And when you go to count seven, the argument there is that the defendant committed an aggravated assault with a Ford F 150 and a Chevy Silverado, which they allege are objects, devices and instruments which, when used offensively against a person, are likely to result in serious bodily injury contrary to our laws. But then they connect it to murder in count three. Again, however, the trucks were used in this case by the McMichaels. The trucks were used, yes, to attempt to detain, to block in, to trap Ahmaud Arbery. But again, the argument here will be for the purposes of citizen's arrest, not for the purpose of falsely imprisoning, imprisoning him or assaulting him with a truck. But. [09:29:55][105.3] [09:30:05 More than that, that would be a legitimate jury issue in count seven. But in count three, neither truck was the causal link in the death of a Harbury. It was the means by which to get to the place where the death ultimately occurred. Of course, it was the conveyance in which the defendants road, but the truck itself did nothing to cause serious bodily injury or death. At least the Ford F 150. And this is not alleging in count seven that Ahmaud Arbery received some injury when he encountered Rodney Bryan's truck, Burford Drive. That's not alleged in this indictment anywhere, even though there's some evidence of contact between him and that truck on Burford Drive this is actually not saying anything about that, but connecting it back to count three felony murder. So it's the same problem as we just had in counts five and nine. It's a failure of a causal link, no proximate cause to show that the truck is connected to the murder [09:31:11][0.0] [255.3] [09:31:53] in a causative way. And the same with party to the crime. The other thing is count these this combination of counts, does it? It doesn't say whether this aggravated assault with the track is occurring on Burford Road or Homes Drive. We're left to gas, which it is. It simply does not specify. And that's a demurrer type issue. And that may have been addressed earlier, but here for directed verdict, if if the allegation is that the felony murder occurred on homes by use of the truck on homes, will, the undisputed evidence in the case is while the truck got driven, two homes drive. When we see the video, it's undisputed that the truck is parked. The driver is out of it. The truck is not moving, and it bears no connection at all except as a a device around which the. [09:32:20][65.9] [09:32:25] Defendant stood. Want one pregnant, Michael, in the back of the truck, Travis out of the truck and a marberry going around the truck. So the truck is not a a causal element in the death of a Montabaur and therefore, count three should be directed as a verdict of acquittal for the defendant. Count four. [09:32:56][36.8] [09:33:38] And eight are connected for felony murder. Referring to the allegations in county count eight is the false imprisonment allegation, this time on homes Drive and Homes Drive, of course, is the final place where the events transpired and the tragedy occurred. But this Count eight alleges that on Holmes Drive, using the two pickup trucks, the three defendants in concert with one another as parties to the crime falsely imprisoned Amanda robbery. And then the shooting occurs and they make the causal link back to count four for the felony murder charge. But again, the evidence in the case was that, you know, there was no place on Holmes Drive where the truck was used to block in a modern robbery where the truck is finally parked. As Agent Dialed testified yesterday, I believe under cross-examination with Kevin Gough, he conceded that there were escape routes. There were places Ahmaud Arbery could have chosen to run through yards across a yard and on to satellite drive if he had chosen to do so. How one can be falsely imprisoned when the case agent is testifying under oath that he could run kept on running. I the truck itself did not impede his decision to [09:33:38][0.0] [102.8] [09:35:25] turn right and run across this yard on the satellite drive and continue down. Still drive until he left the neighborhood or until he calendar encountered the police, which we also have heard with undisputed evidence, was on Sadil satellite drive when the shooting occurred. So he would have run into a police car at the very least, and then possibly Matt al Binsey. If that police car was not where the undisputed evidence as it was. So again, count for felony murder should fail because it's based on count eight, which count eight, it's fair enough to send to the jury. It's a disputed allegation. But count four can't support be supported by it. Finally, count two and six are connected and our motion applies to them in this way. Count two is felony murder. This time premised upon count six. And count six is the allegation of aggravated assault with the use of a shotgun, a firearm, a deadly weapon to hit a 12 gauge shotgun. This one's a little stickier in this regard because the evidence has come out that Travis McMichael pointed his shotgun at a modern robbery on two separate occasions. There's been evidence presented by the state that as a Montabaur, he is running towards the back of the pickup truck. On the driver's side of the truck, Travis Michael raises his shotgun and then he lowers it and moves to the left, right front corner of the truck as a moderate, takes a couple of weaving maneuvers and then comes around the right side of the truck and then the gun is raised again and this time discharged. And that those shots are what were fatal to Marberry. The count does not specify here in count six which of those two gun raising's is the aggravated assault. Certainly the first one where no discharge occurred. Could not therefore have been the cause of death and it could not support count to felony murder since there was no discharge of a deadly shot from the shotgun. And because the count doesn't specify applying a rule of lenity, this should be read as as applying to that because that by itself could be charged as an aggravated assault. Had the case stopped right there. Adaminaby stopped in its tracks and the state had chosen to say, well, this is no citizen's arrest. This is just a garden variety aggravators saw. You're pointing a shotgun at somebody for no good reason. He didn't discharge you, didn't kill him, but it still could be charged as an aggravated assault. Well, it certainly couldn't be ever under those circumstances, the underlying felony for felony murder. If the guy was still alive, if no shot had been fired. So that aggravated assault, though, is still in play. It's been put in evidence. It's not charged in the indictment or is it? We can't tell from count six because count six only refers to one act of aggravated start with a shotgun. And I guess the jury will be left to presume that it's the second pointing that results in the shooting, which results in the death, which results in the felony murder of count two. Those are my argument, Your Honor, for directed verdict on counts one. [09:38:55][251.2] [09:38:56] , Two, three, four, and five. Thank you, Judge. Let's go ahead and address that motion from the state and then we'll get Mr. Bryant's motion. Thank you, Judge. Yes,. [09:39:24][30.1] [09:39:25] Oceguera. Seventy nine one is the statute that governs directed verdicts. And there's also case law out there that, of course, the court is to view all the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable [09:39:40][0.0] [281.3] [09:39:23] to a guilty verdict and ask whether any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 0943948 PROSECUTOR>> So that includes judge, not just direct evidence, but circumstantial evidence as well. In this particular case, all the defendants have been charged in this as a party to the crime. And of course, we've got directly committing the crime and then helping, which is intentionally aiding or abetting in the crime. And then we've got intentionally encouraging someone to commit the crimes. [09:40:13] So we've got all of that charged together, looking, of course, at count one, malice murder. You may also find malice when there does not appear to be significant provocation. And all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. No specific length of time is required for malice to arise in the defendant's mind. Malice may be formed in an instant and instantly a fatal wound may be inflicted. That, of course, is the current pattern. Jury charged two point one zero point one zero on malice murder. In this particular case, there isn't significant provocation. Mr. Arbie ran away from these men for five minutes, tried to get away and was being forced down the street by Mr. Bryant in his dark pickup truck. Accelerating towards him. He tries to go around Travis Michael Travis MacMichael steps out into the street, blocking the street, pointing a shotgun at Mr. Aubrey. And Mr. Aubrey tries to go around the passenger side of the vehicle. Travis McMichael traps him and tracks him with that shotgun up to the front of the vehicle and basically encounters him right there. He's so close that Mr. Aubrey, he passes this. He is so close that when he does this, he's instantly shot, instantly shot. The video itself speaks for itself. There is that much time and that shotgun blast goes off. And Mr. Bush shot point blank. The trajectory was, as you saw from the medical examiner right here, right here, straight through. That's where the shotgun pellets are. That's where that injury is. So at this point in time, we have the burden to prove it's no significant provocation except Mr Abbott coming around the front. [09:42:47][144.7] [09:42:49] Medical examiner talked about fight or flight. And I understand the defense is going to argue, well, it's the victim's fault. He should have kept running. It's the victim's fault. He shouldn't have been exhausted. It's the victim's fault. He shouldn't have gone to defend himself. It's the victim's fault. He had all kinds of options and alternatives in the face of their five in an attack on him. And therefore, it's his fault. But that's not what the law is. The law is about the defendant's doing a five minute attack that eventually resulted in malice murder. How do you see the malice here? Abandoned and malignant heart. You take a shotgun, you pointed at somebody, you track them around as they try and run away from you. And when they turn on you, you immediately fire and shoot. The state asks you not to deny the directed verdict for malice murder. For Travis McMichael and also for Greg McMichael, he is charged as a party to the crime. Greg McMichael had his 357 Magnum on him. He is also yelling at Mr. Arbrey. We know that he previously had threatened Mr. Arbery with stop or I'm going to shoot your effing head off. So he'd already told this man, I'm going to execute you if you don't stop. So at that point in time, we've got Mr. Brian coming forward, coming forward. He sees the shotgun. He sees it pointed not only at Mr. Arbi, but it's actually pointed at himself because he's right behind Mr. Arbrey and he doesn't do anything. He doesn't stop. He doesn't slam on the brakes. He doesn't yell, oh, my God, he doesn't swerve immediately out of the way to get off the road. To a ditch to avoid the shock. And he keeps going. He keeps accelerating. He keeps driving, Mr. Arbery, toward the man with the shotgun, thus aiding and abetting intentionally aubury having to run towards a man with a shotgun. Mr. Arbery could not turn around. Mr. Arbery could not run way back because Mr. Brian is accelerating toward him with his black pickup truck. Therefore, he is also a party to the crime of malice murder because it shows an abandoned and malignant heart on Travis McMichaels part and aiding and abetting in that by both the defendant, Greg McMichael, and Mr. Williams. Roddie Bryant, Brian,. [09:44:30][140.3] [09:44:32] With regard to felony murder specifically, as the court is aware, felony murder must have directly caused [09:45:12][0.0] [285.0] [09:45:22] a death or played a substantial and necessary part in causing the death. This, of course, is from our new jury charges, two point one zero point two zero on felony murder. And in this case, all four of the underlying felonies played a substantial and necessary part in causing the death, because without those four felonies, Mr. Aubrey wouldn't be dead. 094509 PROSECUTOR>> So we've got our old fashioned, â?obut forâ?? and that's what we're talking about here, â?oplayed a substantial and necessary part in causing the death, but for these actions, Mr. Arbery would still be alive.â?? [09:45:21] So when we look at specific, they'll take them in the order. Mr. Hogue went, we're talking about count five felony murder and count nine, which is criminal attempt to commit false imprisonment. On Burford, the indictment reads, in violation of the personal liberty of a moderate, did unlawfully chase a moderate through the public roadways of the Shaw's neighborhood in pickup trucks did attempt to confine and detain armed Aubrey without legal authority. On Burford using a Ford F 150 and a Chevy Silverado. So they attempted to confine him, but he managed to get away. They basically both use the pickup trucks. So we've got Mr. Brian Principle actively attempting to detain Mr. Aubrey. We've got Travis McMichael in his pickup truck, circumstantial evidence that he is actively attempting to detain Mr. Aubrey because why Mr. Aubrey turns around from a white pickup truck and runs back the other way. And this is after Greg McMichael is in the truck yelling, cut him off, cut him off, cut him off. So at this point, we've got all three men acting in concert to attempt to confine him there. Well, how do they do that? They go ahead and do that by aggravated assault with their pickup trucks, by placing him in reasonable apprehension of receiving serious bodily injury. Well, what does that mean? It means their actions. What were they doing? They're using these pickup trucks with the aggravated assault to confine and detain him. So the state has proven that they use these pickup trucks in a manner that would reasonably put someone in fear and apprehension of receiving bodily injury. What does that mean? They scared him. They scared him with the aggravated assaults. And that was part of the Fallston imprisonment. We're going to scare you into stopping by using these pickup trucks to cut you off and run you into a ditch. They were doing it in concert with each other. I want to be real clear. 094712 PROSECUTOR>> The defense is attempting to conflate conspiracy, which is we pre planned this thing or conspiracy, which is wink and a nod. No, we're talking party to a crime. OK, conspiracy is a completely different charge. We are going to ask for it. [09:47:33] But in this case, this is a party to a crime which is intentionally doing these things to aid and abet Mr. Brines in his driveway. He intentionally gets in his pickup truck to aid and abet the McMichaels who he sees are actively trying to detain Mr. Arbrey in violation of his personal liberty, falsely imprison him. He's actually in the top of his driveway looking down the white pickup truck. He can see it and strawberries running back toward him. They can see that Mr. Bryant is now pulled out. They make a decision based on this to go around homes, but for their decisions on Barford, but for their attempt to falsely imprison Mr. Arbrey, Mr. Arbrey would not be dead. The false imprisonment on Barford substantially contributed to his death because it's what made him stop running it. They didn't allow him to run up Burford and onto Sellwood, which would have then led right out of the neighborhood, because if he'd gone up, Barford gone over would he'd eventually gotten to satellite drive and could have gotten away and he wouldn't be dead. So this substantially contributed. But for these actions on Barford, none of the rest of it would have happened. 094851 So what did happen? Well, he then has to run back. Mr. Bryan, of course, once again, cuts him off. He then immediately turns up Holmes to get away from Mr. Bryan and his pickup truck, which is now cut him off from his route, going out Satella Drive. But for those -- aggravated assaults, which were used to falsely imprison him there on Burford, he would not have been going up Holmes, which then led him to encounter the white pickup coming down Holmes. We have him trapped like a rat. He ends up with no place to go and he ends up exhausted, fight or flight, turns around the corner and is shot. 094926 So all of this led up immediately to the death, and therefore, it's a question for the jury. And in this case, the standard, as the court knows, is â?owe view all of the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the verdicts, and ask whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.â?? That's for the jury to decide. They're going to go ahead and look at this. And â?obut forâ?? those actions on Burford, would he have ever been trapped like a rat between two pickup trucks on Holmes Drive? No, we wouldn't have been. So it materially and substantially contributed to his death by getting us to that point. 095006 And this is all one continuous event. This is five minutes of this going on. So it's not these separate little vignettes. This is continuous. They're going around. Mr. Bryan's driving him this way. They're going this way to go ahead and capture him and trap him on Holmes. That was their intention, all because they wanted to talk to him. So we've got that. We ask that you deny the motion for directed verdict on counts five and counts nine. 095033 Then we've got I believe Mr. Hogue then did three and seven, which is our aggravated assault with the pickup trucks. Count seven â?odid make an assault upon the person of Ahmaud Arbery with a Ford F 150 pickup truck and a Chevy Silverado pickup truck. Objects, devices and instruments, when used offensively against a person are likely to result in serious bodily injury. 0951005 2.20.21, aggravated assault with a deadly or offensive weapon assaults another person with an offensive weapon to prove assault. The state does not have to prove that the other person was actually injured. However, the state must prove that the defendant committed an act that placed the person in reasonable apprehension or fear of immediately receiving a violent injury. [09:51:28] And then, of course, an offensive weapon is any object that is likely or actually does cause death or serious bodily injury. If used against someone, it's not in dispute at a 5000 pound lethal weapon like a pickup truck can cause serious bodily injury to someone. The question is, were there acts what they did such that they would put a reasonable person in reasonable apprehension? In other words, did what they do cause fear? Yes. Now, we don't have Mr. Aubrey to go ahead and take the stand to go. Yes, I was afraid he's dead, but the jury's allowed to go ahead and look at this and go, OK, let's look at their acts. Did they commit an act that placed Mr. Aubury in reasonable apprehension or fear of immediately receiving a violent injury? Yes, both direct and circumstantial. They did with aggravated assault with these pickup trucks. So once again, now felony murder, we're back to ah, but for situation. So but for them attempting to strike him, cut him off, run him into a ditch, impede him, run up next to him. I mean, strawberries just running down the road and they pull up with a pickup truck right next to him and start yelling at him, stop, stop. We want to talk to you. So at that point, just that alone, is that an action that would put somebody in fear straight? Total strangers have pulled up next to you. You're you don't have a car. You're running. That's a question for the jury. Now, the aggravated assault with the pickup trucks state feels not a problem, proving that beyond a reasonable doubt did play a substantial necessary part in causing his death. Yes, now is Mr. Hogue pointed out at the time of his death, the white pickup truck, which had already been used offensively against him, trying to falsely imprison him on Barford and then once again coming down homes drive goes ahead and passes. Mr. Carbury, we know this, OK? Because what do we have? We've got Mr. Brian and the video. Mr. Aubrey suddenly turns around. Now, whether you can see the white pickup truck or not, he suddenly turns around and runs back down. Mr. Brian goes up, Mr. Brian turns around. He comes back up and the video is there. And what do we have? That truck is parked at the end of the road. Based on their statements, Agent Dialis testified they went up Sellwood and came down homes that means they passed Mr. Aubrey once again with that white pickup truck. He is pinned between the two of them, the black pickup truck and the white pickup truck. The white pickup truck passes him when he turns around and then parks in front of him. That is the aggravated assault. But for them, using those pickup trucks in that manner, he would not be dead because he's trying to run up homes and the white pickup trucks come in. He runs back down. Now, Mr. Bryan's at the top of homes and the white pickup trucks at the bottom of homes. He is pinned. Greg McMichael said he was trapped like a rat and he knew it. That was what Greg MacMichael said. So when he's trapped like a rat between these two pickup trucks, did that substantially, materially? Well, playtest did that play a substantial and necessary part in causing the death? It was absolutely necessary because they had in between these two pickup trucks, they had caused him fear actions put in reasonable apprehension of receiving serious bodily injury with the pickup trucks. And at this point in time, as a party to the crime, they've stopped their pickup truck. But Mr. Brian hasn't stopped his pickup truck. Not at all. He is coming up behind Mr. Arbery. He is revving that engine. You can hear it on the video. And as a party to the crime, they can see [09:50:17][0.0] [09:55:56] that pickup truck coming. Seeing that pickup truck coming didn't stop Travis McMichael from pulling up that shotgun and pointing at Mr. Aubrey. And then he tracks them around and then shoots Mr. Aubrey. The fact that Mr. Brian and the McMichaels has a party to the crime of the use of that pickup truck at that moment, it becomes felony murder for the aggravated assault with the pickup truck. The state will argue, of course, that the use of the pickup truck the entire time. But for that, he would have been where he was. But for all the actions that the McMichaels took in their white pickup truck, Mr. Aubrey would not have been where he was and would not have been trying to escape this particular attack and assault. So we ask that you deny directed verdict on counts three and count seven. Then we have, of course, count four and eight. This was the fourth one that Mr. Polk mentioned. Some order, Judge for the end, I'm sorry, I count eight of the indictment in violation. The personal liberty of Marbury did unlawfully confine and detain a Marbury without legal authority to it said accused did chase tomorrow robbery with Ford F one fifty pickup truck and a Chevy Silverado pickup truck through the public roadways of the city of Shaw's neighborhood and did confine and detain Ammara Brown homes Drive using said pickup trucks, grabbing Michael's statement. He was trapped like a rat. He was trapped between the two pickup trucks. State has gone ahead and proven count eight. So how did that materially, substantially, unnecessarily cause the death of Marbury? Because he's trapped between these two pickup trucks. He's right there in Homs. He's running toward a man pointing a shotgun at him. And that man is relentless. He doesn't give up. He doesn't stay on the side of his pickup truck. So here we've got the ultimate confinement. And Judge, the ultimate confinement is death. Here he is ultimately falsely imprisoned because he was shot right there. Ultimate false imprisonment. But what they actually did is when they put Mr. Aubury in reasonable apprehension, fear of receiving bodily injury with the pickup trucks, they had him trapped like a rat. Once again, fight or flight. All he did was flee from these people. All he did was try and get away. But according to Michael, he was trapped gravely. Michael is standing in the back of that pickup truck yelling at him, Stop, God damn it, stop. Previously told him he was going to kill him. It's going to blow his head. So at this point in time, if he had not been falsely imprisoned and trapped between these pickup trucks, he would not have been shot. Killing is the ultimate confinement and I get that the defense is saying, well, he had options and he should have run this way. He could have run that way. Well, they're parked right in front of that driveway. They didn't actually go up to the stop sign at the end. They parked in that driveway. He was going around this side. There's a driveway to a house right there. He comes around the very front of it. They want to make it seem as if he's the one at fault for not continuing to run. He's the one at fault because they made him afraid. He's the one at fault because he didn't want to. I don't know. It would be speculation, but nobody wants to get shot back with a shotgun. He's already been told they're going to kill him if he doesn't stop. So at this point in time, falsely imprisoning him there and keeping and confining him there substantially and necessarily caused his death, blaming him for not continue to run on or him utilizing his options to defend himself. Is that really I put this what Mr. Aubrey chose to do in his intent is not relevant. The acts of the defendant are what are that's what's relevant here. And trapping him like a rat between two pickup trucks, one of which he was actively running away from as it pursued him, forcing him towards the white pickup truck. And Travis Michael and his shotgun. That was actual false imprisonment because he never, ever got away from them on Holmes Drive, he was killed. So it substantially contributed [09:55:56][0.0] [10:00:32] to his death when we look at counts. So we ask you to deny the directed verdict as to four and eight, when we look at counts two and six once again to being felony murder based on the aggravated assault with a shotgun, count six is to make assault upon the person of armed robbery with a firearm, a deadly weapon to hit a 12 gauge shotgun to prove assault. The state does not have to prove that the other person was actually injured. However, the state must prove that the defendant attempted to cause a violent injury to the person. All right. So, Judge, I hear what Mr. Hogue saying, that pointing the shotgun, Adam, where it's up against here is an aggravated assault. And it is. And if he had never fired at him, if he'd just done that, he'd be guilty of aggravated assault. However, as you know, our Supreme Court has recently told the state state you can't go charging different moments in time in a continuous action. They've told us that they said you can't do it. It's all one aggravated assault. There has to be an intervening factor, meaning I think the I think the one case that we're talking about is it was aggravated assault on a woman boyfriend girlfriend. And he went ahead and slashed her face. So we've got aggravated battery. Then there was an intervening time period where she got away from him. Then he went up. I think he stabbed her in the neck. Those were two separate things solely because of the intervening time factor. But the courts have said meaning our Supreme Court has held, it's all one thing. But in this particular case, the state's not contending that it's two separate aggravated assaults. It's aggravated assault when he pulled the trigger and shot him. So I just want everybody to be really, really clear. The state is arguing the state must prove that the defendant attempted to cause a violent injury to the person and he attempted to cause a violent injury to the person when he shot him point blank in the torso with that shotgun. They are all parties to the crime of this because Michael's already threatened to shoot him with a, you know, stop or blow your head off. Mr. Brian sees that shotgun, sees it come out, sees exactly what's going on. We might not see it on the camera, but he's driving. The truck is driving right driving. Mr. Aubrey right towards that man with the shotgun, helping him to go ahead and commit this crime. So at this point in time, we've got the aggravated assault here. Travis with Michael actually pulled the trigger. Gregory Michael helped and encouraged Travis MacMichael. Travis MacMichael grabbed his shotgun in his driveway, decision at his house, chose to bring that shotgun along. Greg Michael knew it. There's absolutely no evidence that Gregory Michael told him not to bring it along. Don't bring that shotgun. Nothing like that. Everybody who got into the truck with his son knowing he had that shotgun. It's a circumstantial evidence. Greg. Michael's in the truck with Travis. Look, Michael, the entire time that he has the shotgun, both in the pickup truck and then when Greg Michael gets in the back of the pickup truck, Gregory Michael's yelling at stop, stop driving. Michael's giving Travis Michael directions. Cut him off, cut him off, come off in a moment that Travis McMichaels outside drove back. You can see he's got the shotgun. Stop, God damn it, stop is what he's saying to Mr. Aubry. That is helping, intentionally aiding and abetting, knowing full well that the shotgun is being pointed at Mr. Aubrey. And it's kind of encouraging. It's tacitly basically authorizing this and encouraging him because it's not telling his son to stop doing that. But that's, you know, here, put the shotgun down. You don't hear what the heck are you doing? Don't do that. You hear. Stop. Goddamn it, Travis. If Michael is driving and the the one thing that's kind of important here, Judge, is that Mr. Hogue, when it was we came to trap to Gregory Michael's statement, actually asked Parker, Marci a question. And it was subjected to by Greg McMichaels counsel. But I know the court noticed it. I noticed it. It was my attention and I know it was my son's to arrest him or at least to get him identified. There was no objection from Travis McMichaels. So at this point, it's before the court on objected to by Travis McMichaels counsel is what their intentions were here. And of course, they're going to argue, well, it was to arrest him or at least get him identified. So if this is Travis McMichaels intention, it was Greg McMichaels intention and that's what they were doing and they were doing at the point of a shotgun. With regard to Mr. Brian, Mr. Brian never called nine one one. Mr. Brian continues forward recording despite the shotgun coming out, Mr. Brian says absolutely nothing on the recording. He doesn't go, oh, my God, there's a shotgun. Oh, my God, what's he doing? He doesn't, like I said, swerve out of the way and into a ditch. He doesn't put it in reverse and back up. So he's out of the line of fire. He pulls forward and accelerates despite the shotgun coming out, doesn't slam on the brakes, does not protest, does not yell, doesn't honk, doesn't do anything. But keep driving forward, driving a marberry forward. We get to this location by Mr. Brian pursuing Mr. Aubrey because as we saw in the video, Mr. Aubrey had actually run away from the white truck. Again, Mr. Aubrey runs. We see that he's going down homes towards the tilla. Mr. Brian goes up and he turns around. At this point, we actually see Mr. Aubrey back at the blue mailbox, having turned around, being forced to run back toward the white pickup truck. Therefore, he helped by chasing Mr. Arbitraged, the white F 150 pickup truck despite Aubrey's obvious attempts to get away from the white pickup truck. But he encounters Mr. Brian in the Silverado, so he has to run back toward the white pickup truck once again. A party to the crime in making this happen. And we all know that even if your fingers non trigger, you can still be held responsible. I mean, we all know the getaway driver doesn't go into the convenience store, is just as guilty as the guy who goes in to the convenience store and pulls the trigger because he's there to help make it happen. Helped make it happen. And here we have Travis with Michael actually pulling the trigger, Greg McMichael helping to make it happen, and William Brian helping to make this happen. Because without their help and assistance, without there Michael, especially his encouragement, Travis McMichael would not necessarily have been able to complete this had not Mr. Brian driven Mr. Aubrey toward the parked white pickup truck. If Mr. Brian had actually kept going and up around Sellwood or had left, Mr. Aubrey would have been able to keep running up homes and maybe get to Sellwood and Stila. Thus, Mr. Brian, confining him there, contributed substantially and materially, materially to the felony murder and the aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. So we ask that you go ahead and also deny the directed verdict. Four counts, two and six of the indictment. As to Greg McMichael and Travis MacMichael, Anderson, thank you. Any final word. [10:08:01][449.7] [10:08:02] From the MacMichael defendants on their motion? Yes. Just very briefly, are can. [10:08:10][8.8] [10:08:11] You hear me from here citing the language in State B Jackson 287, Georgia six forty six, 2010 Georgia Supreme Court case. Justice Nahmias. We have also said the proximate cause is the standard for homicide cases in general. And then he cites cases and is quoting from Wilson, the state. We set out the following test for determining causation in homicide cases where one inflicts an unlawful injury. Such injury is to be counted as the efficient proximate cause of death. Whenever it shall be made to appear. Either that there are three subparts. One, the injury itself constituted the sole proximate cause of [10:08:11][0.0] [458.5] [10:09:08] death or to the injury directly and materially contributed to the happenings of a subsequent accruing immediate cause of the death. Or three. The injury materially accelerated the death, although approximately occasioned by preexist causes that one doesn't apply. So the proximate cause issue in counts two, three, four and five is at the heart of our motion. And I think the state failed to make that connection between the underlying felonies that are named in count six, seven, eight and nine and the accruing death based on this test from this case. And of course, that's a completely different problem than the malice murder and I will say anything more about that. So that's our response to the state's our reply to the state's response. All right. I'm sorry to distinguish that case. Having just heard it, not knowing in advance that case was a code word, meaning a whole bunch of people running a crime and victim fought back and it ended up with one of the co-defendants murdered. So they're talking about proximate cause for the armed robbers. What would be responsible for the death of his car driver? That's what that case is about, not this sort of situation. I will just add the next paragraph is consistent with this general rule, which I just read. We have held in many cases and for many decades that the proximate causation is the standard for murder cases prosecuted under the murders, that you can't find another CGA. Sixteen five. One particular facts of this case or in material, it's the rule that I'm talking about. Mr. Goff, on behalf of Mr. Criminy Director Marie. Good morning, Your Honor. First thing I'll do is I'll formally adopt the. [10:11:38][150.1] [10:11:41] Very cogent arguments made by cocounsel in this case. Uh, and without tracking through those, you know, but for the. [10:11:50][8.5] [10:11:51] Best break, Mo giving birth to Roddy Brian, God rest his soul many years ago. But for that, Roddy Brian wouldn't have been out there that day in his pickup truck when we use this. But for causation that that there's a lot of baggage that comes along with that. And with all due respect to Mr. Kosti, it. [10:12:11][20.2] [10:12:11] Feels like they are stretching that term beyond recognition. The legal. [10:12:14][3.1] [10:12:15] Standard is proximate cause. And we'll come back to that in a moment. But when you look at it as proximate cause and not simply reducing it to two words, but for I think the court understands why the defendants are here making motions with respect to count one, malice murder. You know, I'm really at a loss here to understand, but it was the state that decided to present what we sometimes call a kitchen sink indictment to the grand jury, where every defendant is charged in every possible way with every possible crime. In this case, that was a decision the state made. And I certainly appreciate the challenge to the court in trying to assess these issues. As. [10:12:59][44.1] [10:12:59] I look at the malice murder charge, there is no contention that Roddy Brian shot anybody. There's no contention that Ray. [10:13:05][5.9] [10:13:05] Brian tried to shoot anybody. There's no contention here that Mr. Brian is acting as a principal. This is if I misunderstood based on Kasky, I'm sure she'll correct the entire theory. Here is aiding and abetting third section of that statute. And where is it that Mr. Brian is intentionally aiding and abetting the shooting because he's not? [10:13:30][25.2] [10:13:31] Now, maybe some decision came out of the Supreme Court last week or last month. I'm unaware of. But when I went back through Kurt's last night or used to be called Kurts offenses in defense, it's in Georgia section on parties to the crime. I know the court knows the treaties that I'm talking about. You know, they list like thirty different ways that you can be a party to a crime. You can be aiding and abetting in a murder case. [10:13:57][25.8] [10:13:58] But none of those are like the case before this. [10:14:01][2.8] [10:14:02] Court, which is why, although Mr. Dunn Acasti has cited this court well over. [10:14:08][5.9] [10:14:08] One hundred cases, oral argument, probably thousands of cases, and all the pleadings that have been filed motions in response is going back and forth. Mr. Tokarski cannot say to. [10:14:18][9.8] [10:14:19] A single Georgia case that is remotely comparable to the one that we have before the court. This isn't the case where Mr. Brown driving down the street in his pickup truck and Travis McMichael is standing in the back of it, shooting at Mr. Arbery. This isn't that case. [10:14:35][16.0] [10:14:37] There is. [10:14:37][0.3] [10:14:38] No case. And she can cite no case remotely close to this one. The closest cases that I've been able to find and of course, the referenced in there in what. [10:14:48][10.8] [10:14:49] I call the distraction, aiding and abetting cases in which one person intentionally distracts another person while someone else behind them either takes a knife and stabs them with. [10:15:02][13.0] [10:15:02] It or shoots them. There are, I call them, distraction. [10:15:06][3.7] [10:15:07] Cases. You're aiding and abetting by distracting. There is no evidence and no suggestion here that Mr. Bryan's conduct has somehow distracted Mr. [10:15:16][9.4] [10:15:16] Arborio. He's well aware of the pickup truck in front of him from the video. He's well aware from the video that they are both armed. So and Mr. Arbery is not shot with his back turned. [10:15:29][12.5] [10:15:30] That might pose a different and a closer question for the court. But in this case, unless Miss Dunn, a Karski. [10:15:36][6.3] [373.4] [10:15:38] Sight, some Georgia case suggesting this, which I still don't understand, theory of aiding and abetting the shooting. [10:15:45][7.1] [10:15:47] Of Mr. Avery, there. [10:15:48][1.7] [10:15:49] Simply is no malice murder case here. And, you know, cocounsel points out some pretty good cases on what. [10:15:55][6.3] [10:15:56] The meds raise required here. Where is any of that for Mr. Bryan? There's no malignant heart in this case. There's nothing from which that could be presumed. And, you know, that takes us back to the whole concept of a citizen arrest. If I understand the state's theory here, the state contends that the McMichaels and I believe they're contending the mission, Mr. Bryan, was. [10:16:19][23.3] [10:16:20] Assisting them or aiding them in attempting to make a citizen's arrest, which in the opinion of the state is not or was not authorized under Georgia law. And that may be true, Your Honor, but the fact that Mr. Bryan aided and abetted a citizen's arrest if he did that doesn't establish malice. [10:16:41][21.3] [10:16:42] In this case. It doesn't establish an intent to aid and abet an intent for a shooting. You know, and. [10:16:49][6.8] [10:16:49] Your Honor, I would urge the court to ponder the larger implications of the legal ruling that the state is requesting here, because in this one case, it might serve the interests of the state. But in the. [10:17:03][14.3] [10:17:03] Larger question, if 10 police. [10:17:06][2.2] [10:17:06] Officers respond to a call, ten police officers pull their cards up around the scene. And. [10:17:12][5.7] [10:17:13] In there, they're maybe they're still moving. [10:17:14][1.7] [10:17:15] Your and inexplicably, a police officer discharges. [10:17:19][4.8] [10:17:20] His weapon and shoots the person that they're after in the. [10:17:24][3.6] [10:17:25] Maybe they had probable cause, maybe they didn't. But are we going to try? Every police officer who's present at the scene of an attempted arrest for malice murder. [10:17:34][9.1] [10:17:34] Because somehow. [10:17:35][0.6] [10:17:36] In aiding and abetting an attempt at an arrest, lawful or lawful, that that translates into aiding and abetting the shooting that follows. That can't be the law. And. [10:17:47][11.0] [10:17:47] We should be creating special rules of law. There are enough of those. We shouldn't be creating any more special rules of law for one case, because we know the reality is that these things have unintended consequences and they take on a life of their own. We don't need to start down this theory that anybody who's attempting to arrest someone, which. [10:18:05][17.8] [10:18:06] After the last legislative session is pretty much limited to police officers, that any time police officers are attempting to arrest somebody, particularly if they're attempting to do so unlawfully, that they're aiding and abetting the arrest, lawful, unlawful is. [10:18:21][14.8] [10:18:21] Aiding and abetting a shooting or other unlawful use of force that follows. [10:18:25][4.0] [10:18:27] There is no malice murder case, as Mr. Bryan. There is no authority for this case, Your Honor, the state wants to talk. [10:18:35][8.0] [10:18:35] About. But for I want to talk about intervening factors. And before I do that, Your Honor, I would maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to keep up this McCaskey here. But the way Mr. Tokarski is presenting this now of malice murder argument to the court is in essence, collapsing malice murder into felony murder. What distinction is left here between malice murder and felony murder? When Mr. Tokarski makes these arguments because it's winding up being the same thing? Well, you know, he intended to shoot. Therefore, he intended to kill or he intended to falsely imprison, must intend to shoot. How do we distinguish at the end of the day with the arguments made by the state between malice. [10:19:19][43.7] [10:19:19] Murder and felony murder? Your Honor, this is a case and this feeds into the severance issue. With all. [10:19:26][6.7] [10:19:27] Due respect, Mr. Tokarski, I would humbly suggest to the court that if Mr. McCaskey continues. [10:19:33][6.4] [10:19:34] To proceed along this line with malice murder and we go into the defense case here, we are going. [10:19:38][4.5] [10:19:38] To have at some point antagonistic. [10:19:42][3.2] [10:19:43] Defenses that cannot be overlooked. The state, as I understand it, has not submitted a charge on manslaughter. My understanding that LERN counsel for the McMichael defendants have not submitted a jury charge on manslaughter. And part of that, I think, well,. [10:19:58][15.4] [10:19:58] There's different strategic reasons why people do things. But my point, Your Honor, is in terms. [10:20:03][4.8] [10:20:03] Of proximate cause, do we not have not one but two intervening factors here, factors that are not reasonably foreseeable to Roddy Brian. [10:20:12][9.3] [10:20:13] May be logically foreseeable and something that's conceptually possible, but not reasonably foreseeable in the sense that the law would imply you have [10:20:13][0.0] [258.1] [10:20:23] in the video, and unless I missed it, that this part of the video that state contains is undisputed uncontradicted. In the video at the last minute, you see Mr. Aubury, instead of turning right towards the exit of satellite because he turns to the left. That's not for me to judge. Question why Mr. Aubrey does the things he does. [10:20:46][23.4] 102005 DEFENSE COUNSEL>> But when he turns left instead of right, regardless of his justification or his reasons(?) for doing so, that is an intervening cause, an intervening circumstance, I submit under Georgia law. And at that point, it's not foreseeable to Mr. Bryan, it's not foreseeable that some, just like on the street with the police officers, suicide by cop, is not reasonably foreseeable, nor is suicide by citizen's arrest. [10:20:35] When Mr. Arbery turns towards Mr. [10:21:20][31.9] [10:21:20] MacMichael, that is an intervening circumstance that breaks any causative chain here with respect to the shooting and death itself. Likewise, and I'm certainly not taking sides in this. It'll be for the jury and the court to determine the guilt or innocence of the McMichael defendants. But at the same time, you have a second. [10:21:39][18.9] [10:21:39] Intervening factor in first intervening factor. Is Mr. Aubury pivoting to the left instead of heading for the exit? The second intervening factor is Travis MacMichael discharging his weapon and I'm not questioning why Mr. Arbor's doing what he's doing. I'm not questioning why Travis McMichaels doing what he's doing. What I'm saying is you have a second intervening factor, which is the choice of Travis make Michael to discharge his weapon. It doesn't really matter for purposes of evaluating count one malice murder. If the court can see that whoever's in the right here, whoever's in the wrong,. [10:22:14][34.6] [10:22:14] Whichever party is using excessive force, maybe both parties are using excessive force. Maybe there's some kind of mutual combat theory out there. [10:22:21][7.2] [10:22:22] But for Mr. Bryan's perspective, in terms of proximate cause, in terms of which reasonably foreseeable to him, none of these things are reasonably foreseeable. And I think the court understands the. [10:22:31][9.1] [10:22:32] Consequences. If the court were to go that any other road and if we're going to persist with this issue, we're going to wind up in a severance posture and maybe premature. We haven't heard whether any of the other defendants have testified yet, but I would submit the easiest way to resolve the severance issue is to grant the motion for directed verdict for Mr. Bryant as to malice murder. [10:22:51][19.2] [10:22:53] Moving on to count to felony murder, which is tied to aggravated assault to a shotgun. Again, the arguments come down very much the same way because that the state's position on malice murder is a sense, essentially, although not in so many words, collapsing and felony murder. [10:23:12][19.2] [10:23:13] Where is. [10:23:13][0.6] [10:23:14] The intent on the part of Mr. Bryant to facilitate an aggravated assault with a shotgun? Again, it's one thing to say if the state contends that's what the evidence shows, that Mr. Bryant is attempting to assist in a citizen's arrest, aiding and abetting a citizen's arrest. [10:23:32][17.9] [10:23:32] But there's nothing reasonably foreseeable about killing someone in a citizen's arrest. Just as on the street, there's nothing reasonably foreseeable police officers when a fellow officer without cause discharges a weapon in these days, maybe even a Taser and kills somebody. Again, there is no proximate cause and there is no mens rea. There is no aiding and abetting the shooting. Now, it's done. Karski wants to make a big deal of the fact that the gun is visible. [10:24:06][33.1] [10:24:08] That Mr. Bryant's truck is still moving, although obviously at a slow rate of speed. And therefore, because he doesn't run in a ditch, he doesn't back. [10:24:18][10.5] [10:24:19] Up that he somehow is now joining in the shooting. But again, the I think I understand the state's position is pretty clear, almost uncontradicted, that this is a purported attempted citizen's arrest, again, in the context of a citizen's arrest is the fact that Mr. Bryant is maneuvering his car, his truck, rather, and positioning his cell phone to follow Mr. Aubury and document what Mr. Aubury is doing. [10:24:46][27.1] [10:24:47] Has that circumstance,. [10:24:49][2.2] [10:24:49] Whether he's traveling at two miles an hour, four miles an hour, six. How does that establish his aiding and abetting the shooting itself? Because Mr. Bryant only has knowledge of the existence of the weapon, as we see on the video at the very last moment and still at that time for Mr. Bryant's perspective, even if he's attempting to aid and abet a citizen's arrest, that's not the same thing as aiding and abetting a murder. I mean, would. [10:25:16][26.6] [10:25:16] It be [10:25:16][0.0] [281.6] [10:25:16] It's the same thing, Your Honor, whether Travis McMichaels shooting him or not or whether he's pulling out a club and beating him on the side of the road with a billy club like a police officer would do again,. [10:25:26][9.7] [10:25:26] How is Mr. Bryant's assisting, if that's what it is, in a citizen's arrest showing that he's attempting to aid and abet the shooting, aiding and abetting lawful, excessive use of force. [10:25:38][11.7] [10:25:39] In the making of an arrest that that's just not there. That's just not Georgia law. And again, you know, the state wants says the jury should consider the fact that they had their guns drawn. [10:25:53][13.4] [10:25:54] OK, well, what is Mr. how is Mr. Brian again to know that they have any intent in drawing a weapon, whether it's in the down position, a position, not a use of force expert, but whatever position. [10:26:08][13.9] [10:26:09] Again. How is that telling Mr. Brian that they intend to use excessive force, that they intend to kill him, that they're not trying? Maybe that's the state's theory, that they weren't really trying to make an unlawful arrest. They were just looking for an excuse to kill him or they were just waiting for the opportunity, notwithstanding the fact that they had lots of opportunities to shoot this gentleman over five minutes. He's clearly in terms of proximate cause. When you look at the video, you. [10:26:35][26.0] [10:26:35] See Mr. Aubury, he's well within range. He's well within shotgun range. He's also well within range of driving Michael's handgun at the time that Mr. Brian is pulling for Mr. Bryan's perspective, he didn't have any reason to think they were trying or intended to hurt these people. They had ample opportunity to do that long before he got there. Long before he pulled up. Again, I'm asking the court to grant a direct a verdict on count two felony murder based on the underlying count. Six, aggravated assault with a shotgun. [10:27:04][28.4] [10:27:05] Count three, felony murder, aggravated assault with a pickup truck. Your Honor, although. [10:27:15][10.1] [10:27:16] The statute defines the grounds for a directed verdict, I believe Miss Dunn Tokarski his acknowledged that Casey I'm sorry, has acknowledged that it's not that simple, that the standard essentially goes back to Jackson v. Virginia. It's not just whether there's, quote unquote, any evidence to submit something to a jury. There has to be sufficient evidence from which a rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [10:27:40][24.1] [10:27:41] There is a severe lack of. [10:27:44][2.9] [10:27:44] Evidence in this case. There's no evidence that Mr. Bryan intended to do so. What they're doing is they're basing that on words. And I'm going to incorporate it here for purposes of the motion for directed verdict, the arguments made in connection with the special demur in this case. And of course, those have also all already been addressed to some extent by counsel for the McMichaels. There's no witness there, no other there is no witness to what Mr. Ryan did. There's no video of an aggravated assault. It's all contradicted by the physical evidence in this case. And I don't have the citation in front of me. But with respect to aggravated assault with a motor vehicle, I think the case law is a case specifically out there. This is speculation as to aggravated assault is inappropriate. And there are some times when there's insufficient evidence and where the jury is basically being asked to speculate as to what happened. And this is that case, Your Honor. And with terms of felony murder, again, you get back to the same issue, assuming for the moment that Mr. Brian was committing an aggravated assault with a pickup truck down on VAFA. How does that establish how is that. [10:28:55][71.1] [10:28:55] The proximate cause of a felony murder that takes place down on HomeStreet Street later? [10:29:02][7.0] [10:29:03] And for the jury to be able to return a verdict because of the way this indictment is phrased, the jury can return a verdict of guilty without specifying. [10:29:12][9.4] [10:29:13] Where takes place. How do we know that the juror, certainly all 12 of them have made. [10:29:17][4.1] [10:29:17] A decision as to that, because without that, how can they make a determination as to proximate cause? This is a huge problem. [10:29:24][6.8] [10:29:26] And I'm going to get back to count seven in a moment. 102850 DEFENSE COUNSEL>> But in terms of felony murder, there's just no proximate cause here. It's not reasonably foreseeable. And it's a huge stretch to say that what Mr. Bryan is doing out there in his truck is causing the death. [10:29:05] In fact, I think was very pointed out that the their truck is stopped. It's not even moving. And Mr. Unicast talked about the engine, but I think the video speaks for itself. Certainly, Mr. Aubrey is not assaulting at this time. [10:30:05][38.4] [10:30:06] Your there's no proximate cause. There's insufficient connection to the death. I'm going to turn to count four felony murder, which is based on false imprisonment. [10:30:15][8.9] [10:30:16] Your Honor,. [10:30:16][0.6] [10:30:16] I do believe that there was a special demurrer filed in this case previously about false imprisonment. And if I recall, the court cited a case, I don't have it in front of me. [10:30:26][10.3] [10:30:28] About you can assault, you can imprisoned by with a pickup truck. My recollection of that. [10:30:35][6.6] [10:30:35] Case [10:30:35][0.0] [303.3] [10:30:35] with that case were not just where someone was being chased, but where they actually were struck and went. [10:30:41][5.9] [10:30:42] Over the hood. And then the person in the car got out of the stabbing. [10:30:44][2.9] [10:30:45] That's certainly factually distinguishable. But again, what is it if the falsus at the time of the shooting, there is no false. [10:30:54][9.0] [10:30:54] Imprisonment. Your Honor, at the time of the shooting, Mr. Aubrey, to borrow a football phrase, has broken containment. He is past both trucks at that point and has a clear line to the exit to the neighborhood. So I don't understand how you have. [10:31:14][19.4] [10:31:14] A proximate how you could have proximate cause between a false imprisonment, if that's what it is, and the shooting itself. And because there is it not. [10:31:24][10.1] [10:31:24] Also notwithstanding Georgia law to the contrary, that false imprisonment is not the kind of felony that will support a felony murder charge. There are other jurisdictions that disagree with Georgia and that can under their laws, they do not view false imprisonment as a violent offense. That would that would be a felony based on false imprisonment on. I certainly want to preserve that argument. [10:31:48][23.3] [10:31:51] Because it's just I guess the best way to phrase it in terms of Georgia law is false. Imprisonment really belongs is more like a status offense. Than it is a violent offense. And in that respect, it should not be the underlying felony for a felony murder charge. We still have issues with the mens rea. We still contend that the false imprisonment is unsupported factually. But again, in terms of foreseeable. [10:32:18][27.4] [10:32:20] How is the shooting, Your Honor, reasonably foreseeable to Mr. Bryan, assuming that there is a false imprisonment. [10:32:28][8.5] [10:32:29] How is how. [10:32:30][0.7] [10:32:30] Is the shooting itself? It's one thing to say to Mr. Bryan aided and abetted a false prison. That's not the same thing as saying he aided and abetted a shooting. And that again goes back over Grant. I think I've already covered and I won't do that to the court again. [10:32:44][14.0] [10:32:50] Count five, felony murder again. We contend the criminal attempt to commit felony murder is not the kind defense upon which a felony murder charge can be created. We would suggest to the court that that is even a step further removed from Folsom Prison in itself, and that furthermore, that the attempted felony, attempted false imprisonment is not the proximate cause. Again, of the shooting or death of Mr. Aubrey. [10:33:19][28.3] [10:33:21] There are real problems there of the causal link. Count six, aggravated assault with a shotgun. Again, there is. [10:33:29][7.7] [10:33:29] No aiding and abetting for Mr. Bryan, aiding and abetting a citizen's arrest, even if a lawful is not the same thing as aiding and abetting a shooting. And I won't go back down that ground any further counts, said an aggravated assault with the trucks cocounsel has already spent a good bit of time addressing this. I've addressed it in the special demurrer. It's troubling to me that the state comes in here when three police officers, your honor, three seasoned police officers about two. Well, season one, we could argue about all interview, Mr. Bryan. And that's the basis of this count is Mr. Bryan statements himself. There's no other evidence other than that in this case. And three of these all three. [10:34:21][52.5] [10:34:22] Of these officers interview Mr. Brown or populist Brian at length. All three summarized those interviews. None of them refer to Mr. Bryant's conduct as an aggravated assault. None of them do that because it's not there. The jury, your honor, is required to get to the truth of the matter. It's not just the words Mr. Bryan uses, which could be anybody's words can be twisted out of context is the context in which you are given. It's the meaning that's meant to be conveyed. And it's clear from the testimony of the state's own witnesses. But that meaning is not there. There is no aggravated assault with Mr. Bryan jumping. [10:35:03][41.0] [10:35:03] Back and forth here. I guess make sure where I am. [10:35:06][2.7] [10:35:08] Your. [10:35:08][0.0] [10:35:08] Honor, the evidence is in terms of the speed, for example, that while the state refers to Mr. Bryan is chasing, that the evidence is on the video at two miles an hour. [10:35:19][10.6] [10:35:22] Your Honor, with respect to count eight, the false imprisonment we are,. [10:35:27][5.0] [10:35:27] The indictment alleges in the state is stuck with the language in the indictment that he was that the confinement. [10:35:32][5.5] [274.5] [10:35:33] And detainment occurs on Holmes Drive. But the evidence that the state is relying on is coming from Burford. And. [10:35:43][9.6] [10:35:43] He can't he can't be convicted at this point of that. And how the court would charge a jury, I have no idea. [10:35:50][7.0] [16.5] [10:35:57] Your Honor. On count eight, the false imprisonment. I talked earlier about the breaking containment. There is some Georgia case law out there. And for example, I guess this is the best analogy I can come up with here. [10:36:16][19.3] [10:36:17] In a bank robbery when. [10:36:20][2.6] [10:36:20] An individual committing a bank robbery pulls out a gun and tells everybody to get down on the ground. [10:36:24][4.0] [10:36:25] Under Georgia law, that is a false imprisonment because they get on the ground. But this case isn't the case when they get on. [10:36:34][9.1] [10:36:34] The ground. Mr. Aubrey never submits to being arrested. And in this case, this is what the state is pursuing here is equivalent to someone of store saying, everybody get down on the ground and the person just continuing to run right out the door. That's what we have here. And. [10:36:53][19.2] [10:36:54] That is not a false imprisonment under Georgia law. And again, if this Dunn Tarkovsky has a case citation for this court to any Georgia case that is remotely factually close to this one, I'm sure she'll present it, but. [10:37:08][13.7] [10:37:08] I can't find it, your honor. Attempted false imprisonment. That's count nine. [10:37:13][4.6] [10:37:14] We. [10:37:14][0.0] [10:37:14] Contend that the evidence is simply insufficient to submit that matter to the jury. Moreover, we think the evidence that was presented during the Cates case, state's case in chief is shows affirmatively abandonment, that. [10:37:32][18.2] [10:37:33] Mr. Bryant has abandoned this chase, as they call it. And the video itself, I think, demonstrates that the time of the shooting, Mr. Brown, is simply a witness to the shooting itself and to those events. And under those circumstances, we believe that he is entitled to have an acquittal as to count nine and all the other counts in this indictment, we would ask that attracted very few grand on all counts and that Mr. Bryan be released forthwith. [10:37:58][25.6] [10:38:00] From the state insurance that we break briefly for restaurant. Yes, we're going to take a ten minute recess. Let's go and take ten minutes. We'll reconvene at 10:00 [10:38:00][0.0] [116.4] [10:38:08] for. All right. We are back on defense. President from the state judge Musharraf talked a lot about citizen's arrest and that being the defense in this case. But there has been any evidence that anyone was making a citizen's arrest. Citizen's arrest was never said by any of these three defendants at any point in time. The evidence has been presented is that Mr. Ryan and Mr. Gaborik, Michael, never once said we're making a citizen's arrest, that we're placing you under arrest for the crime of this, that we saw him commit a crime that day. That was not it. It was all we wanted to stop and talk to him, and then we wanted to detain him. In fact, Mr. Rubin said in his opening statement that the intent was to detain him so that the police could show up and do whatever they were going to do after the detention. It's not citizens detention. It's citizen's arrest. So while he talked about that, that is really not something to be considered in a directed verdict motion. And just because a set of facts hasn't yet been specifically identically brought before a court, this sets of facts. No two cases are going to have the same set of facts. They're just not. And so the fact that there is felony murder based on false imprisonment, case law out there where someone has been found guilty, felony murder based on false imprisonment, someone's been found guilty of prior to crime, based on aggravated assault with a shotgun. Someone's been found guilty of party to a crime for aggravated assault with a motor vehicle. Those cases are out there, maybe not with these specific facts. So that argument doesn't really hold water either. In this. [10:54:00][951.3] [10:54:00] Particular case, when it comes to Mr. Bryan. And this will apply for all of the charges here. Once again, it's party to a crime, and that means intentionally aid and abet his statements to Agent Seacrest and actually at the scene to Officer Minshew were about yeah, I thought they had done something. You know, I thought I thought I was trying to help them get this guy Folsom in prison. This guy captured this guy, and that was what his intent was. It was to falsely imprison this particular person and he intentionally used his vehicle to go ahead and do that both on Barford when he intentionally committed an aggravated assault, putting Mr. Aubrey and reasonable apprehension of receiving serious bodily injury as part of his intent to falsely imprison him on before those two things contributed to his death. Because but for those things happening, Mr. Aubrey would still be alive. So it is as the pattern charge will be, given his actions played a substantial and necessary part in causing the death, because without him doing those things, Mr. Aubrey would not have been trapped like a rat over on Holmes Drive between the two pickup trucks. As we noted before, Malice chased him through the public roadways in the pickup trucks, tried to stop him, cut him off with the pickup trucks. He drove them into a ditch. He assisted, pinning him between the two pickup trucks, trapping him like a rap between the two pickup trucks. Mr. Aubrey had not threatened anybody, had shown no aggression. Mr. Aubrey had no weapons. He was totally unarmed. And here Mr. Bryan never called 911. He continues pursuing Mr. Arbrey. Mr. Bryan never says anything on the recording. He pulls forward despite the shotgun coming out, despite the stalking being pointed at himself. Doesn't slam on the brakes, doesn't yell, doesn't protest, doesn't honk, just keeps driving forward driving. Mr. Forward, he helped to get Mr. Aubrey to this location by redirecting him up homes. The most important thing is when you have [10:54:00][0.0] [951.3] [10:56:18] common criminal intent. 105536 And here the state's position is, is that if parties to the crime, there's common -- criminal intent to attack Mr. Arbrey via false imprisonment, aggravated assault with the pickup trucks, aggravated assault with a shotgun and false imprisonment ultimately on Holmes. [10:55:55] And that common criminal intent to do all those things, not necessarily the conspiracy. I'm not talking about conspiring in advance and coming up with a plan to sit around the kitchen table, we're talking about what they actually did, acted in concert with each other. The white truck came down homes. Mr. Bryan was going up, homes Mr. Aubrey had already turned around, was running back in the white truck past him. Mr. Bryan did not abandon this. He turned around. He kept going, and then he accelerated to catch up to Mr. Aubrey past the blue mailbox, saw the shotgun and kept going. Common criminal intent, which resulted in malice murder, resulted in all the felony murders. All of his actions did substantially contribute to the death of Mr. Aubrey. And they were necessary because without those actions, Mr. Aubrey would be alive. We ask that you deny the directed verdict for all of the counts. As to Mr. Brian, thank you. [10:57:46][88.6] [10:57:48] Any final word from Sprunt. [10:57:49][0.8] [10:57:54] Your Honor, in the state, it is constrained to acknowledge that they have no legal authority for their position, for example, on malice murder. And I think the court should take seriously the motion to grant the director there is no malice murder or take a case against Mr. Bryan. With all due respect to the state, there never was that there are some other issues in the case. There are more challenging and more troubling. But that's an easy call. I think it's an easy call on count two, felony murder for Mr. Bryan. Only again, the state has no flop. It doesn't even pretend to give an explanation as to how Mr. Bryan thinking that he's Haitink, a citizen arrest lawfully or unlawfully, how that translates into an intent to shoot or an intent to injure. And it's deeply troubling to me that the state can't have the Canada acknowledged the court that maybe in retrospect counts one and count two. As to Mr. Bryan, we're not well thought out. There's no proximate cause. There's no reasonable foreseeabili. [10:58:54][60.4] [10:58:54] Ty Here. And, you know, I'm impressed with the argument that was made. But still, Mr. Bryan is entitled who directed verdict? Certainly on count one, almost certainly on count. [10:59:07][12.5] [10:59:07] Two. And arguably, as to every count in the indictment, thank you. [10:59:11][3.5] [10:59:13] Error. I apologize profusely. I had pulled up a case and I forgot to cite it. And it is both the state of Georgia. What Moore vs. the state in Millburn versus the state it is three eleven Georgia five six. And in this particular case, a group of eight hundred of a drug dealer and one person stayed downstairs to keep the boyfriend away while they went up to go ahead and search the apartment. Unfortunately, the girlfriend was in the apartment and the two that went up there, one executed the girlfriend. They came downstairs. The state obtained a malice murder conviction on man downstairs who simply kept the boyfriend from protecting the girlfriend upstairs. And that is a case that does show someone who doesn't have their finger on the trigger, who's downstairs doing some other action, the same sort of criminal intent which we feel that's here, state criminal intent to falsely imprison [10:59:13][0.0]
AHMAUD ARBERY MURDER TRIAL BRUNSWICK GA CAM 3 POOL 11172021 0845
COURTROOM FTG OF THE TRIAL IN THE AHMAUD ARBERY CASE / TRAVIS MCMICHAEL, GREGORY MCMICHAEL AND WILLIAM RODDIE BRYAN ARE CHARGED WITH THE MURDER OF AHMAUD ARBERY / CAM 3 CORE 3943 AHMAUD ARBERY MURDER TRIAL BRUNSWICK GA SWITCHED FEED POOL 11172021 084500 [09:05:51] Good morning, everybody. Boy, we are back on. Mr. President, represented by counsel, only broke last night. We were addressing motions before the court. [09:06:15][24.4] [09:06:17] Most efficient. [09:06:18][0.2] [09:06:18] Way to go about this is the state had indicated a little bit of time to take a look at the demurrer on count seven, the state of any additional argument after reviewing the demur that had been filed on behalf of Mr. Brian. No, no additional argument. We stand on what we had originally filed and on the court's order on the demurrer to count seven, which is tracks the language of the statute and informs the defendants of what they are to defend against and therefore is sufficient. And there's no reason to grant the demerjian count seven for which you have to address. [09:07:05][47.1] [09:07:06] That. Then let's get through any additional motions and all sorts of motions. As far as we go, I probably should have gone around ask the question that normally leads to some time before the court, before we get started. Anything from the state,. [09:07:19][13.1] [09:07:20] From Travis MacMichael, from Greg, with Michael and I. We're ready for our motion and from Mr. [09:07:26][5.3] [65.7] [09:07:29] Motions that I'll just go around saying, Mr. Speaker,. [09:07:35][6.1] [09:07:35] That both Craig and Michael entered this time on behalf of Greg McMichael. And I will speak for Travis Mineko with permission of co-defendants counsel and invite them to add anything you may wish to add. That does apply specifically to Travis that I may not mention it. I'm going to try to cover both in this motion for directed verdict of acquittal. And I'll start with the statute that applies to. [09:08:21][45.3] [09:08:21] Such a motion and then go through the counts in the indictment that I think we have some argument to make regarding first the statute. It's Okja nine one A, which says where there is no conflict in the evidence and the evidence introduced with all reasonable deduction and inferences there from shall demand a verdict of acquittal or not guilty as to the entire offense or to some particular count of our offense, the court may direct the verdict of acquittal to which the defendant is entitled under the evidence and may allow the trial to proceed only as to the counts or offenses remaining, if any. So I start with. [09:09:08][47.6] [09:09:10] Count one and let me get my indictment up here, which is malice murder. And to make this argument for acquittal on malice murder, allow me to review initially what the elements of that offense are and then talk about. [09:09:31][20.7] [09:09:31] The evidence in the case. The statute, of course, is sixteen five one, A and B and sixteen five one A says a person commits the offense of murder when he unlawfully and with malice aforethought either expressed or implied causes the death of another human being. [09:09:58][27.3] [09:09:59] So starting with just subsection a malice, of course, in Georgia, law means a specific intent crime as opposed to a general intent crime and then a specific intent crime. The subjective desire [09:09:59][0.0] [146.9] [09:10:18] of the defendant is to bring about the exact illegal consequence that his action is intended to produce. So in and of malice murder count, that means that the that that malice means the defendant has the specific intent to commit an act that the cause of which is the death of another person and that that result was the desired result. It was not an unintended consequence, as we'll see as the case with felony murder. So malice, that sort of specific intent can be shown in two ways by proof. And that subparagraph B in sixteen five one. [09:11:08][49.6] [09:11:09] And. [09:11:09][0.0] [09:11:10] That paragraph indicates two types of proof of this malice. The specific intent, of course, I always mention that as the definition of malice because it's certainly confusing to jurors. But that's a different issue. For later when we talk about charges. But it means no in no ill will or hatred, of course, but it's just a specific intent to types expressed malice. Is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take the life of another human being, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof? Now, case law indicates that would be things like verbal threats, lying in wait the kind of circumstances or actions for which the state can produce evidence that says this person had expressed malice. It's out there in the world for us to see it. We can hear it. We can determine from the circumstances in which the killing occurred. The other type of malice, much more sticky is malice shall be implied. We're no considerable provocation appears and we're all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. 091157 DEFENSE COUNSEL>> So to further define that type of malice, I need to go to a different place here in my notes to look for a definition of implied malice in our law. What we're looking for is that specific intent to kill where there are no external circumstances capable of proof. But inferences must be made. It's implied. And first of all, it's -- you -- you have to find that there's no considerable provocation, which would be, say, voluntary manslaughter. [09:12:43] And there's no other justification for it. And then in one of our cases, under Georgia law, which is park or the state, and I'll get the cite here, 270, Georgia 256 in 1980, 88 case essentially in Parker, the court tries to define that poetic matter of metaphor we find in the implied malice sentence, which is the abandoned and malignant heart. I find it of interest that there are only four states left out of 50 that use that phrase in their definition of murder, abandoned and malignant heart, having its roots somewhere in the dark recesses of medieval English. But here it is still in Georgia, Idaho, Nevada and California. The three states still use that phrase. And so, George, in attempting to say what it means, says that it's a reckless disregard for human life. And Justice Herrnstein in Parker v. State tries to give some sort of definition for it. It's not a substitute for implied malice. That is reckless disregard is not a lower mental state or lower standard of proof. It's not equivalent if it's as she said in this opinion, especially concurring opinion. She says the difference between instructing a jury that a presumption of malice may arise from reckless conduct and this is for malice murder and instructing them that reckless conduct and malice are equivalent that can be substituted for one another. [09:11:10][0.0] [49.6] [09:15:28] Is not just a matter of mere semantics. A jury is entitled to be instructed how to determine a defendant's state of mind based on the evidence. Addus. It is not entitled to be instructed that a lesser mental culpability may be substituted for the required higher mental culpability. And then she goes on to criticize the charge, even in that case in Parker. But what it comes do. [09:15:55][27.2] [09:15:55] Wn To, and it's even cited later in a U.S. Supreme Court case, actually, it was the case earlier than Parker and also an attempt by Justice Brennan to define it. And the case is a rave. Are a a r a. [09:16:15][19.8] [09:16:17] I'm sorry, Let me start that a r. [09:16:19][2.0] [09:16:20] A v, a rave, the screech CRTC, age five seven U.S. for sixty three. A 1993 case. Justice Brennan wrote this homicides committed without considerable provocation or under circumstances demonstrating an abandoned and malignant heart, a term of art that refers to an intentional homicide committed with extreme recklessness. And then I just use ellipses there because it goes on to another matter. But the examples given would be, say, somebody shooting a gun into a crowd of people. You aren't intending to kill any specific person, but you certainly know by that reckless act, somebody will die or driving a car into a crowd at a protest rally. Somebody is going to die. This could be an abandoned and malignant heart. So that all aside, now the facts of our case going back to the standard of 79 one A where directed verdicts premised upon no conflict and evidence and all reasonable deductions and inferences therefrom from 091700 In this case, the state's case in chief, which we've just now heard for the last week and a half, the expressed malice does not seem to be there. [09:17:15] Speaking about Travis McMichael in particular, he's not saying anything or doing anything that could be provable by external circumstances to be expressed malice. And as we've all seen in the video, the shooting doesn't occur until he and the Marberry are locked up in mortal combat, hand-to-hand, face to face and in contact with one another with a gunshot wound that's fatal. That's close contact or near close contact, one to three inches away. Now, none of that is in dispute. There's no conflict in the evidence there. Obviously, the issue that we expect will go to the jury is whether that was an act of self-defense or whether it's some felony murder. And there are counts in here that that address that there is a pair of counts that talk about using a shotgun is an aggravated assault, which results in the death, and that's felony murder. Those are two separate counts in this indictment. It's always interesting to that malice murder added in the same case with felony murd. [09:19:19][87.1] [09:19:19] Er, while not legally inconsistent. And, you know, of course, Georgia has done away with the concept of legally inconsistent verdicts is is somewhat logically inconsistent when you ask a jury to consider finding a defendant guilty of malice murder based on proof you think you have if you're the state that he specifically intended by his act to cause the death of a person who died. [09:19:50][31.3] [09:19:51] And at the same time argue to them, but hey, also consider that he used a shotgun in an aggravated assault without malice, as the felony murder statute says. And the unintended consequence of that aggravated assault was the death of another person. Therefore, it's bootstrapped up into felony murder. So. [09:20:16][25.0] [09:20:18] That is the. [09:20:18][0.6] [09:20:18] Argument against [09:20:18][0.0] [284.5] [09:20:20] count one under 79 when a as a count that should not be presented to the jury because there is no conflict in the evidence. All of the reasonable deductions and inferences from the evidence do not support a finding by a rational trier of fact that expressed or implied malice have been exhibited here in the act of shooting a Madama. Now, you and I can go on to each of the other challenges. In turn, our stop. Let's go. [09:20:54][34.4] [09:20:56] The second challenge is to the combination of counts five and nine. And I can get my indictment back up. [09:21:11][15.1] [09:21:13] Count five charges, felony murder premised upon count nine. And of course, we know that felony murder. And I'll get the definition of that is in sixteen five one. See, a person commits the offense of murder when in the commission of a felony, he or she causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice. So we can forget all of what I just said about malice because it doesn't apply here. The state would have to prove the underlying felony and then show a causal connection, proximate cause between that underlying felony and the unintended death. Without malice, And in this case, Count nine is the criminal attempt to commit a felony, namely false imprisonment on see if it says it in here. Burford Drive Count nine. Then, as we know, is the allegation that on Burford Drive the beginning of the encounter with a Montabaur that Travis and Greg McMichael, along with Roddy Brian. But I'll leave his lawyer to argue his case here, but that Travis and Greg McMichael using their Ford F 150, attempted to commit the crime of false imprisonment. And then they combine that with count five to say that's felony murder premised upon that attempted felony on Burford Drive. Will the causal link between the attempt to falsely imprison someone. [09:23:25][131.3] [09:23:26] Three or four minutes before shooting them with a shotgun is just too tenuous to support under the proximate cause analysis, a felony murder charge in count five? I'm not saying that Count nine can't stand and be presented to the jury, but when you combine it with count five as the underlying felony for felony murder, what we're facing then is a complete lack of a causal link. I mean, you can. [09:24:01][35.1] [09:24:04] Add several lengths to get to Holmes Road where the shooting occurs, but there is nothing about the attempt to force in prison a Marda Brian Burford drive with a pickup truck, particularly Travis Travis McMichaels, Ford F 150 and his ultimate death on Holmes Road. And if you try to do it by party to the crime 16 to 20 and connect Travis and Greg McMichael to William Ronnie, Brian, as that count does, because it also names him in count nine names, his truck, his Chevy Silverado and count nine and then connects them both back to count five for felony murder. But sixteen five, I'm sorry, 16 to 20 party to the crime statute. And I'll read. It's not long. Every person concerned in the commission of a crime is a party there too, and may be charged with and convicted of commission of the crime. Be a person is concerned in the commission of the crime only if he one directly commits the crime. And here where we're talking about directly commits the crime of criminal attempt to falsely imprison a Marda [09:24:04][0.0] [215.9] [09:26:14] Brian Burford drive and then finally intentionally advisees encourages Hyers counsels or procures another to commit the crime. So is the evidence was produced here in this case. [09:26:27][12.4] [09:26:29] Raddy Brian saw the white truck and saw Marberry made some driveway assumptions, according to Miss Donna Caskey, and then went and got in his truck to do what it what he did. But as we heard, he hollered something that the McMichaels did not hear. The evidence from the state was uncontroverted, that whatever he said, that there was no indication, no evidence whatsoever that the McMichaels heard it. There was no phone communication of any kind between either McMichaels phones or Raddy. Brian's phones ensure there was no coordinated and there was no participation, no planning, no intentionally aiding and abetting or intentionally advising, encouraging and so forth between the two McMichaels and Roddie Brian, on Barford Drive or Count nine concerns my argument here. So. [09:27:37][68.0] [09:27:38] The criminal felony. [09:27:52][14.2] [09:27:53] Murder, because of the tenuous causal link, approx causal chain, that's just not going to reach. And secondly, if it's a party to the crime theory, there's no evidence at all that there was. [09:28:07][14.2] [09:28:08] Any participation intentional. And that's a key word in the party statute between them and Ronnie. Brian Burford Drive. So that's my directed verdict argument to count five. And I make it in connection with count nine. And yet I am conceding that Count nine could survive directed verdict and be presented to a jury. There is a conflict in the evidence there about what the McMichaels were doing on on Barford. Obviously we're saying that excuse me, that they attempting to make a. [09:28:49][41.3] [09:28:50] Citizen's arrest. The state says they're attempting to do a false imprisonment. That's a legitimate jury, but connecting it to count five felony murder, that that should be directed in favor of the defendants as an acquittal. All right. My third attack here under the motion for directed verdict of acquittal will be the combination of counts three and seven. Again, count three is a felony murder count and refers to the allegation, count seven. And when you go to count seven, the argument there is that the defendant committed an aggravated assault with a Ford F 150 and a Chevy Silverado, which they allege are objects, devices and instruments which, when used offensively against a person, are likely to result in serious bodily injury contrary to our laws. But then they connect it to murder in count three. Again, however, the trucks were used in this case by the McMichaels. The trucks were used, yes, to attempt to detain, to block in, to trap Ahmaud Arbery. But again, the argument here will be for the purposes of citizen's arrest, not for the purpose of falsely imprisoning, imprisoning him or assaulting him with a truck. But. [09:29:55][105.3] [09:30:05 More than that, that would be a legitimate jury issue in count seven. But in count three, neither truck was the causal link in the death of a Harbury. It was the means by which to get to the place where the death ultimately occurred. Of course, it was the conveyance in which the defendants road, but the truck itself did nothing to cause serious bodily injury or death. At least the Ford F 150. And this is not alleging in count seven that Ahmaud Arbery received some injury when he encountered Rodney Bryan's truck, Burford Drive. That's not alleged in this indictment anywhere, even though there's some evidence of contact between him and that truck on Burford Drive this is actually not saying anything about that, but connecting it back to count three felony murder. So it's the same problem as we just had in counts five and nine. It's a failure of a causal link, no proximate cause to show that the truck is connected to the murder [09:31:11][0.0] [255.3] [09:31:53] in a causative way. And the same with party to the crime. The other thing is count these this combination of counts, does it? It doesn't say whether this aggravated assault with the track is occurring on Burford Road or Homes Drive. We're left to gas, which it is. It simply does not specify. And that's a demurrer type issue. And that may have been addressed earlier, but here for directed verdict, if if the allegation is that the felony murder occurred on homes by use of the truck on homes, will, the undisputed evidence in the case is while the truck got driven, two homes drive. When we see the video, it's undisputed that the truck is parked. The driver is out of it. The truck is not moving, and it bears no connection at all except as a a device around which the. [09:32:20][65.9] [09:32:25] Defendant stood. Want one pregnant, Michael, in the back of the truck, Travis out of the truck and a marberry going around the truck. So the truck is not a a causal element in the death of a Montabaur and therefore, count three should be directed as a verdict of acquittal for the defendant. Count four. [09:32:56][36.8] [09:33:38] And eight are connected for felony murder. Referring to the allegations in county count eight is the false imprisonment allegation, this time on homes Drive and Homes Drive, of course, is the final place where the events transpired and the tragedy occurred. But this Count eight alleges that on Holmes Drive, using the two pickup trucks, the three defendants in concert with one another as parties to the crime falsely imprisoned Amanda robbery. And then the shooting occurs and they make the causal link back to count four for the felony murder charge. But again, the evidence in the case was that, you know, there was no place on Holmes Drive where the truck was used to block in a modern robbery where the truck is finally parked. As Agent Dialed testified yesterday, I believe under cross-examination with Kevin Gough, he conceded that there were escape routes. There were places Ahmaud Arbery could have chosen to run through yards across a yard and on to satellite drive if he had chosen to do so. How one can be falsely imprisoned when the case agent is testifying under oath that he could run kept on running. I the truck itself did not impede his decision to [09:33:38][0.0] [102.8] [09:35:25] turn right and run across this yard on the satellite drive and continue down. Still drive until he left the neighborhood or until he calendar encountered the police, which we also have heard with undisputed evidence, was on Sadil satellite drive when the shooting occurred. So he would have run into a police car at the very least, and then possibly Matt al Binsey. If that police car was not where the undisputed evidence as it was. So again, count for felony murder should fail because it's based on count eight, which count eight, it's fair enough to send to the jury. It's a disputed allegation. But count four can't support be supported by it. Finally, count two and six are connected and our motion applies to them in this way. Count two is felony murder. This time premised upon count six. And count six is the allegation of aggravated assault with the use of a shotgun, a firearm, a deadly weapon to hit a 12 gauge shotgun. This one's a little stickier in this regard because the evidence has come out that Travis McMichael pointed his shotgun at a modern robbery on two separate occasions. There's been evidence presented by the state that as a Montabaur, he is running towards the back of the pickup truck. On the driver's side of the truck, Travis Michael raises his shotgun and then he lowers it and moves to the left, right front corner of the truck as a moderate, takes a couple of weaving maneuvers and then comes around the right side of the truck and then the gun is raised again and this time discharged. And that those shots are what were fatal to Marberry. The count does not specify here in count six which of those two gun raising's is the aggravated assault. Certainly the first one where no discharge occurred. Could not therefore have been the cause of death and it could not support count to felony murder since there was no discharge of a deadly shot from the shotgun. And because the count doesn't specify applying a rule of lenity, this should be read as as applying to that because that by itself could be charged as an aggravated assault. Had the case stopped right there. Adaminaby stopped in its tracks and the state had chosen to say, well, this is no citizen's arrest. This is just a garden variety aggravators saw. You're pointing a shotgun at somebody for no good reason. He didn't discharge you, didn't kill him, but it still could be charged as an aggravated assault. Well, it certainly couldn't be ever under those circumstances, the underlying felony for felony murder. If the guy was still alive, if no shot had been fired. So that aggravated assault, though, is still in play. It's been put in evidence. It's not charged in the indictment or is it? We can't tell from count six because count six only refers to one act of aggravated start with a shotgun. And I guess the jury will be left to presume that it's the second pointing that results in the shooting, which results in the death, which results in the felony murder of count two. Those are my argument, Your Honor, for directed verdict on counts one. [09:38:55][251.2] [09:38:56] , Two, three, four, and five. Thank you, Judge. Let's go ahead and address that motion from the state and then we'll get Mr. Bryant's motion. Thank you, Judge. Yes,. [09:39:24][30.1] [09:39:25] Oceguera. Seventy nine one is the statute that governs directed verdicts. And there's also case law out there that, of course, the court is to view all the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable [09:39:40][0.0] [281.3] [09:39:23] to a guilty verdict and ask whether any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 0943948 PROSECUTOR>> So that includes judge, not just direct evidence, but circumstantial evidence as well. In this particular case, all the defendants have been charged in this as a party to the crime. And of course, we've got directly committing the crime and then helping, which is intentionally aiding or abetting in the crime. And then we've got intentionally encouraging someone to commit the crimes. [09:40:13] So we've got all of that charged together, looking, of course, at count one, malice murder. You may also find malice when there does not appear to be significant provocation. And all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. No specific length of time is required for malice to arise in the defendant's mind. Malice may be formed in an instant and instantly a fatal wound may be inflicted. That, of course, is the current pattern. Jury charged two point one zero point one zero on malice murder. In this particular case, there isn't significant provocation. Mr. Arbie ran away from these men for five minutes, tried to get away and was being forced down the street by Mr. Bryant in his dark pickup truck. Accelerating towards him. He tries to go around Travis Michael Travis MacMichael steps out into the street, blocking the street, pointing a shotgun at Mr. Aubrey. And Mr. Aubrey tries to go around the passenger side of the vehicle. Travis McMichael traps him and tracks him with that shotgun up to the front of the vehicle and basically encounters him right there. He's so close that Mr. Aubrey, he passes this. He is so close that when he does this, he's instantly shot, instantly shot. The video itself speaks for itself. There is that much time and that shotgun blast goes off. And Mr. Bush shot point blank. The trajectory was, as you saw from the medical examiner right here, right here, straight through. That's where the shotgun pellets are. That's where that injury is. So at this point in time, we have the burden to prove it's no significant provocation except Mr Abbott coming around the front. [09:42:47][144.7] [09:42:49] Medical examiner talked about fight or flight. And I understand the defense is going to argue, well, it's the victim's fault. He should have kept running. It's the victim's fault. He shouldn't have been exhausted. It's the victim's fault. He shouldn't have gone to defend himself. It's the victim's fault. He had all kinds of options and alternatives in the face of their five in an attack on him. And therefore, it's his fault. But that's not what the law is. The law is about the defendant's doing a five minute attack that eventually resulted in malice murder. How do you see the malice here? Abandoned and malignant heart. You take a shotgun, you pointed at somebody, you track them around as they try and run away from you. And when they turn on you, you immediately fire and shoot. The state asks you not to deny the directed verdict for malice murder. For Travis McMichael and also for Greg McMichael, he is charged as a party to the crime. Greg McMichael had his 357 Magnum on him. He is also yelling at Mr. Arbrey. We know that he previously had threatened Mr. Arbery with stop or I'm going to shoot your effing head off. So he'd already told this man, I'm going to execute you if you don't stop. So at that point in time, we've got Mr. Brian coming forward, coming forward. He sees the shotgun. He sees it pointed not only at Mr. Arbi, but it's actually pointed at himself because he's right behind Mr. Arbrey and he doesn't do anything. He doesn't stop. He doesn't slam on the brakes. He doesn't yell, oh, my God, he doesn't swerve immediately out of the way to get off the road. To a ditch to avoid the shock. And he keeps going. He keeps accelerating. He keeps driving, Mr. Arbery, toward the man with the shotgun, thus aiding and abetting intentionally aubury having to run towards a man with a shotgun. Mr. Arbery could not turn around. Mr. Arbery could not run way back because Mr. Brian is accelerating toward him with his black pickup truck. Therefore, he is also a party to the crime of malice murder because it shows an abandoned and malignant heart on Travis McMichaels part and aiding and abetting in that by both the defendant, Greg McMichael, and Mr. Williams. Roddie Bryant, Brian,. [09:44:30][140.3] [09:44:32] With regard to felony murder specifically, as the court is aware, felony murder must have directly caused [09:45:12][0.0] [285.0] [09:45:22] a death or played a substantial and necessary part in causing the death. This, of course, is from our new jury charges, two point one zero point two zero on felony murder. And in this case, all four of the underlying felonies played a substantial and necessary part in causing the death, because without those four felonies, Mr. Aubrey wouldn't be dead. 094509 PROSECUTOR>> So we've got our old fashioned, â?obut forâ?? and that's what we're talking about here, â?oplayed a substantial and necessary part in causing the death, but for these actions, Mr. Arbery would still be alive.â?? [09:45:21] So when we look at specific, they'll take them in the order. Mr. Hogue went, we're talking about count five felony murder and count nine, which is criminal attempt to commit false imprisonment. On Burford, the indictment reads, in violation of the personal liberty of a moderate, did unlawfully chase a moderate through the public roadways of the Shaw's neighborhood in pickup trucks did attempt to confine and detain armed Aubrey without legal authority. On Burford using a Ford F 150 and a Chevy Silverado. So they attempted to confine him, but he managed to get away. They basically both use the pickup trucks. So we've got Mr. Brian Principle actively attempting to detain Mr. Aubrey. We've got Travis McMichael in his pickup truck, circumstantial evidence that he is actively attempting to detain Mr. Aubrey because why Mr. Aubrey turns around from a white pickup truck and runs back the other way. And this is after Greg McMichael is in the truck yelling, cut him off, cut him off, cut him off. So at this point, we've got all three men acting in concert to attempt to confine him there. Well, how do they do that? They go ahead and do that by aggravated assault with their pickup trucks, by placing him in reasonable apprehension of receiving serious bodily injury. Well, what does that mean? It means their actions. What were they doing? They're using these pickup trucks with the aggravated assault to confine and detain him. So the state has proven that they use these pickup trucks in a manner that would reasonably put someone in fear and apprehension of receiving bodily injury. What does that mean? They scared him. They scared him with the aggravated assaults. And that was part of the Fallston imprisonment. We're going to scare you into stopping by using these pickup trucks to cut you off and run you into a ditch. They were doing it in concert with each other. I want to be real clear. 094712 PROSECUTOR>> The defense is attempting to conflate conspiracy, which is we pre planned this thing or conspiracy, which is wink and a nod. No, we're talking party to a crime. OK, conspiracy is a completely different charge. We are going to ask for it. [09:47:33] But in this case, this is a party to a crime which is intentionally doing these things to aid and abet Mr. Brines in his driveway. He intentionally gets in his pickup truck to aid and abet the McMichaels who he sees are actively trying to detain Mr. Arbrey in violation of his personal liberty, falsely imprison him. He's actually in the top of his driveway looking down the white pickup truck. He can see it and strawberries running back toward him. They can see that Mr. Bryant is now pulled out. They make a decision based on this to go around homes, but for their decisions on Barford, but for their attempt to falsely imprison Mr. Arbrey, Mr. Arbrey would not be dead. The false imprisonment on Barford substantially contributed to his death because it's what made him stop running it. They didn't allow him to run up Burford and onto Sellwood, which would have then led right out of the neighborhood, because if he'd gone up, Barford gone over would he'd eventually gotten to satellite drive and could have gotten away and he wouldn't be dead. So this substantially contributed. But for these actions on Barford, none of the rest of it would have happened. 094851 So what did happen? Well, he then has to run back. Mr. Bryan, of course, once again, cuts him off. He then immediately turns up Holmes to get away from Mr. Bryan and his pickup truck, which is now cut him off from his route, going out Satella Drive. But for those -- aggravated assaults, which were used to falsely imprison him there on Burford, he would not have been going up Holmes, which then led him to encounter the white pickup coming down Holmes. We have him trapped like a rat. He ends up with no place to go and he ends up exhausted, fight or flight, turns around the corner and is shot. 094926 So all of this led up immediately to the death, and therefore, it's a question for the jury. And in this case, the standard, as the court knows, is â?owe view all of the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the verdicts, and ask whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.â?? That's for the jury to decide. They're going to go ahead and look at this. And â?obut forâ?? those actions on Burford, would he have ever been trapped like a rat between two pickup trucks on Holmes Drive? No, we wouldn't have been. So it materially and substantially contributed to his death by getting us to that point. 095006 And this is all one continuous event. This is five minutes of this going on. So it's not these separate little vignettes. This is continuous. They're going around. Mr. Bryan's driving him this way. They're going this way to go ahead and capture him and trap him on Holmes. That was their intention, all because they wanted to talk to him. So we've got that. We ask that you deny the motion for directed verdict on counts five and counts nine. 095033 Then we've got I believe Mr. Hogue then did three and seven, which is our aggravated assault with the pickup trucks. Count seven â?odid make an assault upon the person of Ahmaud Arbery with a Ford F 150 pickup truck and a Chevy Silverado pickup truck. Objects, devices and instruments, when used offensively against a person are likely to result in serious bodily injury. 0951005 2.20.21, aggravated assault with a deadly or offensive weapon assaults another person with an offensive weapon to prove assault. The state does not have to prove that the other person was actually injured. However, the state must prove that the defendant committed an act that placed the person in reasonable apprehension or fear of immediately receiving a violent injury. [09:51:28] And then, of course, an offensive weapon is any object that is likely or actually does cause death or serious bodily injury. If used against someone, it's not in dispute at a 5000 pound lethal weapon like a pickup truck can cause serious bodily injury to someone. The question is, were there acts what they did such that they would put a reasonable person in reasonable apprehension? In other words, did what they do cause fear? Yes. Now, we don't have Mr. Aubrey to go ahead and take the stand to go. Yes, I was afraid he's dead, but the jury's allowed to go ahead and look at this and go, OK, let's look at their acts. Did they commit an act that placed Mr. Aubury in reasonable apprehension or fear of immediately receiving a violent injury? Yes, both direct and circumstantial. They did with aggravated assault with these pickup trucks. So once again, now felony murder, we're back to ah, but for situation. So but for them attempting to strike him, cut him off, run him into a ditch, impede him, run up next to him. I mean, strawberries just running down the road and they pull up with a pickup truck right next to him and start yelling at him, stop, stop. We want to talk to you. So at that point, just that alone, is that an action that would put somebody in fear straight? Total strangers have pulled up next to you. You're you don't have a car. You're running. That's a question for the jury. Now, the aggravated assault with the pickup trucks state feels not a problem, proving that beyond a reasonable doubt did play a substantial necessary part in causing his death. Yes, now is Mr. Hogue pointed out at the time of his death, the white pickup truck, which had already been used offensively against him, trying to falsely imprison him on Barford and then once again coming down homes drive goes ahead and passes. Mr. Carbury, we know this, OK? Because what do we have? We've got Mr. Brian and the video. Mr. Aubrey suddenly turns around. Now, whether you can see the white pickup truck or not, he suddenly turns around and runs back down. Mr. Brian goes up, Mr. Brian turns around. He comes back up and the video is there. And what do we have? That truck is parked at the end of the road. Based on their statements, Agent Dialis testified they went up Sellwood and came down homes that means they passed Mr. Aubrey once again with that white pickup truck. He is pinned between the two of them, the black pickup truck and the white pickup truck. The white pickup truck passes him when he turns around and then parks in front of him. That is the aggravated assault. But for them, using those pickup trucks in that manner, he would not be dead because he's trying to run up homes and the white pickup trucks come in. He runs back down. Now, Mr. Bryan's at the top of homes and the white pickup trucks at the bottom of homes. He is pinned. Greg McMichael said he was trapped like a rat and he knew it. That was what Greg MacMichael said. So when he's trapped like a rat between these two pickup trucks, did that substantially, materially? Well, playtest did that play a substantial and necessary part in causing the death? It was absolutely necessary because they had in between these two pickup trucks, they had caused him fear actions put in reasonable apprehension of receiving serious bodily injury with the pickup trucks. And at this point in time, as a party to the crime, they've stopped their pickup truck. But Mr. Brian hasn't stopped his pickup truck. Not at all. He is coming up behind Mr. Arbery. He is revving that engine. You can hear it on the video. And as a party to the crime, they can see [09:50:17][0.0] [09:55:56] that pickup truck coming. Seeing that pickup truck coming didn't stop Travis McMichael from pulling up that shotgun and pointing at Mr. Aubrey. And then he tracks them around and then shoots Mr. Aubrey. The fact that Mr. Brian and the McMichaels has a party to the crime of the use of that pickup truck at that moment, it becomes felony murder for the aggravated assault with the pickup truck. The state will argue, of course, that the use of the pickup truck the entire time. But for that, he would have been where he was. But for all the actions that the McMichaels took in their white pickup truck, Mr. Aubrey would not have been where he was and would not have been trying to escape this particular attack and assault. So we ask that you deny directed verdict on counts three and count seven. Then we have, of course, count four and eight. This was the fourth one that Mr. Polk mentioned. Some order, Judge for the end, I'm sorry, I count eight of the indictment in violation. The personal liberty of Marbury did unlawfully confine and detain a Marbury without legal authority to it said accused did chase tomorrow robbery with Ford F one fifty pickup truck and a Chevy Silverado pickup truck through the public roadways of the city of Shaw's neighborhood and did confine and detain Ammara Brown homes Drive using said pickup trucks, grabbing Michael's statement. He was trapped like a rat. He was trapped between the two pickup trucks. State has gone ahead and proven count eight. So how did that materially, substantially, unnecessarily cause the death of Marbury? Because he's trapped between these two pickup trucks. He's right there in Homs. He's running toward a man pointing a shotgun at him. And that man is relentless. He doesn't give up. He doesn't stay on the side of his pickup truck. So here we've got the ultimate confinement. And Judge, the ultimate confinement is death. Here he is ultimately falsely imprisoned because he was shot right there. Ultimate false imprisonment. But what they actually did is when they put Mr. Aubury in reasonable apprehension, fear of receiving bodily injury with the pickup trucks, they had him trapped like a rat. Once again, fight or flight. All he did was flee from these people. All he did was try and get away. But according to Michael, he was trapped gravely. Michael is standing in the back of that pickup truck yelling at him, Stop, God damn it, stop. Previously told him he was going to kill him. It's going to blow his head. So at this point in time, if he had not been falsely imprisoned and trapped between these pickup trucks, he would not have been shot. Killing is the ultimate confinement and I get that the defense is saying, well, he had options and he should have run this way. He could have run that way. Well, they're parked right in front of that driveway. They didn't actually go up to the stop sign at the end. They parked in that driveway. He was going around this side. There's a driveway to a house right there. He comes around the very front of it. They want to make it seem as if he's the one at fault for not continuing to run. He's the one at fault because they made him afraid. He's the one at fault because he didn't want to. I don't know. It would be speculation, but nobody wants to get shot back with a shotgun. He's already been told they're going to kill him if he doesn't stop. So at this point in time, falsely imprisoning him there and keeping and confining him there substantially and necessarily caused his death, blaming him for not continue to run on or him utilizing his options to defend himself. Is that really I put this what Mr. Aubrey chose to do in his intent is not relevant. The acts of the defendant are what are that's what's relevant here. And trapping him like a rat between two pickup trucks, one of which he was actively running away from as it pursued him, forcing him towards the white pickup truck. And Travis Michael and his shotgun. That was actual false imprisonment because he never, ever got away from them on Holmes Drive, he was killed. So it substantially contributed [09:55:56][0.0] [10:00:32] to his death when we look at counts. So we ask you to deny the directed verdict as to four and eight, when we look at counts two and six once again to being felony murder based on the aggravated assault with a shotgun, count six is to make assault upon the person of armed robbery with a firearm, a deadly weapon to hit a 12 gauge shotgun to prove assault. The state does not have to prove that the other person was actually injured. However, the state must prove that the defendant attempted to cause a violent injury to the person. All right. So, Judge, I hear what Mr. Hogue saying, that pointing the shotgun, Adam, where it's up against here is an aggravated assault. And it is. And if he had never fired at him, if he'd just done that, he'd be guilty of aggravated assault. However, as you know, our Supreme Court has recently told the state state you can't go charging different moments in time in a continuous action. They've told us that they said you can't do it. It's all one aggravated assault. There has to be an intervening factor, meaning I think the I think the one case that we're talking about is it was aggravated assault on a woman boyfriend girlfriend. And he went ahead and slashed her face. So we've got aggravated battery. Then there was an intervening time period where she got away from him. Then he went up. I think he stabbed her in the neck. Those were two separate things solely because of the intervening time factor. But the courts have said meaning our Supreme Court has held, it's all one thing. But in this particular case, the state's not contending that it's two separate aggravated assaults. It's aggravated assault when he pulled the trigger and shot him. So I just want everybody to be really, really clear. The state is arguing the state must prove that the defendant attempted to cause a violent injury to the person and he attempted to cause a violent injury to the person when he shot him point blank in the torso with that shotgun. They are all parties to the crime of this because Michael's already threatened to shoot him with a, you know, stop or blow your head off. Mr. Brian sees that shotgun, sees it come out, sees exactly what's going on. We might not see it on the camera, but he's driving. The truck is driving right driving. Mr. Aubrey right towards that man with the shotgun, helping him to go ahead and commit this crime. So at this point in time, we've got the aggravated assault here. Travis with Michael actually pulled the trigger. Gregory Michael helped and encouraged Travis MacMichael. Travis MacMichael grabbed his shotgun in his driveway, decision at his house, chose to bring that shotgun along. Greg Michael knew it. There's absolutely no evidence that Gregory Michael told him not to bring it along. Don't bring that shotgun. Nothing like that. Everybody who got into the truck with his son knowing he had that shotgun. It's a circumstantial evidence. Greg. Michael's in the truck with Travis. Look, Michael, the entire time that he has the shotgun, both in the pickup truck and then when Greg Michael gets in the back of the pickup truck, Gregory Michael's yelling at stop, stop driving. Michael's giving Travis Michael directions. Cut him off, cut him off, come off in a moment that Travis McMichaels outside drove back. You can see he's got the shotgun. Stop, God damn it, stop is what he's saying to Mr. Aubry. That is helping, intentionally aiding and abetting, knowing full well that the shotgun is being pointed at Mr. Aubrey. And it's kind of encouraging. It's tacitly basically authorizing this and encouraging him because it's not telling his son to stop doing that. But that's, you know, here, put the shotgun down. You don't hear what the heck are you doing? Don't do that. You hear. Stop. Goddamn it, Travis. If Michael is driving and the the one thing that's kind of important here, Judge, is that Mr. Hogue, when it was we came to trap to Gregory Michael's statement, actually asked Parker, Marci a question. And it was subjected to by Greg McMichaels counsel. But I know the court noticed it. I noticed it. It was my attention and I know it was my son's to arrest him or at least to get him identified. There was no objection from Travis McMichaels. So at this point, it's before the court on objected to by Travis McMichaels counsel is what their intentions were here. And of course, they're going to argue, well, it was to arrest him or at least get him identified. So if this is Travis McMichaels intention, it was Greg McMichaels intention and that's what they were doing and they were doing at the point of a shotgun. With regard to Mr. Brian, Mr. Brian never called nine one one. Mr. Brian continues forward recording despite the shotgun coming out, Mr. Brian says absolutely nothing on the recording. He doesn't go, oh, my God, there's a shotgun. Oh, my God, what's he doing? He doesn't, like I said, swerve out of the way and into a ditch. He doesn't put it in reverse and back up. So he's out of the line of fire. He pulls forward and accelerates despite the shotgun coming out, doesn't slam on the brakes, does not protest, does not yell, doesn't honk, doesn't do anything. But keep driving forward, driving a marberry forward. We get to this location by Mr. Brian pursuing Mr. Aubrey because as we saw in the video, Mr. Aubrey had actually run away from the white truck. Again, Mr. Aubrey runs. We see that he's going down homes towards the tilla. Mr. Brian goes up and he turns around. At this point, we actually see Mr. Aubrey back at the blue mailbox, having turned around, being forced to run back toward the white pickup truck. Therefore, he helped by chasing Mr. Arbitraged, the white F 150 pickup truck despite Aubrey's obvious attempts to get away from the white pickup truck. But he encounters Mr. Brian in the Silverado, so he has to run back toward the white pickup truck once again. A party to the crime in making this happen. And we all know that even if your fingers non trigger, you can still be held responsible. I mean, we all know the getaway driver doesn't go into the convenience store, is just as guilty as the guy who goes in to the convenience store and pulls the trigger because he's there to help make it happen. Helped make it happen. And here we have Travis with Michael actually pulling the trigger, Greg McMichael helping to make it happen, and William Brian helping to make this happen. Because without their help and assistance, without there Michael, especially his encouragement, Travis McMichael would not necessarily have been able to complete this had not Mr. Brian driven Mr. Aubrey toward the parked white pickup truck. If Mr. Brian had actually kept going and up around Sellwood or had left, Mr. Aubrey would have been able to keep running up homes and maybe get to Sellwood and Stila. Thus, Mr. Brian, confining him there, contributed substantially and materially, materially to the felony murder and the aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. So we ask that you go ahead and also deny the directed verdict. Four counts, two and six of the indictment. As to Greg McMichael and Travis MacMichael, Anderson, thank you. Any final word. [10:08:01][449.7] [10:08:02] From the MacMichael defendants on their motion? Yes. Just very briefly, are can. [10:08:10][8.8] [10:08:11] You hear me from here citing the language in State B Jackson 287, Georgia six forty six, 2010 Georgia Supreme Court case. Justice Nahmias. We have also said the proximate cause is the standard for homicide cases in general. And then he cites cases and is quoting from Wilson, the state. We set out the following test for determining causation in homicide cases where one inflicts an unlawful injury. Such injury is to be counted as the efficient proximate cause of death. Whenever it shall be made to appear. Either that there are three subparts. One, the injury itself constituted the sole proximate cause of [10:08:11][0.0] [458.5] [10:09:08] death or to the injury directly and materially contributed to the happenings of a subsequent accruing immediate cause of the death. Or three. The injury materially accelerated the death, although approximately occasioned by preexist causes that one doesn't apply. So the proximate cause issue in counts two, three, four and five is at the heart of our motion. And I think the state failed to make that connection between the underlying felonies that are named in count six, seven, eight and nine and the accruing death based on this test from this case. And of course, that's a completely different problem than the malice murder and I will say anything more about that. So that's our response to the state's our reply to the state's response. All right. I'm sorry to distinguish that case. Having just heard it, not knowing in advance that case was a code word, meaning a whole bunch of people running a crime and victim fought back and it ended up with one of the co-defendants murdered. So they're talking about proximate cause for the armed robbers. What would be responsible for the death of his car driver? That's what that case is about, not this sort of situation. I will just add the next paragraph is consistent with this general rule, which I just read. We have held in many cases and for many decades that the proximate causation is the standard for murder cases prosecuted under the murders, that you can't find another CGA. Sixteen five. One particular facts of this case or in material, it's the rule that I'm talking about. Mr. Goff, on behalf of Mr. Criminy Director Marie. Good morning, Your Honor. First thing I'll do is I'll formally adopt the. [10:11:38][150.1] [10:11:41] Very cogent arguments made by cocounsel in this case. Uh, and without tracking through those, you know, but for the. [10:11:50][8.5] [10:11:51] Best break, Mo giving birth to Roddy Brian, God rest his soul many years ago. But for that, Roddy Brian wouldn't have been out there that day in his pickup truck when we use this. But for causation that that there's a lot of baggage that comes along with that. And with all due respect to Mr. Kosti, it. [10:12:11][20.2] [10:12:11] Feels like they are stretching that term beyond recognition. The legal. [10:12:14][3.1] [10:12:15] Standard is proximate cause. And we'll come back to that in a moment. But when you look at it as proximate cause and not simply reducing it to two words, but for I think the court understands why the defendants are here making motions with respect to count one, malice murder. You know, I'm really at a loss here to understand, but it was the state that decided to present what we sometimes call a kitchen sink indictment to the grand jury, where every defendant is charged in every possible way with every possible crime. In this case, that was a decision the state made. And I certainly appreciate the challenge to the court in trying to assess these issues. As. [10:12:59][44.1] [10:12:59] I look at the malice murder charge, there is no contention that Roddy Brian shot anybody. There's no contention that Ray. [10:13:05][5.9] [10:13:05] Brian tried to shoot anybody. There's no contention here that Mr. Brian is acting as a principal. This is if I misunderstood based on Kasky, I'm sure she'll correct the entire theory. Here is aiding and abetting third section of that statute. And where is it that Mr. Brian is intentionally aiding and abetting the shooting because he's not? [10:13:30][25.2] [10:13:31] Now, maybe some decision came out of the Supreme Court last week or last month. I'm unaware of. But when I went back through Kurt's last night or used to be called Kurts offenses in defense, it's in Georgia section on parties to the crime. I know the court knows the treaties that I'm talking about. You know, they list like thirty different ways that you can be a party to a crime. You can be aiding and abetting in a murder case. [10:13:57][25.8] [10:13:58] But none of those are like the case before this. [10:14:01][2.8] [10:14:02] Court, which is why, although Mr. Dunn Acasti has cited this court well over. [10:14:08][5.9] [10:14:08] One hundred cases, oral argument, probably thousands of cases, and all the pleadings that have been filed motions in response is going back and forth. Mr. Tokarski cannot say to. [10:14:18][9.8] [10:14:19] A single Georgia case that is remotely comparable to the one that we have before the court. This isn't the case where Mr. Brown driving down the street in his pickup truck and Travis McMichael is standing in the back of it, shooting at Mr. Arbery. This isn't that case. [10:14:35][16.0] [10:14:37] There is. [10:14:37][0.3] [10:14:38] No case. And she can cite no case remotely close to this one. The closest cases that I've been able to find and of course, the referenced in there in what. [10:14:48][10.8] [10:14:49] I call the distraction, aiding and abetting cases in which one person intentionally distracts another person while someone else behind them either takes a knife and stabs them with. [10:15:02][13.0] [10:15:02] It or shoots them. There are, I call them, distraction. [10:15:06][3.7] [10:15:07] Cases. You're aiding and abetting by distracting. There is no evidence and no suggestion here that Mr. Bryan's conduct has somehow distracted Mr. [10:15:16][9.4] [10:15:16] Arborio. He's well aware of the pickup truck in front of him from the video. He's well aware from the video that they are both armed. So and Mr. Arbery is not shot with his back turned. [10:15:29][12.5] [10:15:30] That might pose a different and a closer question for the court. But in this case, unless Miss Dunn, a Karski. [10:15:36][6.3] [373.4] [10:15:38] Sight, some Georgia case suggesting this, which I still don't understand, theory of aiding and abetting the shooting. [10:15:45][7.1] [10:15:47] Of Mr. Avery, there. [10:15:48][1.7] [10:15:49] Simply is no malice murder case here. And, you know, cocounsel points out some pretty good cases on what. [10:15:55][6.3] [10:15:56] The meds raise required here. Where is any of that for Mr. Bryan? There's no malignant heart in this case. There's nothing from which that could be presumed. And, you know, that takes us back to the whole concept of a citizen arrest. If I understand the state's theory here, the state contends that the McMichaels and I believe they're contending the mission, Mr. Bryan, was. [10:16:19][23.3] [10:16:20] Assisting them or aiding them in attempting to make a citizen's arrest, which in the opinion of the state is not or was not authorized under Georgia law. And that may be true, Your Honor, but the fact that Mr. Bryan aided and abetted a citizen's arrest if he did that doesn't establish malice. [10:16:41][21.3] [10:16:42] In this case. It doesn't establish an intent to aid and abet an intent for a shooting. You know, and. [10:16:49][6.8] [10:16:49] Your Honor, I would urge the court to ponder the larger implications of the legal ruling that the state is requesting here, because in this one case, it might serve the interests of the state. But in the. [10:17:03][14.3] [10:17:03] Larger question, if 10 police. [10:17:06][2.2] [10:17:06] Officers respond to a call, ten police officers pull their cards up around the scene. And. [10:17:12][5.7] [10:17:13] In there, they're maybe they're still moving. [10:17:14][1.7] [10:17:15] Your and inexplicably, a police officer discharges. [10:17:19][4.8] [10:17:20] His weapon and shoots the person that they're after in the. [10:17:24][3.6] [10:17:25] Maybe they had probable cause, maybe they didn't. But are we going to try? Every police officer who's present at the scene of an attempted arrest for malice murder. [10:17:34][9.1] [10:17:34] Because somehow. [10:17:35][0.6] [10:17:36] In aiding and abetting an attempt at an arrest, lawful or lawful, that that translates into aiding and abetting the shooting that follows. That can't be the law. And. [10:17:47][11.0] [10:17:47] We should be creating special rules of law. There are enough of those. We shouldn't be creating any more special rules of law for one case, because we know the reality is that these things have unintended consequences and they take on a life of their own. We don't need to start down this theory that anybody who's attempting to arrest someone, which. [10:18:05][17.8] [10:18:06] After the last legislative session is pretty much limited to police officers, that any time police officers are attempting to arrest somebody, particularly if they're attempting to do so unlawfully, that they're aiding and abetting the arrest, lawful, unlawful is. [10:18:21][14.8] [10:18:21] Aiding and abetting a shooting or other unlawful use of force that follows. [10:18:25][4.0] [10:18:27] There is no malice murder case, as Mr. Bryan. There is no authority for this case, Your Honor, the state wants to talk. [10:18:35][8.0] [10:18:35] About. But for I want to talk about intervening factors. And before I do that, Your Honor, I would maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to keep up this McCaskey here. But the way Mr. Tokarski is presenting this now of malice murder argument to the court is in essence, collapsing malice murder into felony murder. What distinction is left here between malice murder and felony murder? When Mr. Tokarski makes these arguments because it's winding up being the same thing? Well, you know, he intended to shoot. Therefore, he intended to kill or he intended to falsely imprison, must intend to shoot. How do we distinguish at the end of the day with the arguments made by the state between malice. [10:19:19][43.7] [10:19:19] Murder and felony murder? Your Honor, this is a case and this feeds into the severance issue. With all. [10:19:26][6.7] [10:19:27] Due respect, Mr. Tokarski, I would humbly suggest to the court that if Mr. McCaskey continues. [10:19:33][6.4] [10:19:34] To proceed along this line with malice murder and we go into the defense case here, we are going. [10:19:38][4.5] [10:19:38] To have at some point antagonistic. [10:19:42][3.2] [10:19:43] Defenses that cannot be overlooked. The state, as I understand it, has not submitted a charge on manslaughter. My understanding that LERN counsel for the McMichael defendants have not submitted a jury charge on manslaughter. And part of that, I think, well,. [10:19:58][15.4] [10:19:58] There's different strategic reasons why people do things. But my point, Your Honor, is in terms. [10:20:03][4.8] [10:20:03] Of proximate cause, do we not have not one but two intervening factors here, factors that are not reasonably foreseeable to Roddy Brian. [10:20:12][9.3] [10:20:13] May be logically foreseeable and something that's conceptually possible, but not reasonably foreseeable in the sense that the law would imply you have [10:20:13][0.0] [258.1] [10:20:23] in the video, and unless I missed it, that this part of the video that state contains is undisputed uncontradicted. In the video at the last minute, you see Mr. Aubury, instead of turning right towards the exit of satellite because he turns to the left. That's not for me to judge. Question why Mr. Aubrey does the things he does. [10:20:46][23.4] 102005 DEFENSE COUNSEL>> But when he turns left instead of right, regardless of his justification or his reasons(?) for doing so, that is an intervening cause, an intervening circumstance, I submit under Georgia law. And at that point, it's not foreseeable to Mr. Bryan, it's not foreseeable that some, just like on the street with the police officers, suicide by cop, is not reasonably foreseeable, nor is suicide by citizen's arrest. [10:20:35] When Mr. Arbery turns towards Mr. [10:21:20][31.9] [10:21:20] MacMichael, that is an intervening circumstance that breaks any causative chain here with respect to the shooting and death itself. Likewise, and I'm certainly not taking sides in this. It'll be for the jury and the court to determine the guilt or innocence of the McMichael defendants. But at the same time, you have a second. [10:21:39][18.9] [10:21:39] Intervening factor in first intervening factor. Is Mr. Aubury pivoting to the left instead of heading for the exit? The second intervening factor is Travis MacMichael discharging his weapon and I'm not questioning why Mr. Arbor's doing what he's doing. I'm not questioning why Travis McMichaels doing what he's doing. What I'm saying is you have a second intervening factor, which is the choice of Travis make Michael to discharge his weapon. It doesn't really matter for purposes of evaluating count one malice murder. If the court can see that whoever's in the right here, whoever's in the wrong,. [10:22:14][34.6] [10:22:14] Whichever party is using excessive force, maybe both parties are using excessive force. Maybe there's some kind of mutual combat theory out there. [10:22:21][7.2] [10:22:22] But for Mr. Bryan's perspective, in terms of proximate cause, in terms of which reasonably foreseeable to him, none of these things are reasonably foreseeable. And I think the court understands the. [10:22:31][9.1] [10:22:32] Consequences. If the court were to go that any other road and if we're going to persist with this issue, we're going to wind up in a severance posture and maybe premature. We haven't heard whether any of the other defendants have testified yet, but I would submit the easiest way to resolve the severance issue is to grant the motion for directed verdict for Mr. Bryant as to malice murder. [10:22:51][19.2] [10:22:53] Moving on to count to felony murder, which is tied to aggravated assault to a shotgun. Again, the arguments come down very much the same way because that the state's position on malice murder is a sense, essentially, although not in so many words, collapsing and felony murder. [10:23:12][19.2] [10:23:13] Where is. [10:23:13][0.6] [10:23:14] The intent on the part of Mr. Bryant to facilitate an aggravated assault with a shotgun? Again, it's one thing to say if the state contends that's what the evidence shows, that Mr. Bryant is attempting to assist in a citizen's arrest, aiding and abetting a citizen's arrest. [10:23:32][17.9] [10:23:32] But there's nothing reasonably foreseeable about killing someone in a citizen's arrest. Just as on the street, there's nothing reasonably foreseeable police officers when a fellow officer without cause discharges a weapon in these days, maybe even a Taser and kills somebody. Again, there is no proximate cause and there is no mens rea. There is no aiding and abetting the shooting. Now, it's done. Karski wants to make a big deal of the fact that the gun is visible. [10:24:06][33.1] [10:24:08] That Mr. Bryant's truck is still moving, although obviously at a slow rate of speed. And therefore, because he doesn't run in a ditch, he doesn't back. [10:24:18][10.5] [10:24:19] Up that he somehow is now joining in the shooting. But again, the I think I understand the state's position is pretty clear, almost uncontradicted, that this is a purported attempted citizen's arrest, again, in the context of a citizen's arrest is the fact that Mr. Bryant is maneuvering his car, his truck, rather, and positioning his cell phone to follow Mr. Aubury and document what Mr. Aubury is doing. [10:24:46][27.1] [10:24:47] Has that circumstance,. [10:24:49][2.2] [10:24:49] Whether he's traveling at two miles an hour, four miles an hour, six. How does that establish his aiding and abetting the shooting itself? Because Mr. Bryant only has knowledge of the existence of the weapon, as we see on the video at the very last moment and still at that time for Mr. Bryant's perspective, even if he's attempting to aid and abet a citizen's arrest, that's not the same thing as aiding and abetting a murder. I mean, would. [10:25:16][26.6] [10:25:16] It be [10:25:16][0.0] [281.6] [10:25:16] It's the same thing, Your Honor, whether Travis McMichaels shooting him or not or whether he's pulling out a club and beating him on the side of the road with a billy club like a police officer would do again,. [10:25:26][9.7] [10:25:26] How is Mr. Bryant's assisting, if that's what it is, in a citizen's arrest showing that he's attempting to aid and abet the shooting, aiding and abetting lawful, excessive use of force. [10:25:38][11.7] [10:25:39] In the making of an arrest that that's just not there. That's just not Georgia law. And again, you know, the state wants says the jury should consider the fact that they had their guns drawn. [10:25:53][13.4] [10:25:54] OK, well, what is Mr. how is Mr. Brian again to know that they have any intent in drawing a weapon, whether it's in the down position, a position, not a use of force expert, but whatever position. [10:26:08][13.9] [10:26:09] Again. How is that telling Mr. Brian that they intend to use excessive force, that they intend to kill him, that they're not trying? Maybe that's the state's theory, that they weren't really trying to make an unlawful arrest. They were just looking for an excuse to kill him or they were just waiting for the opportunity, notwithstanding the fact that they had lots of opportunities to shoot this gentleman over five minutes. He's clearly in terms of proximate cause. When you look at the video, you. [10:26:35][26.0] [10:26:35] See Mr. Aubury, he's well within range. He's well within shotgun range. He's also well within range of driving Michael's handgun at the time that Mr. Brian is pulling for Mr. Bryan's perspective, he didn't have any reason to think they were trying or intended to hurt these people. They had ample opportunity to do that long before he got there. Long before he pulled up. Again, I'm asking the court to grant a direct a verdict on count two felony murder based on the underlying count. Six, aggravated assault with a shotgun. [10:27:04][28.4] [10:27:05] Count three, felony murder, aggravated assault with a pickup truck. Your Honor, although. [10:27:15][10.1] [10:27:16] The statute defines the grounds for a directed verdict, I believe Miss Dunn Tokarski his acknowledged that Casey I'm sorry, has acknowledged that it's not that simple, that the standard essentially goes back to Jackson v. Virginia. It's not just whether there's, quote unquote, any evidence to submit something to a jury. There has to be sufficient evidence from which a rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [10:27:40][24.1] [10:27:41] There is a severe lack of. [10:27:44][2.9] [10:27:44] Evidence in this case. There's no evidence that Mr. Bryan intended to do so. What they're doing is they're basing that on words. And I'm going to incorporate it here for purposes of the motion for directed verdict, the arguments made in connection with the special demur in this case. And of course, those have also all already been addressed to some extent by counsel for the McMichaels. There's no witness there, no other there is no witness to what Mr. Ryan did. There's no video of an aggravated assault. It's all contradicted by the physical evidence in this case. And I don't have the citation in front of me. But with respect to aggravated assault with a motor vehicle, I think the case law is a case specifically out there. This is speculation as to aggravated assault is inappropriate. And there are some times when there's insufficient evidence and where the jury is basically being asked to speculate as to what happened. And this is that case, Your Honor. And with terms of felony murder, again, you get back to the same issue, assuming for the moment that Mr. Brian was committing an aggravated assault with a pickup truck down on VAFA. How does that establish how is that. [10:28:55][71.1] [10:28:55] The proximate cause of a felony murder that takes place down on HomeStreet Street later? [10:29:02][7.0] [10:29:03] And for the jury to be able to return a verdict because of the way this indictment is phrased, the jury can return a verdict of guilty without specifying. [10:29:12][9.4] [10:29:13] Where takes place. How do we know that the juror, certainly all 12 of them have made. [10:29:17][4.1] [10:29:17] A decision as to that, because without that, how can they make a determination as to proximate cause? This is a huge problem. [10:29:24][6.8] [10:29:26] And I'm going to get back to count seven in a moment. 102850 DEFENSE COUNSEL>> But in terms of felony murder, there's just no proximate cause here. It's not reasonably foreseeable. And it's a huge stretch to say that what Mr. Bryan is doing out there in his truck is causing the death. [10:29:05] In fact, I think was very pointed out that the their truck is stopped. It's not even moving. And Mr. Unicast talked about the engine, but I think the video speaks for itself. Certainly, Mr. Aubrey is not assaulting at this time. [10:30:05][38.4] [10:30:06] Your there's no proximate cause. There's insufficient connection to the death. I'm going to turn to count four felony murder, which is based on false imprisonment. [10:30:15][8.9] [10:30:16] Your Honor,. [10:30:16][0.6] [10:30:16] I do believe that there was a special demurrer filed in this case previously about false imprisonment. And if I recall, the court cited a case, I don't have it in front of me. [10:30:26][10.3] [10:30:28] About you can assault, you can imprisoned by with a pickup truck. My recollection of that. [10:30:35][6.6] [10:30:35] Case [10:30:35][0.0] [303.3] [10:30:35] with that case were not just where someone was being chased, but where they actually were struck and went. [10:30:41][5.9] [10:30:42] Over the hood. And then the person in the car got out of the stabbing. [10:30:44][2.9] [10:30:45] That's certainly factually distinguishable. But again, what is it if the falsus at the time of the shooting, there is no false. [10:30:54][9.0] [10:30:54] Imprisonment. Your Honor, at the time of the shooting, Mr. Aubrey, to borrow a football phrase, has broken containment. He is past both trucks at that point and has a clear line to the exit to the neighborhood. So I don't understand how you have. [10:31:14][19.4] [10:31:14] A proximate how you could have proximate cause between a false imprisonment, if that's what it is, and the shooting itself. And because there is it not. [10:31:24][10.1] [10:31:24] Also notwithstanding Georgia law to the contrary, that false imprisonment is not the kind of felony that will support a felony murder charge. There are other jurisdictions that disagree with Georgia and that can under their laws, they do not view false imprisonment as a violent offense. That would that would be a felony based on false imprisonment on. I certainly want to preserve that argument. [10:31:48][23.3] [10:31:51] Because it's just I guess the best way to phrase it in terms of Georgia law is false. Imprisonment really belongs is more like a status offense. Than it is a violent offense. And in that respect, it should not be the underlying felony for a felony murder charge. We still have issues with the mens rea. We still contend that the false imprisonment is unsupported factually. But again, in terms of foreseeable. [10:32:18][27.4] [10:32:20] How is the shooting, Your Honor, reasonably foreseeable to Mr. Bryan, assuming that there is a false imprisonment. [10:32:28][8.5] [10:32:29] How is how. [10:32:30][0.7] [10:32:30] Is the shooting itself? It's one thing to say to Mr. Bryan aided and abetted a false prison. That's not the same thing as saying he aided and abetted a shooting. And that again goes back over Grant. I think I've already covered and I won't do that to the court again. [10:32:44][14.0] [10:32:50] Count five, felony murder again. We contend the criminal attempt to commit felony murder is not the kind defense upon which a felony murder charge can be created. We would suggest to the court that that is even a step further removed from Folsom Prison in itself, and that furthermore, that the attempted felony, attempted false imprisonment is not the proximate cause. Again, of the shooting or death of Mr. Aubrey. [10:33:19][28.3] [10:33:21] There are real problems there of the causal link. Count six, aggravated assault with a shotgun. Again, there is. [10:33:29][7.7] [10:33:29] No aiding and abetting for Mr. Bryan, aiding and abetting a citizen's arrest, even if a lawful is not the same thing as aiding and abetting a shooting. And I won't go back down that ground any further counts, said an aggravated assault with the trucks cocounsel has already spent a good bit of time addressing this. I've addressed it in the special demurrer. It's troubling to me that the state comes in here when three police officers, your honor, three seasoned police officers about two. Well, season one, we could argue about all interview, Mr. Bryan. And that's the basis of this count is Mr. Bryan statements himself. There's no other evidence other than that in this case. And three of these all three. [10:34:21][52.5] [10:34:22] Of these officers interview Mr. Brown or populist Brian at length. All three summarized those interviews. None of them refer to Mr. Bryant's conduct as an aggravated assault. None of them do that because it's not there. The jury, your honor, is required to get to the truth of the matter. It's not just the words Mr. Bryan uses, which could be anybody's words can be twisted out of context is the context in which you are given. It's the meaning that's meant to be conveyed. And it's clear from the testimony of the state's own witnesses. But that meaning is not there. There is no aggravated assault with Mr. Bryan jumping. [10:35:03][41.0] [10:35:03] Back and forth here. I guess make sure where I am. [10:35:06][2.7] [10:35:08] Your. [10:35:08][0.0] [10:35:08] Honor, the evidence is in terms of the speed, for example, that while the state refers to Mr. Bryan is chasing, that the evidence is on the video at two miles an hour. [10:35:19][10.6] [10:35:22] Your Honor, with respect to count eight, the false imprisonment we are,. [10:35:27][5.0] [10:35:27] The indictment alleges in the state is stuck with the language in the indictment that he was that the confinement. [10:35:32][5.5] [274.5] [10:35:33] And detainment occurs on Holmes Drive. But the evidence that the state is relying on is coming from Burford. And. [10:35:43][9.6] [10:35:43] He can't he can't be convicted at this point of that. And how the court would charge a jury, I have no idea. [10:35:50][7.0] [16.5] [10:35:57] Your Honor. On count eight, the false imprisonment. I talked earlier about the breaking containment. There is some Georgia case law out there. And for example, I guess this is the best analogy I can come up with here. [10:36:16][19.3] [10:36:17] In a bank robbery when. [10:36:20][2.6] [10:36:20] An individual committing a bank robbery pulls out a gun and tells everybody to get down on the ground. [10:36:24][4.0] [10:36:25] Under Georgia law, that is a false imprisonment because they get on the ground. But this case isn't the case when they get on. [10:36:34][9.1] [10:36:34] The ground. Mr. Aubrey never submits to being arrested. And in this case, this is what the state is pursuing here is equivalent to someone of store saying, everybody get down on the ground and the person just continuing to run right out the door. That's what we have here. And. [10:36:53][19.2] [10:36:54] That is not a false imprisonment under Georgia law. And again, if this Dunn Tarkovsky has a case citation for this court to any Georgia case that is remotely factually close to this one, I'm sure she'll present it, but. [10:37:08][13.7] [10:37:08] I can't find it, your honor. Attempted false imprisonment. That's count nine. [10:37:13][4.6] [10:37:14] We. [10:37:14][0.0] [10:37:14] Contend that the evidence is simply insufficient to submit that matter to the jury. Moreover, we think the evidence that was presented during the Cates case, state's case in chief is shows affirmatively abandonment, that. [10:37:32][18.2] [10:37:33] Mr. Bryant has abandoned this chase, as they call it. And the video itself, I think, demonstrates that the time of the shooting, Mr. Brown, is simply a witness to the shooting itself and to those events. And under those circumstances, we believe that he is entitled to have an acquittal as to count nine and all the other counts in this indictment, we would ask that attracted very few grand on all counts and that Mr. Bryan be released forthwith. [10:37:58][25.6] [10:38:00] From the state insurance that we break briefly for restaurant. Yes, we're going to take a ten minute recess. Let's go and take ten minutes. We'll reconvene at 10:00 [10:38:00][0.0] [116.4] [10:38:08] for. All right. We are back on defense. President from the state judge Musharraf talked a lot about citizen's arrest and that being the defense in this case. But there has been any evidence that anyone was making a citizen's arrest. Citizen's arrest was never said by any of these three defendants at any point in time. The evidence has been presented is that Mr. Ryan and Mr. Gaborik, Michael, never once said we're making a citizen's arrest, that we're placing you under arrest for the crime of this, that we saw him commit a crime that day. That was not it. It was all we wanted to stop and talk to him, and then we wanted to detain him. In fact, Mr. Rubin said in his opening statement that the intent was to detain him so that the police could show up and do whatever they were going to do after the detention. It's not citizens detention. It's citizen's arrest. So while he talked about that, that is really not something to be considered in a directed verdict motion. And just because a set of facts hasn't yet been specifically identically brought before a court, this sets of facts. No two cases are going to have the same set of facts. They're just not. And so the fact that there is felony murder based on false imprisonment, case law out there where someone has been found guilty, felony murder based on false imprisonment, someone's been found guilty of prior to crime, based on aggravated assault with a shotgun. Someone's been found guilty of party to a crime for aggravated assault with a motor vehicle. Those cases are out there, maybe not with these specific facts. So that argument doesn't really hold water either. In this. [10:54:00][951.3] [10:54:00] Particular case, when it comes to Mr. Bryan. And this will apply for all of the charges here. Once again, it's party to a crime, and that means intentionally aid and abet his statements to Agent Seacrest and actually at the scene to Officer Minshew were about yeah, I thought they had done something. You know, I thought I thought I was trying to help them get this guy Folsom in prison. This guy captured this guy, and that was what his intent was. It was to falsely imprison this particular person and he intentionally used his vehicle to go ahead and do that both on Barford when he intentionally committed an aggravated assault, putting Mr. Aubrey and reasonable apprehension of receiving serious bodily injury as part of his intent to falsely imprison him on before those two things contributed to his death. Because but for those things happening, Mr. Aubrey would still be alive. So it is as the pattern charge will be, given his actions played a substantial and necessary part in causing the death, because without him doing those things, Mr. Aubrey would not have been trapped like a rat over on Holmes Drive between the two pickup trucks. As we noted before, Malice chased him through the public roadways in the pickup trucks, tried to stop him, cut him off with the pickup trucks. He drove them into a ditch. He assisted, pinning him between the two pickup trucks, trapping him like a rap between the two pickup trucks. Mr. Aubrey had not threatened anybody, had shown no aggression. Mr. Aubrey had no weapons. He was totally unarmed. And here Mr. Bryan never called 911. He continues pursuing Mr. Arbrey. Mr. Bryan never says anything on the recording. He pulls forward despite the shotgun coming out, despite the stalking being pointed at himself. Doesn't slam on the brakes, doesn't yell, doesn't protest, doesn't honk, just keeps driving forward driving. Mr. Forward, he helped to get Mr. Aubrey to this location by redirecting him up homes. The most important thing is when you have [10:54:00][0.0] [951.3] [10:56:18] common criminal intent. 105536 And here the state's position is, is that if parties to the crime, there's common -- criminal intent to attack Mr. Arbrey via false imprisonment, aggravated assault with the pickup trucks, aggravated assault with a shotgun and false imprisonment ultimately on Holmes. [10:55:55] And that common criminal intent to do all those things, not necessarily the conspiracy. I'm not talking about conspiring in advance and coming up with a plan to sit around the kitchen table, we're talking about what they actually did, acted in concert with each other. The white truck came down homes. Mr. Bryan was going up, homes Mr. Aubrey had already turned around, was running back in the white truck past him. Mr. Bryan did not abandon this. He turned around. He kept going, and then he accelerated to catch up to Mr. Aubrey past the blue mailbox, saw the shotgun and kept going. Common criminal intent, which resulted in malice murder, resulted in all the felony murders. All of his actions did substantially contribute to the death of Mr. Aubrey. And they were necessary because without those actions, Mr. Aubrey would be alive. We ask that you deny the directed verdict for all of the counts. As to Mr. Brian, thank you. [10:57:46][88.6] [10:57:48] Any final word from Sprunt. [10:57:49][0.8] [10:57:54] Your Honor, in the state, it is constrained to acknowledge that they have no legal authority for their position, for example, on malice murder. And I think the court should take seriously the motion to grant the director there is no malice murder or take a case against Mr. Bryan. With all due respect to the state, there never was that there are some other issues in the case. There are more challenging and more troubling. But that's an easy call. I think it's an easy call on count two, felony murder for Mr. Bryan. Only again, the state has no flop. It doesn't even pretend to give an explanation as to how Mr. Bryan thinking that he's Haitink, a citizen arrest lawfully or unlawfully, how that translates into an intent to shoot or an intent to injure. And it's deeply troubling to me that the state can't have the Canada acknowledged the court that maybe in retrospect counts one and count two. As to Mr. Bryan, we're not well thought out. There's no proximate cause. There's no reasonable foreseeabili. [10:58:54][60.4] [10:58:54] Ty Here. And, you know, I'm impressed with the argument that was made. But still, Mr. Bryan is entitled who directed verdict? Certainly on count one, almost certainly on count. [10:59:07][12.5] [10:59:07] Two. And arguably, as to every count in the indictment, thank you. [10:59:11][3.5] [10:59:13] Error. I apologize profusely. I had pulled up a case and I forgot to cite it. And it is both the state of Georgia. What Moore vs. the state in Millburn versus the state it is three eleven Georgia five six. And in this particular case, a group of eight hundred of a drug dealer and one person stayed downstairs to keep the boyfriend away while they went up to go ahead and search the apartment. Unfortunately, the girlfriend was in the apartment and the two that went up there, one executed the girlfriend. They came downstairs. The state obtained a malice murder conviction on man downstairs who simply kept the boyfriend from protecting the girlfriend upstairs. And that is a case that does show someone who doesn't have their finger on the trigger, who's downstairs doing some other action, the same sort of criminal intent which we feel that's here, state criminal intent to falsely imprison [10:59:13][0.0]
GUARD SHOT IN ARMORED CAR ROBBERY (5/1/2002)
AN ARMORED CAR IS HELD-UP IN ATLANTA AND THE DRIVER IS SHOT.
Police Chase Ends In Collisions (1996)
In an attempted robbery and high speed chase put lives in danger in Charlotte, North Carolina today. The wild chain of events started at a central Carolina bank branch and it ended in confusion and chaos on one of Charlotte's busiest streets.
AHMAUD ARBERY MURDER TRIAL BRUNSWICK GA CAM 2 POOL 11172021 0845
COURTROOM FTG OF THE TRIAL IN THE AHMAUD ARBERY CASE / TRAVIS MCMICHAEL, GREGORY MCMICHAEL AND WILLIAM RODDIE BRYAN ARE CHARGED WITH THE MURDER OF AHMAUD ARBERY / CAM 2 CORE 3943 AHMAUD ARBERY MURDER TRIAL BRUNSWICK GA SWITCHED FEED POOL 11172021 084500 [09:05:51] Good morning, everybody. Boy, we are back on. Mr. President, represented by counsel, only broke last night. We were addressing motions before the court. [09:06:15][24.4] [09:06:17] Most efficient. [09:06:18][0.2] [09:06:18] Way to go about this is the state had indicated a little bit of time to take a look at the demurrer on count seven, the state of any additional argument after reviewing the demur that had been filed on behalf of Mr. Brian. No, no additional argument. We stand on what we had originally filed and on the court's order on the demurrer to count seven, which is tracks the language of the statute and informs the defendants of what they are to defend against and therefore is sufficient. And there's no reason to grant the demerjian count seven for which you have to address. [09:07:05][47.1] [09:07:06] That. Then let's get through any additional motions and all sorts of motions. As far as we go, I probably should have gone around ask the question that normally leads to some time before the court, before we get started. Anything from the state,. [09:07:19][13.1] [09:07:20] From Travis MacMichael, from Greg, with Michael and I. We're ready for our motion and from Mr. [09:07:26][5.3] [65.7] [09:07:29] Motions that I'll just go around saying, Mr. Speaker,. [09:07:35][6.1] [09:07:35] That both Craig and Michael entered this time on behalf of Greg McMichael. And I will speak for Travis Mineko with permission of co-defendants counsel and invite them to add anything you may wish to add. That does apply specifically to Travis that I may not mention it. I'm going to try to cover both in this motion for directed verdict of acquittal. And I'll start with the statute that applies to. [09:08:21][45.3] [09:08:21] Such a motion and then go through the counts in the indictment that I think we have some argument to make regarding first the statute. It's Okja nine one A, which says where there is no conflict in the evidence and the evidence introduced with all reasonable deduction and inferences there from shall demand a verdict of acquittal or not guilty as to the entire offense or to some particular count of our offense, the court may direct the verdict of acquittal to which the defendant is entitled under the evidence and may allow the trial to proceed only as to the counts or offenses remaining, if any. So I start with. [09:09:08][47.6] [09:09:10] Count one and let me get my indictment up here, which is malice murder. And to make this argument for acquittal on malice murder, allow me to review initially what the elements of that offense are and then talk about. [09:09:31][20.7] [09:09:31] The evidence in the case. The statute, of course, is sixteen five one, A and B and sixteen five one A says a person commits the offense of murder when he unlawfully and with malice aforethought either expressed or implied causes the death of another human being. [09:09:58][27.3] [09:09:59] So starting with just subsection a malice, of course, in Georgia, law means a specific intent crime as opposed to a general intent crime and then a specific intent crime. The subjective desire [09:09:59][0.0] [146.9] [09:10:18] of the defendant is to bring about the exact illegal consequence that his action is intended to produce. So in and of malice murder count, that means that the that that malice means the defendant has the specific intent to commit an act that the cause of which is the death of another person and that that result was the desired result. It was not an unintended consequence, as we'll see as the case with felony murder. So malice, that sort of specific intent can be shown in two ways by proof. And that subparagraph B in sixteen five one. [09:11:08][49.6] [09:11:09] And. [09:11:09][0.0] [09:11:10] That paragraph indicates two types of proof of this malice. The specific intent, of course, I always mention that as the definition of malice because it's certainly confusing to jurors. But that's a different issue. For later when we talk about charges. But it means no in no ill will or hatred, of course, but it's just a specific intent to types expressed malice. Is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take the life of another human being, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof? Now, case law indicates that would be things like verbal threats, lying in wait the kind of circumstances or actions for which the state can produce evidence that says this person had expressed malice. It's out there in the world for us to see it. We can hear it. We can determine from the circumstances in which the killing occurred. The other type of malice, much more sticky is malice shall be implied. We're no considerable provocation appears and we're all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. 091157 DEFENSE COUNSEL>> So to further define that type of malice, I need to go to a different place here in my notes to look for a definition of implied malice in our law. What we're looking for is that specific intent to kill where there are no external circumstances capable of proof. But inferences must be made. It's implied. And first of all, it's -- you -- you have to find that there's no considerable provocation, which would be, say, voluntary manslaughter. [09:12:43] And there's no other justification for it. And then in one of our cases, under Georgia law, which is park or the state, and I'll get the cite here, 270, Georgia 256 in 1980, 88 case essentially in Parker, the court tries to define that poetic matter of metaphor we find in the implied malice sentence, which is the abandoned and malignant heart. I find it of interest that there are only four states left out of 50 that use that phrase in their definition of murder, abandoned and malignant heart, having its roots somewhere in the dark recesses of medieval English. But here it is still in Georgia, Idaho, Nevada and California. The three states still use that phrase. And so, George, in attempting to say what it means, says that it's a reckless disregard for human life. And Justice Herrnstein in Parker v. State tries to give some sort of definition for it. It's not a substitute for implied malice. That is reckless disregard is not a lower mental state or lower standard of proof. It's not equivalent if it's as she said in this opinion, especially concurring opinion. She says the difference between instructing a jury that a presumption of malice may arise from reckless conduct and this is for malice murder and instructing them that reckless conduct and malice are equivalent that can be substituted for one another. [09:11:10][0.0] [49.6] [09:15:28] Is not just a matter of mere semantics. A jury is entitled to be instructed how to determine a defendant's state of mind based on the evidence. Addus. It is not entitled to be instructed that a lesser mental culpability may be substituted for the required higher mental culpability. And then she goes on to criticize the charge, even in that case in Parker. But what it comes do. [09:15:55][27.2] [09:15:55] Wn To, and it's even cited later in a U.S. Supreme Court case, actually, it was the case earlier than Parker and also an attempt by Justice Brennan to define it. And the case is a rave. Are a a r a. [09:16:15][19.8] [09:16:17] I'm sorry, Let me start that a r. [09:16:19][2.0] [09:16:20] A v, a rave, the screech CRTC, age five seven U.S. for sixty three. A 1993 case. Justice Brennan wrote this homicides committed without considerable provocation or under circumstances demonstrating an abandoned and malignant heart, a term of art that refers to an intentional homicide committed with extreme recklessness. And then I just use ellipses there because it goes on to another matter. But the examples given would be, say, somebody shooting a gun into a crowd of people. You aren't intending to kill any specific person, but you certainly know by that reckless act, somebody will die or driving a car into a crowd at a protest rally. Somebody is going to die. This could be an abandoned and malignant heart. So that all aside, now the facts of our case going back to the standard of 79 one A where directed verdicts premised upon no conflict and evidence and all reasonable deductions and inferences therefrom from 091700 In this case, the state's case in chief, which we've just now heard for the last week and a half, the expressed malice does not seem to be there. [09:17:15] Speaking about Travis McMichael in particular, he's not saying anything or doing anything that could be provable by external circumstances to be expressed malice. And as we've all seen in the video, the shooting doesn't occur until he and the Marberry are locked up in mortal combat, hand-to-hand, face to face and in contact with one another with a gunshot wound that's fatal. That's close contact or near close contact, one to three inches away. Now, none of that is in dispute. There's no conflict in the evidence there. Obviously, the issue that we expect will go to the jury is whether that was an act of self-defense or whether it's some felony murder. And there are counts in here that that address that there is a pair of counts that talk about using a shotgun is an aggravated assault, which results in the death, and that's felony murder. Those are two separate counts in this indictment. It's always interesting to that malice murder added in the same case with felony murd. [09:19:19][87.1] [09:19:19] Er, while not legally inconsistent. And, you know, of course, Georgia has done away with the concept of legally inconsistent verdicts is is somewhat logically inconsistent when you ask a jury to consider finding a defendant guilty of malice murder based on proof you think you have if you're the state that he specifically intended by his act to cause the death of a person who died. [09:19:50][31.3] [09:19:51] And at the same time argue to them, but hey, also consider that he used a shotgun in an aggravated assault without malice, as the felony murder statute says. And the unintended consequence of that aggravated assault was the death of another person. Therefore, it's bootstrapped up into felony murder. So. [09:20:16][25.0] [09:20:18] That is the. [09:20:18][0.6] [09:20:18] Argument against [09:20:18][0.0] [284.5] [09:20:20] count one under 79 when a as a count that should not be presented to the jury because there is no conflict in the evidence. All of the reasonable deductions and inferences from the evidence do not support a finding by a rational trier of fact that expressed or implied malice have been exhibited here in the act of shooting a Madama. Now, you and I can go on to each of the other challenges. In turn, our stop. Let's go. [09:20:54][34.4] [09:20:56] The second challenge is to the combination of counts five and nine. And I can get my indictment back up. [09:21:11][15.1] [09:21:13] Count five charges, felony murder premised upon count nine. And of course, we know that felony murder. And I'll get the definition of that is in sixteen five one. See, a person commits the offense of murder when in the commission of a felony, he or she causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice. So we can forget all of what I just said about malice because it doesn't apply here. The state would have to prove the underlying felony and then show a causal connection, proximate cause between that underlying felony and the unintended death. Without malice, And in this case, Count nine is the criminal attempt to commit a felony, namely false imprisonment on see if it says it in here. Burford Drive Count nine. Then, as we know, is the allegation that on Burford Drive the beginning of the encounter with a Montabaur that Travis and Greg McMichael, along with Roddy Brian. But I'll leave his lawyer to argue his case here, but that Travis and Greg McMichael using their Ford F 150, attempted to commit the crime of false imprisonment. And then they combine that with count five to say that's felony murder premised upon that attempted felony on Burford Drive. Will the causal link between the attempt to falsely imprison someone. [09:23:25][131.3] [09:23:26] Three or four minutes before shooting them with a shotgun is just too tenuous to support under the proximate cause analysis, a felony murder charge in count five? I'm not saying that Count nine can't stand and be presented to the jury, but when you combine it with count five as the underlying felony for felony murder, what we're facing then is a complete lack of a causal link. I mean, you can. [09:24:01][35.1] [09:24:04] Add several lengths to get to Holmes Road where the shooting occurs, but there is nothing about the attempt to force in prison a Marda Brian Burford drive with a pickup truck, particularly Travis Travis McMichaels, Ford F 150 and his ultimate death on Holmes Road. And if you try to do it by party to the crime 16 to 20 and connect Travis and Greg McMichael to William Ronnie, Brian, as that count does, because it also names him in count nine names, his truck, his Chevy Silverado and count nine and then connects them both back to count five for felony murder. But sixteen five, I'm sorry, 16 to 20 party to the crime statute. And I'll read. It's not long. Every person concerned in the commission of a crime is a party there too, and may be charged with and convicted of commission of the crime. Be a person is concerned in the commission of the crime only if he one directly commits the crime. And here where we're talking about directly commits the crime of criminal attempt to falsely imprison a Marda [09:24:04][0.0] [215.9] [09:26:14] Brian Burford drive and then finally intentionally advisees encourages Hyers counsels or procures another to commit the crime. So is the evidence was produced here in this case. [09:26:27][12.4] [09:26:29] Raddy Brian saw the white truck and saw Marberry made some driveway assumptions, according to Miss Donna Caskey, and then went and got in his truck to do what it what he did. But as we heard, he hollered something that the McMichaels did not hear. The evidence from the state was uncontroverted, that whatever he said, that there was no indication, no evidence whatsoever that the McMichaels heard it. There was no phone communication of any kind between either McMichaels phones or Raddy. Brian's phones ensure there was no coordinated and there was no participation, no planning, no intentionally aiding and abetting or intentionally advising, encouraging and so forth between the two McMichaels and Roddie Brian, on Barford Drive or Count nine concerns my argument here. So. [09:27:37][68.0] [09:27:38] The criminal felony. [09:27:52][14.2] [09:27:53] Murder, because of the tenuous causal link, approx causal chain, that's just not going to reach. And secondly, if it's a party to the crime theory, there's no evidence at all that there was. [09:28:07][14.2] [09:28:08] Any participation intentional. And that's a key word in the party statute between them and Ronnie. Brian Burford Drive. So that's my directed verdict argument to count five. And I make it in connection with count nine. And yet I am conceding that Count nine could survive directed verdict and be presented to a jury. There is a conflict in the evidence there about what the McMichaels were doing on on Barford. Obviously we're saying that excuse me, that they attempting to make a. [09:28:49][41.3] [09:28:50] Citizen's arrest. The state says they're attempting to do a false imprisonment. That's a legitimate jury, but connecting it to count five felony murder, that that should be directed in favor of the defendants as an acquittal. All right. My third attack here under the motion for directed verdict of acquittal will be the combination of counts three and seven. Again, count three is a felony murder count and refers to the allegation, count seven. And when you go to count seven, the argument there is that the defendant committed an aggravated assault with a Ford F 150 and a Chevy Silverado, which they allege are objects, devices and instruments which, when used offensively against a person, are likely to result in serious bodily injury contrary to our laws. But then they connect it to murder in count three. Again, however, the trucks were used in this case by the McMichaels. The trucks were used, yes, to attempt to detain, to block in, to trap Ahmaud Arbery. But again, the argument here will be for the purposes of citizen's arrest, not for the purpose of falsely imprisoning, imprisoning him or assaulting him with a truck. But. [09:29:55][105.3] [09:30:05 More than that, that would be a legitimate jury issue in count seven. But in count three, neither truck was the causal link in the death of a Harbury. It was the means by which to get to the place where the death ultimately occurred. Of course, it was the conveyance in which the defendants road, but the truck itself did nothing to cause serious bodily injury or death. At least the Ford F 150. And this is not alleging in count seven that Ahmaud Arbery received some injury when he encountered Rodney Bryan's truck, Burford Drive. That's not alleged in this indictment anywhere, even though there's some evidence of contact between him and that truck on Burford Drive this is actually not saying anything about that, but connecting it back to count three felony murder. So it's the same problem as we just had in counts five and nine. It's a failure of a causal link, no proximate cause to show that the truck is connected to the murder [09:31:11][0.0] [255.3] [09:31:53] in a causative way. And the same with party to the crime. The other thing is count these this combination of counts, does it? It doesn't say whether this aggravated assault with the track is occurring on Burford Road or Homes Drive. We're left to gas, which it is. It simply does not specify. And that's a demurrer type issue. And that may have been addressed earlier, but here for directed verdict, if if the allegation is that the felony murder occurred on homes by use of the truck on homes, will, the undisputed evidence in the case is while the truck got driven, two homes drive. When we see the video, it's undisputed that the truck is parked. The driver is out of it. The truck is not moving, and it bears no connection at all except as a a device around which the. [09:32:20][65.9] [09:32:25] Defendant stood. Want one pregnant, Michael, in the back of the truck, Travis out of the truck and a marberry going around the truck. So the truck is not a a causal element in the death of a Montabaur and therefore, count three should be directed as a verdict of acquittal for the defendant. Count four. [09:32:56][36.8] [09:33:38] And eight are connected for felony murder. Referring to the allegations in county count eight is the false imprisonment allegation, this time on homes Drive and Homes Drive, of course, is the final place where the events transpired and the tragedy occurred. But this Count eight alleges that on Holmes Drive, using the two pickup trucks, the three defendants in concert with one another as parties to the crime falsely imprisoned Amanda robbery. And then the shooting occurs and they make the causal link back to count four for the felony murder charge. But again, the evidence in the case was that, you know, there was no place on Holmes Drive where the truck was used to block in a modern robbery where the truck is finally parked. As Agent Dialed testified yesterday, I believe under cross-examination with Kevin Gough, he conceded that there were escape routes. There were places Ahmaud Arbery could have chosen to run through yards across a yard and on to satellite drive if he had chosen to do so. How one can be falsely imprisoned when the case agent is testifying under oath that he could run kept on running. I the truck itself did not impede his decision to [09:33:38][0.0] [102.8] [09:35:25] turn right and run across this yard on the satellite drive and continue down. Still drive until he left the neighborhood or until he calendar encountered the police, which we also have heard with undisputed evidence, was on Sadil satellite drive when the shooting occurred. So he would have run into a police car at the very least, and then possibly Matt al Binsey. If that police car was not where the undisputed evidence as it was. So again, count for felony murder should fail because it's based on count eight, which count eight, it's fair enough to send to the jury. It's a disputed allegation. But count four can't support be supported by it. Finally, count two and six are connected and our motion applies to them in this way. Count two is felony murder. This time premised upon count six. And count six is the allegation of aggravated assault with the use of a shotgun, a firearm, a deadly weapon to hit a 12 gauge shotgun. This one's a little stickier in this regard because the evidence has come out that Travis McMichael pointed his shotgun at a modern robbery on two separate occasions. There's been evidence presented by the state that as a Montabaur, he is running towards the back of the pickup truck. On the driver's side of the truck, Travis Michael raises his shotgun and then he lowers it and moves to the left, right front corner of the truck as a moderate, takes a couple of weaving maneuvers and then comes around the right side of the truck and then the gun is raised again and this time discharged. And that those shots are what were fatal to Marberry. The count does not specify here in count six which of those two gun raising's is the aggravated assault. Certainly the first one where no discharge occurred. Could not therefore have been the cause of death and it could not support count to felony murder since there was no discharge of a deadly shot from the shotgun. And because the count doesn't specify applying a rule of lenity, this should be read as as applying to that because that by itself could be charged as an aggravated assault. Had the case stopped right there. Adaminaby stopped in its tracks and the state had chosen to say, well, this is no citizen's arrest. This is just a garden variety aggravators saw. You're pointing a shotgun at somebody for no good reason. He didn't discharge you, didn't kill him, but it still could be charged as an aggravated assault. Well, it certainly couldn't be ever under those circumstances, the underlying felony for felony murder. If the guy was still alive, if no shot had been fired. So that aggravated assault, though, is still in play. It's been put in evidence. It's not charged in the indictment or is it? We can't tell from count six because count six only refers to one act of aggravated start with a shotgun. And I guess the jury will be left to presume that it's the second pointing that results in the shooting, which results in the death, which results in the felony murder of count two. Those are my argument, Your Honor, for directed verdict on counts one. [09:38:55][251.2] [09:38:56] , Two, three, four, and five. Thank you, Judge. Let's go ahead and address that motion from the state and then we'll get Mr. Bryant's motion. Thank you, Judge. Yes,. [09:39:24][30.1] [09:39:25] Oceguera. Seventy nine one is the statute that governs directed verdicts. And there's also case law out there that, of course, the court is to view all the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable [09:39:40][0.0] [281.3] [09:39:23] to a guilty verdict and ask whether any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 0943948 PROSECUTOR>> So that includes judge, not just direct evidence, but circumstantial evidence as well. In this particular case, all the defendants have been charged in this as a party to the crime. And of course, we've got directly committing the crime and then helping, which is intentionally aiding or abetting in the crime. And then we've got intentionally encouraging someone to commit the crimes. [09:40:13] So we've got all of that charged together, looking, of course, at count one, malice murder. You may also find malice when there does not appear to be significant provocation. And all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. No specific length of time is required for malice to arise in the defendant's mind. Malice may be formed in an instant and instantly a fatal wound may be inflicted. That, of course, is the current pattern. Jury charged two point one zero point one zero on malice murder. In this particular case, there isn't significant provocation. Mr. Arbie ran away from these men for five minutes, tried to get away and was being forced down the street by Mr. Bryant in his dark pickup truck. Accelerating towards him. He tries to go around Travis Michael Travis MacMichael steps out into the street, blocking the street, pointing a shotgun at Mr. Aubrey. And Mr. Aubrey tries to go around the passenger side of the vehicle. Travis McMichael traps him and tracks him with that shotgun up to the front of the vehicle and basically encounters him right there. He's so close that Mr. Aubrey, he passes this. He is so close that when he does this, he's instantly shot, instantly shot. The video itself speaks for itself. There is that much time and that shotgun blast goes off. And Mr. Bush shot point blank. The trajectory was, as you saw from the medical examiner right here, right here, straight through. That's where the shotgun pellets are. That's where that injury is. So at this point in time, we have the burden to prove it's no significant provocation except Mr Abbott coming around the front. [09:42:47][144.7] [09:42:49] Medical examiner talked about fight or flight. And I understand the defense is going to argue, well, it's the victim's fault. He should have kept running. It's the victim's fault. He shouldn't have been exhausted. It's the victim's fault. He shouldn't have gone to defend himself. It's the victim's fault. He had all kinds of options and alternatives in the face of their five in an attack on him. And therefore, it's his fault. But that's not what the law is. The law is about the defendant's doing a five minute attack that eventually resulted in malice murder. How do you see the malice here? Abandoned and malignant heart. You take a shotgun, you pointed at somebody, you track them around as they try and run away from you. And when they turn on you, you immediately fire and shoot. The state asks you not to deny the directed verdict for malice murder. For Travis McMichael and also for Greg McMichael, he is charged as a party to the crime. Greg McMichael had his 357 Magnum on him. He is also yelling at Mr. Arbrey. We know that he previously had threatened Mr. Arbery with stop or I'm going to shoot your effing head off. So he'd already told this man, I'm going to execute you if you don't stop. So at that point in time, we've got Mr. Brian coming forward, coming forward. He sees the shotgun. He sees it pointed not only at Mr. Arbi, but it's actually pointed at himself because he's right behind Mr. Arbrey and he doesn't do anything. He doesn't stop. He doesn't slam on the brakes. He doesn't yell, oh, my God, he doesn't swerve immediately out of the way to get off the road. To a ditch to avoid the shock. And he keeps going. He keeps accelerating. He keeps driving, Mr. Arbery, toward the man with the shotgun, thus aiding and abetting intentionally aubury having to run towards a man with a shotgun. Mr. Arbery could not turn around. Mr. Arbery could not run way back because Mr. Brian is accelerating toward him with his black pickup truck. Therefore, he is also a party to the crime of malice murder because it shows an abandoned and malignant heart on Travis McMichaels part and aiding and abetting in that by both the defendant, Greg McMichael, and Mr. Williams. Roddie Bryant, Brian,. [09:44:30][140.3] [09:44:32] With regard to felony murder specifically, as the court is aware, felony murder must have directly caused [09:45:12][0.0] [285.0] [09:45:22] a death or played a substantial and necessary part in causing the death. This, of course, is from our new jury charges, two point one zero point two zero on felony murder. And in this case, all four of the underlying felonies played a substantial and necessary part in causing the death, because without those four felonies, Mr. Aubrey wouldn't be dead. 094509 PROSECUTOR>> So we've got our old fashioned, â?obut forâ?? and that's what we're talking about here, â?oplayed a substantial and necessary part in causing the death, but for these actions, Mr. Arbery would still be alive.â?? [09:45:21] So when we look at specific, they'll take them in the order. Mr. Hogue went, we're talking about count five felony murder and count nine, which is criminal attempt to commit false imprisonment. On Burford, the indictment reads, in violation of the personal liberty of a moderate, did unlawfully chase a moderate through the public roadways of the Shaw's neighborhood in pickup trucks did attempt to confine and detain armed Aubrey without legal authority. On Burford using a Ford F 150 and a Chevy Silverado. So they attempted to confine him, but he managed to get away. They basically both use the pickup trucks. So we've got Mr. Brian Principle actively attempting to detain Mr. Aubrey. We've got Travis McMichael in his pickup truck, circumstantial evidence that he is actively attempting to detain Mr. Aubrey because why Mr. Aubrey turns around from a white pickup truck and runs back the other way. And this is after Greg McMichael is in the truck yelling, cut him off, cut him off, cut him off. So at this point, we've got all three men acting in concert to attempt to confine him there. Well, how do they do that? They go ahead and do that by aggravated assault with their pickup trucks, by placing him in reasonable apprehension of receiving serious bodily injury. Well, what does that mean? It means their actions. What were they doing? They're using these pickup trucks with the aggravated assault to confine and detain him. So the state has proven that they use these pickup trucks in a manner that would reasonably put someone in fear and apprehension of receiving bodily injury. What does that mean? They scared him. They scared him with the aggravated assaults. And that was part of the Fallston imprisonment. We're going to scare you into stopping by using these pickup trucks to cut you off and run you into a ditch. They were doing it in concert with each other. I want to be real clear. 094712 PROSECUTOR>> The defense is attempting to conflate conspiracy, which is we pre planned this thing or conspiracy, which is wink and a nod. No, we're talking party to a crime. OK, conspiracy is a completely different charge. We are going to ask for it. [09:47:33] But in this case, this is a party to a crime which is intentionally doing these things to aid and abet Mr. Brines in his driveway. He intentionally gets in his pickup truck to aid and abet the McMichaels who he sees are actively trying to detain Mr. Arbrey in violation of his personal liberty, falsely imprison him. He's actually in the top of his driveway looking down the white pickup truck. He can see it and strawberries running back toward him. They can see that Mr. Bryant is now pulled out. They make a decision based on this to go around homes, but for their decisions on Barford, but for their attempt to falsely imprison Mr. Arbrey, Mr. Arbrey would not be dead. The false imprisonment on Barford substantially contributed to his death because it's what made him stop running it. They didn't allow him to run up Burford and onto Sellwood, which would have then led right out of the neighborhood, because if he'd gone up, Barford gone over would he'd eventually gotten to satellite drive and could have gotten away and he wouldn't be dead. So this substantially contributed. But for these actions on Barford, none of the rest of it would have happened. 094851 So what did happen? Well, he then has to run back. Mr. Bryan, of course, once again, cuts him off. He then immediately turns up Holmes to get away from Mr. Bryan and his pickup truck, which is now cut him off from his route, going out Satella Drive. But for those -- aggravated assaults, which were used to falsely imprison him there on Burford, he would not have been going up Holmes, which then led him to encounter the white pickup coming down Holmes. We have him trapped like a rat. He ends up with no place to go and he ends up exhausted, fight or flight, turns around the corner and is shot. 094926 So all of this led up immediately to the death, and therefore, it's a question for the jury. And in this case, the standard, as the court knows, is â?owe view all of the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the verdicts, and ask whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.â?? That's for the jury to decide. They're going to go ahead and look at this. And â?obut forâ?? those actions on Burford, would he have ever been trapped like a rat between two pickup trucks on Holmes Drive? No, we wouldn't have been. So it materially and substantially contributed to his death by getting us to that point. 095006 And this is all one continuous event. This is five minutes of this going on. So it's not these separate little vignettes. This is continuous. They're going around. Mr. Bryan's driving him this way. They're going this way to go ahead and capture him and trap him on Holmes. That was their intention, all because they wanted to talk to him. So we've got that. We ask that you deny the motion for directed verdict on counts five and counts nine. 095033 Then we've got I believe Mr. Hogue then did three and seven, which is our aggravated assault with the pickup trucks. Count seven â?odid make an assault upon the person of Ahmaud Arbery with a Ford F 150 pickup truck and a Chevy Silverado pickup truck. Objects, devices and instruments, when used offensively against a person are likely to result in serious bodily injury. 0951005 2.20.21, aggravated assault with a deadly or offensive weapon assaults another person with an offensive weapon to prove assault. The state does not have to prove that the other person was actually injured. However, the state must prove that the defendant committed an act that placed the person in reasonable apprehension or fear of immediately receiving a violent injury. [09:51:28] And then, of course, an offensive weapon is any object that is likely or actually does cause death or serious bodily injury. If used against someone, it's not in dispute at a 5000 pound lethal weapon like a pickup truck can cause serious bodily injury to someone. The question is, were there acts what they did such that they would put a reasonable person in reasonable apprehension? In other words, did what they do cause fear? Yes. Now, we don't have Mr. Aubrey to go ahead and take the stand to go. Yes, I was afraid he's dead, but the jury's allowed to go ahead and look at this and go, OK, let's look at their acts. Did they commit an act that placed Mr. Aubury in reasonable apprehension or fear of immediately receiving a violent injury? Yes, both direct and circumstantial. They did with aggravated assault with these pickup trucks. So once again, now felony murder, we're back to ah, but for situation. So but for them attempting to strike him, cut him off, run him into a ditch, impede him, run up next to him. I mean, strawberries just running down the road and they pull up with a pickup truck right next to him and start yelling at him, stop, stop. We want to talk to you. So at that point, just that alone, is that an action that would put somebody in fear straight? Total strangers have pulled up next to you. You're you don't have a car. You're running. That's a question for the jury. Now, the aggravated assault with the pickup trucks state feels not a problem, proving that beyond a reasonable doubt did play a substantial necessary part in causing his death. Yes, now is Mr. Hogue pointed out at the time of his death, the white pickup truck, which had already been used offensively against him, trying to falsely imprison him on Barford and then once again coming down homes drive goes ahead and passes. Mr. Carbury, we know this, OK? Because what do we have? We've got Mr. Brian and the video. Mr. Aubrey suddenly turns around. Now, whether you can see the white pickup truck or not, he suddenly turns around and runs back down. Mr. Brian goes up, Mr. Brian turns around. He comes back up and the video is there. And what do we have? That truck is parked at the end of the road. Based on their statements, Agent Dialis testified they went up Sellwood and came down homes that means they passed Mr. Aubrey once again with that white pickup truck. He is pinned between the two of them, the black pickup truck and the white pickup truck. The white pickup truck passes him when he turns around and then parks in front of him. That is the aggravated assault. But for them, using those pickup trucks in that manner, he would not be dead because he's trying to run up homes and the white pickup trucks come in. He runs back down. Now, Mr. Bryan's at the top of homes and the white pickup trucks at the bottom of homes. He is pinned. Greg McMichael said he was trapped like a rat and he knew it. That was what Greg MacMichael said. So when he's trapped like a rat between these two pickup trucks, did that substantially, materially? Well, playtest did that play a substantial and necessary part in causing the death? It was absolutely necessary because they had in between these two pickup trucks, they had caused him fear actions put in reasonable apprehension of receiving serious bodily injury with the pickup trucks. And at this point in time, as a party to the crime, they've stopped their pickup truck. But Mr. Brian hasn't stopped his pickup truck. Not at all. He is coming up behind Mr. Arbery. He is revving that engine. You can hear it on the video. And as a party to the crime, they can see [09:50:17][0.0] [09:55:56] that pickup truck coming. Seeing that pickup truck coming didn't stop Travis McMichael from pulling up that shotgun and pointing at Mr. Aubrey. And then he tracks them around and then shoots Mr. Aubrey. The fact that Mr. Brian and the McMichaels has a party to the crime of the use of that pickup truck at that moment, it becomes felony murder for the aggravated assault with the pickup truck. The state will argue, of course, that the use of the pickup truck the entire time. But for that, he would have been where he was. But for all the actions that the McMichaels took in their white pickup truck, Mr. Aubrey would not have been where he was and would not have been trying to escape this particular attack and assault. So we ask that you deny directed verdict on counts three and count seven. Then we have, of course, count four and eight. This was the fourth one that Mr. Polk mentioned. Some order, Judge for the end, I'm sorry, I count eight of the indictment in violation. The personal liberty of Marbury did unlawfully confine and detain a Marbury without legal authority to it said accused did chase tomorrow robbery with Ford F one fifty pickup truck and a Chevy Silverado pickup truck through the public roadways of the city of Shaw's neighborhood and did confine and detain Ammara Brown homes Drive using said pickup trucks, grabbing Michael's statement. He was trapped like a rat. He was trapped between the two pickup trucks. State has gone ahead and proven count eight. So how did that materially, substantially, unnecessarily cause the death of Marbury? Because he's trapped between these two pickup trucks. He's right there in Homs. He's running toward a man pointing a shotgun at him. And that man is relentless. He doesn't give up. He doesn't stay on the side of his pickup truck. So here we've got the ultimate confinement. And Judge, the ultimate confinement is death. Here he is ultimately falsely imprisoned because he was shot right there. Ultimate false imprisonment. But what they actually did is when they put Mr. Aubury in reasonable apprehension, fear of receiving bodily injury with the pickup trucks, they had him trapped like a rat. Once again, fight or flight. All he did was flee from these people. All he did was try and get away. But according to Michael, he was trapped gravely. Michael is standing in the back of that pickup truck yelling at him, Stop, God damn it, stop. Previously told him he was going to kill him. It's going to blow his head. So at this point in time, if he had not been falsely imprisoned and trapped between these pickup trucks, he would not have been shot. Killing is the ultimate confinement and I get that the defense is saying, well, he had options and he should have run this way. He could have run that way. Well, they're parked right in front of that driveway. They didn't actually go up to the stop sign at the end. They parked in that driveway. He was going around this side. There's a driveway to a house right there. He comes around the very front of it. They want to make it seem as if he's the one at fault for not continuing to run. He's the one at fault because they made him afraid. He's the one at fault because he didn't want to. I don't know. It would be speculation, but nobody wants to get shot back with a shotgun. He's already been told they're going to kill him if he doesn't stop. So at this point in time, falsely imprisoning him there and keeping and confining him there substantially and necessarily caused his death, blaming him for not continue to run on or him utilizing his options to defend himself. Is that really I put this what Mr. Aubrey chose to do in his intent is not relevant. The acts of the defendant are what are that's what's relevant here. And trapping him like a rat between two pickup trucks, one of which he was actively running away from as it pursued him, forcing him towards the white pickup truck. And Travis Michael and his shotgun. That was actual false imprisonment because he never, ever got away from them on Holmes Drive, he was killed. So it substantially contributed [09:55:56][0.0] [10:00:32] to his death when we look at counts. So we ask you to deny the directed verdict as to four and eight, when we look at counts two and six once again to being felony murder based on the aggravated assault with a shotgun, count six is to make assault upon the person of armed robbery with a firearm, a deadly weapon to hit a 12 gauge shotgun to prove assault. The state does not have to prove that the other person was actually injured. However, the state must prove that the defendant attempted to cause a violent injury to the person. All right. So, Judge, I hear what Mr. Hogue saying, that pointing the shotgun, Adam, where it's up against here is an aggravated assault. And it is. And if he had never fired at him, if he'd just done that, he'd be guilty of aggravated assault. However, as you know, our Supreme Court has recently told the state state you can't go charging different moments in time in a continuous action. They've told us that they said you can't do it. It's all one aggravated assault. There has to be an intervening factor, meaning I think the I think the one case that we're talking about is it was aggravated assault on a woman boyfriend girlfriend. And he went ahead and slashed her face. So we've got aggravated battery. Then there was an intervening time period where she got away from him. Then he went up. I think he stabbed her in the neck. Those were two separate things solely because of the intervening time factor. But the courts have said meaning our Supreme Court has held, it's all one thing. But in this particular case, the state's not contending that it's two separate aggravated assaults. It's aggravated assault when he pulled the trigger and shot him. So I just want everybody to be really, really clear. The state is arguing the state must prove that the defendant attempted to cause a violent injury to the person and he attempted to cause a violent injury to the person when he shot him point blank in the torso with that shotgun. They are all parties to the crime of this because Michael's already threatened to shoot him with a, you know, stop or blow your head off. Mr. Brian sees that shotgun, sees it come out, sees exactly what's going on. We might not see it on the camera, but he's driving. The truck is driving right driving. Mr. Aubrey right towards that man with the shotgun, helping him to go ahead and commit this crime. So at this point in time, we've got the aggravated assault here. Travis with Michael actually pulled the trigger. Gregory Michael helped and encouraged Travis MacMichael. Travis MacMichael grabbed his shotgun in his driveway, decision at his house, chose to bring that shotgun along. Greg Michael knew it. There's absolutely no evidence that Gregory Michael told him not to bring it along. Don't bring that shotgun. Nothing like that. Everybody who got into the truck with his son knowing he had that shotgun. It's a circumstantial evidence. Greg. Michael's in the truck with Travis. Look, Michael, the entire time that he has the shotgun, both in the pickup truck and then when Greg Michael gets in the back of the pickup truck, Gregory Michael's yelling at stop, stop driving. Michael's giving Travis Michael directions. Cut him off, cut him off, come off in a moment that Travis McMichaels outside drove back. You can see he's got the shotgun. Stop, God damn it, stop is what he's saying to Mr. Aubry. That is helping, intentionally aiding and abetting, knowing full well that the shotgun is being pointed at Mr. Aubrey. And it's kind of encouraging. It's tacitly basically authorizing this and encouraging him because it's not telling his son to stop doing that. But that's, you know, here, put the shotgun down. You don't hear what the heck are you doing? Don't do that. You hear. Stop. Goddamn it, Travis. If Michael is driving and the the one thing that's kind of important here, Judge, is that Mr. Hogue, when it was we came to trap to Gregory Michael's statement, actually asked Parker, Marci a question. And it was subjected to by Greg McMichaels counsel. But I know the court noticed it. I noticed it. It was my attention and I know it was my son's to arrest him or at least to get him identified. There was no objection from Travis McMichaels. So at this point, it's before the court on objected to by Travis McMichaels counsel is what their intentions were here. And of course, they're going to argue, well, it was to arrest him or at least get him identified. So if this is Travis McMichaels intention, it was Greg McMichaels intention and that's what they were doing and they were doing at the point of a shotgun. With regard to Mr. Brian, Mr. Brian never called nine one one. Mr. Brian continues forward recording despite the shotgun coming out, Mr. Brian says absolutely nothing on the recording. He doesn't go, oh, my God, there's a shotgun. Oh, my God, what's he doing? He doesn't, like I said, swerve out of the way and into a ditch. He doesn't put it in reverse and back up. So he's out of the line of fire. He pulls forward and accelerates despite the shotgun coming out, doesn't slam on the brakes, does not protest, does not yell, doesn't honk, doesn't do anything. But keep driving forward, driving a marberry forward. We get to this location by Mr. Brian pursuing Mr. Aubrey because as we saw in the video, Mr. Aubrey had actually run away from the white truck. Again, Mr. Aubrey runs. We see that he's going down homes towards the tilla. Mr. Brian goes up and he turns around. At this point, we actually see Mr. Aubrey back at the blue mailbox, having turned around, being forced to run back toward the white pickup truck. Therefore, he helped by chasing Mr. Arbitraged, the white F 150 pickup truck despite Aubrey's obvious attempts to get away from the white pickup truck. But he encounters Mr. Brian in the Silverado, so he has to run back toward the white pickup truck once again. A party to the crime in making this happen. And we all know that even if your fingers non trigger, you can still be held responsible. I mean, we all know the getaway driver doesn't go into the convenience store, is just as guilty as the guy who goes in to the convenience store and pulls the trigger because he's there to help make it happen. Helped make it happen. And here we have Travis with Michael actually pulling the trigger, Greg McMichael helping to make it happen, and William Brian helping to make this happen. Because without their help and assistance, without there Michael, especially his encouragement, Travis McMichael would not necessarily have been able to complete this had not Mr. Brian driven Mr. Aubrey toward the parked white pickup truck. If Mr. Brian had actually kept going and up around Sellwood or had left, Mr. Aubrey would have been able to keep running up homes and maybe get to Sellwood and Stila. Thus, Mr. Brian, confining him there, contributed substantially and materially, materially to the felony murder and the aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. So we ask that you go ahead and also deny the directed verdict. Four counts, two and six of the indictment. As to Greg McMichael and Travis MacMichael, Anderson, thank you. Any final word. [10:08:01][449.7] [10:08:02] From the MacMichael defendants on their motion? Yes. Just very briefly, are can. [10:08:10][8.8] [10:08:11] You hear me from here citing the language in State B Jackson 287, Georgia six forty six, 2010 Georgia Supreme Court case. Justice Nahmias. We have also said the proximate cause is the standard for homicide cases in general. And then he cites cases and is quoting from Wilson, the state. We set out the following test for determining causation in homicide cases where one inflicts an unlawful injury. Such injury is to be counted as the efficient proximate cause of death. Whenever it shall be made to appear. Either that there are three subparts. One, the injury itself constituted the sole proximate cause of [10:08:11][0.0] [458.5] [10:09:08] death or to the injury directly and materially contributed to the happenings of a subsequent accruing immediate cause of the death. Or three. The injury materially accelerated the death, although approximately occasioned by preexist causes that one doesn't apply. So the proximate cause issue in counts two, three, four and five is at the heart of our motion. And I think the state failed to make that connection between the underlying felonies that are named in count six, seven, eight and nine and the accruing death based on this test from this case. And of course, that's a completely different problem than the malice murder and I will say anything more about that. So that's our response to the state's our reply to the state's response. All right. I'm sorry to distinguish that case. Having just heard it, not knowing in advance that case was a code word, meaning a whole bunch of people running a crime and victim fought back and it ended up with one of the co-defendants murdered. So they're talking about proximate cause for the armed robbers. What would be responsible for the death of his car driver? That's what that case is about, not this sort of situation. I will just add the next paragraph is consistent with this general rule, which I just read. We have held in many cases and for many decades that the proximate causation is the standard for murder cases prosecuted under the murders, that you can't find another CGA. Sixteen five. One particular facts of this case or in material, it's the rule that I'm talking about. Mr. Goff, on behalf of Mr. Criminy Director Marie. Good morning, Your Honor. First thing I'll do is I'll formally adopt the. [10:11:38][150.1] [10:11:41] Very cogent arguments made by cocounsel in this case. Uh, and without tracking through those, you know, but for the. [10:11:50][8.5] [10:11:51] Best break, Mo giving birth to Roddy Brian, God rest his soul many years ago. But for that, Roddy Brian wouldn't have been out there that day in his pickup truck when we use this. But for causation that that there's a lot of baggage that comes along with that. And with all due respect to Mr. Kosti, it. [10:12:11][20.2] [10:12:11] Feels like they are stretching that term beyond recognition. The legal. [10:12:14][3.1] [10:12:15] Standard is proximate cause. And we'll come back to that in a moment. But when you look at it as proximate cause and not simply reducing it to two words, but for I think the court understands why the defendants are here making motions with respect to count one, malice murder. You know, I'm really at a loss here to understand, but it was the state that decided to present what we sometimes call a kitchen sink indictment to the grand jury, where every defendant is charged in every possible way with every possible crime. In this case, that was a decision the state made. And I certainly appreciate the challenge to the court in trying to assess these issues. As. [10:12:59][44.1] [10:12:59] I look at the malice murder charge, there is no contention that Roddy Brian shot anybody. There's no contention that Ray. [10:13:05][5.9] [10:13:05] Brian tried to shoot anybody. There's no contention here that Mr. Brian is acting as a principal. This is if I misunderstood based on Kasky, I'm sure she'll correct the entire theory. Here is aiding and abetting third section of that statute. And where is it that Mr. Brian is intentionally aiding and abetting the shooting because he's not? [10:13:30][25.2] [10:13:31] Now, maybe some decision came out of the Supreme Court last week or last month. I'm unaware of. But when I went back through Kurt's last night or used to be called Kurts offenses in defense, it's in Georgia section on parties to the crime. I know the court knows the treaties that I'm talking about. You know, they list like thirty different ways that you can be a party to a crime. You can be aiding and abetting in a murder case. [10:13:57][25.8] [10:13:58] But none of those are like the case before this. [10:14:01][2.8] [10:14:02] Court, which is why, although Mr. Dunn Acasti has cited this court well over. [10:14:08][5.9] [10:14:08] One hundred cases, oral argument, probably thousands of cases, and all the pleadings that have been filed motions in response is going back and forth. Mr. Tokarski cannot say to. [10:14:18][9.8] [10:14:19] A single Georgia case that is remotely comparable to the one that we have before the court. This isn't the case where Mr. Brown driving down the street in his pickup truck and Travis McMichael is standing in the back of it, shooting at Mr. Arbery. This isn't that case. [10:14:35][16.0] [10:14:37] There is. [10:14:37][0.3] [10:14:38] No case. And she can cite no case remotely close to this one. The closest cases that I've been able to find and of course, the referenced in there in what. [10:14:48][10.8] [10:14:49] I call the distraction, aiding and abetting cases in which one person intentionally distracts another person while someone else behind them either takes a knife and stabs them with. [10:15:02][13.0] [10:15:02] It or shoots them. There are, I call them, distraction. [10:15:06][3.7] [10:15:07] Cases. You're aiding and abetting by distracting. There is no evidence and no suggestion here that Mr. Bryan's conduct has somehow distracted Mr. [10:15:16][9.4] [10:15:16] Arborio. He's well aware of the pickup truck in front of him from the video. He's well aware from the video that they are both armed. So and Mr. Arbery is not shot with his back turned. [10:15:29][12.5] [10:15:30] That might pose a different and a closer question for the court. But in this case, unless Miss Dunn, a Karski. [10:15:36][6.3] [373.4] [10:15:38] Sight, some Georgia case suggesting this, which I still don't understand, theory of aiding and abetting the shooting. [10:15:45][7.1] [10:15:47] Of Mr. Avery, there. [10:15:48][1.7] [10:15:49] Simply is no malice murder case here. And, you know, cocounsel points out some pretty good cases on what. [10:15:55][6.3] [10:15:56] The meds raise required here. Where is any of that for Mr. Bryan? There's no malignant heart in this case. There's nothing from which that could be presumed. And, you know, that takes us back to the whole concept of a citizen arrest. If I understand the state's theory here, the state contends that the McMichaels and I believe they're contending the mission, Mr. Bryan, was. [10:16:19][23.3] [10:16:20] Assisting them or aiding them in attempting to make a citizen's arrest, which in the opinion of the state is not or was not authorized under Georgia law. And that may be true, Your Honor, but the fact that Mr. Bryan aided and abetted a citizen's arrest if he did that doesn't establish malice. [10:16:41][21.3] [10:16:42] In this case. It doesn't establish an intent to aid and abet an intent for a shooting. You know, and. [10:16:49][6.8] [10:16:49] Your Honor, I would urge the court to ponder the larger implications of the legal ruling that the state is requesting here, because in this one case, it might serve the interests of the state. But in the. [10:17:03][14.3] [10:17:03] Larger question, if 10 police. [10:17:06][2.2] [10:17:06] Officers respond to a call, ten police officers pull their cards up around the scene. And. [10:17:12][5.7] [10:17:13] In there, they're maybe they're still moving. [10:17:14][1.7] [10:17:15] Your and inexplicably, a police officer discharges. [10:17:19][4.8] [10:17:20] His weapon and shoots the person that they're after in the. [10:17:24][3.6] [10:17:25] Maybe they had probable cause, maybe they didn't. But are we going to try? Every police officer who's present at the scene of an attempted arrest for malice murder. [10:17:34][9.1] [10:17:34] Because somehow. [10:17:35][0.6] [10:17:36] In aiding and abetting an attempt at an arrest, lawful or lawful, that that translates into aiding and abetting the shooting that follows. That can't be the law. And. [10:17:47][11.0] [10:17:47] We should be creating special rules of law. There are enough of those. We shouldn't be creating any more special rules of law for one case, because we know the reality is that these things have unintended consequences and they take on a life of their own. We don't need to start down this theory that anybody who's attempting to arrest someone, which. [10:18:05][17.8] [10:18:06] After the last legislative session is pretty much limited to police officers, that any time police officers are attempting to arrest somebody, particularly if they're attempting to do so unlawfully, that they're aiding and abetting the arrest, lawful, unlawful is. [10:18:21][14.8] [10:18:21] Aiding and abetting a shooting or other unlawful use of force that follows. [10:18:25][4.0] [10:18:27] There is no malice murder case, as Mr. Bryan. There is no authority for this case, Your Honor, the state wants to talk. [10:18:35][8.0] [10:18:35] About. But for I want to talk about intervening factors. And before I do that, Your Honor, I would maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to keep up this McCaskey here. But the way Mr. Tokarski is presenting this now of malice murder argument to the court is in essence, collapsing malice murder into felony murder. What distinction is left here between malice murder and felony murder? When Mr. Tokarski makes these arguments because it's winding up being the same thing? Well, you know, he intended to shoot. Therefore, he intended to kill or he intended to falsely imprison, must intend to shoot. How do we distinguish at the end of the day with the arguments made by the state between malice. [10:19:19][43.7] [10:19:19] Murder and felony murder? Your Honor, this is a case and this feeds into the severance issue. With all. [10:19:26][6.7] [10:19:27] Due respect, Mr. Tokarski, I would humbly suggest to the court that if Mr. McCaskey continues. [10:19:33][6.4] [10:19:34] To proceed along this line with malice murder and we go into the defense case here, we are going. [10:19:38][4.5] [10:19:38] To have at some point antagonistic. [10:19:42][3.2] [10:19:43] Defenses that cannot be overlooked. The state, as I understand it, has not submitted a charge on manslaughter. My understanding that LERN counsel for the McMichael defendants have not submitted a jury charge on manslaughter. And part of that, I think, well,. [10:19:58][15.4] [10:19:58] There's different strategic reasons why people do things. But my point, Your Honor, is in terms. [10:20:03][4.8] [10:20:03] Of proximate cause, do we not have not one but two intervening factors here, factors that are not reasonably foreseeable to Roddy Brian. [10:20:12][9.3] [10:20:13] May be logically foreseeable and something that's conceptually possible, but not reasonably foreseeable in the sense that the law would imply you have [10:20:13][0.0] [258.1] [10:20:23] in the video, and unless I missed it, that this part of the video that state contains is undisputed uncontradicted. In the video at the last minute, you see Mr. Aubury, instead of turning right towards the exit of satellite because he turns to the left. That's not for me to judge. Question why Mr. Aubrey does the things he does. [10:20:46][23.4] 102005 DEFENSE COUNSEL>> But when he turns left instead of right, regardless of his justification or his reasons(?) for doing so, that is an intervening cause, an intervening circumstance, I submit under Georgia law. And at that point, it's not foreseeable to Mr. Bryan, it's not foreseeable that some, just like on the street with the police officers, suicide by cop, is not reasonably foreseeable, nor is suicide by citizen's arrest. [10:20:35] When Mr. Arbery turns towards Mr. [10:21:20][31.9] [10:21:20] MacMichael, that is an intervening circumstance that breaks any causative chain here with respect to the shooting and death itself. Likewise, and I'm certainly not taking sides in this. It'll be for the jury and the court to determine the guilt or innocence of the McMichael defendants. But at the same time, you have a second. [10:21:39][18.9] [10:21:39] Intervening factor in first intervening factor. Is Mr. Aubury pivoting to the left instead of heading for the exit? The second intervening factor is Travis MacMichael discharging his weapon and I'm not questioning why Mr. Arbor's doing what he's doing. I'm not questioning why Travis McMichaels doing what he's doing. What I'm saying is you have a second intervening factor, which is the choice of Travis make Michael to discharge his weapon. It doesn't really matter for purposes of evaluating count one malice murder. If the court can see that whoever's in the right here, whoever's in the wrong,. [10:22:14][34.6] [10:22:14] Whichever party is using excessive force, maybe both parties are using excessive force. Maybe there's some kind of mutual combat theory out there. [10:22:21][7.2] [10:22:22] But for Mr. Bryan's perspective, in terms of proximate cause, in terms of which reasonably foreseeable to him, none of these things are reasonably foreseeable. And I think the court understands the. [10:22:31][9.1] [10:22:32] Consequences. If the court were to go that any other road and if we're going to persist with this issue, we're going to wind up in a severance posture and maybe premature. We haven't heard whether any of the other defendants have testified yet, but I would submit the easiest way to resolve the severance issue is to grant the motion for directed verdict for Mr. Bryant as to malice murder. [10:22:51][19.2] [10:22:53] Moving on to count to felony murder, which is tied to aggravated assault to a shotgun. Again, the arguments come down very much the same way because that the state's position on malice murder is a sense, essentially, although not in so many words, collapsing and felony murder. [10:23:12][19.2] [10:23:13] Where is. [10:23:13][0.6] [10:23:14] The intent on the part of Mr. Bryant to facilitate an aggravated assault with a shotgun? Again, it's one thing to say if the state contends that's what the evidence shows, that Mr. Bryant is attempting to assist in a citizen's arrest, aiding and abetting a citizen's arrest. [10:23:32][17.9] [10:23:32] But there's nothing reasonably foreseeable about killing someone in a citizen's arrest. Just as on the street, there's nothing reasonably foreseeable police officers when a fellow officer without cause discharges a weapon in these days, maybe even a Taser and kills somebody. Again, there is no proximate cause and there is no mens rea. There is no aiding and abetting the shooting. Now, it's done. Karski wants to make a big deal of the fact that the gun is visible. [10:24:06][33.1] [10:24:08] That Mr. Bryant's truck is still moving, although obviously at a slow rate of speed. And therefore, because he doesn't run in a ditch, he doesn't back. [10:24:18][10.5] [10:24:19] Up that he somehow is now joining in the shooting. But again, the I think I understand the state's position is pretty clear, almost uncontradicted, that this is a purported attempted citizen's arrest, again, in the context of a citizen's arrest is the fact that Mr. Bryant is maneuvering his car, his truck, rather, and positioning his cell phone to follow Mr. Aubury and document what Mr. Aubury is doing. [10:24:46][27.1] [10:24:47] Has that circumstance,. [10:24:49][2.2] [10:24:49] Whether he's traveling at two miles an hour, four miles an hour, six. How does that establish his aiding and abetting the shooting itself? Because Mr. Bryant only has knowledge of the existence of the weapon, as we see on the video at the very last moment and still at that time for Mr. Bryant's perspective, even if he's attempting to aid and abet a citizen's arrest, that's not the same thing as aiding and abetting a murder. I mean, would. [10:25:16][26.6] [10:25:16] It be [10:25:16][0.0] [281.6] [10:25:16] It's the same thing, Your Honor, whether Travis McMichaels shooting him or not or whether he's pulling out a club and beating him on the side of the road with a billy club like a police officer would do again,. [10:25:26][9.7] [10:25:26] How is Mr. Bryant's assisting, if that's what it is, in a citizen's arrest showing that he's attempting to aid and abet the shooting, aiding and abetting lawful, excessive use of force. [10:25:38][11.7] [10:25:39] In the making of an arrest that that's just not there. That's just not Georgia law. And again, you know, the state wants says the jury should consider the fact that they had their guns drawn. [10:25:53][13.4] [10:25:54] OK, well, what is Mr. how is Mr. Brian again to know that they have any intent in drawing a weapon, whether it's in the down position, a position, not a use of force expert, but whatever position. [10:26:08][13.9] [10:26:09] Again. How is that telling Mr. Brian that they intend to use excessive force, that they intend to kill him, that they're not trying? Maybe that's the state's theory, that they weren't really trying to make an unlawful arrest. They were just looking for an excuse to kill him or they were just waiting for the opportunity, notwithstanding the fact that they had lots of opportunities to shoot this gentleman over five minutes. He's clearly in terms of proximate cause. When you look at the video, you. [10:26:35][26.0] [10:26:35] See Mr. Aubury, he's well within range. He's well within shotgun range. He's also well within range of driving Michael's handgun at the time that Mr. Brian is pulling for Mr. Bryan's perspective, he didn't have any reason to think they were trying or intended to hurt these people. They had ample opportunity to do that long before he got there. Long before he pulled up. Again, I'm asking the court to grant a direct a verdict on count two felony murder based on the underlying count. Six, aggravated assault with a shotgun. [10:27:04][28.4] [10:27:05] Count three, felony murder, aggravated assault with a pickup truck. Your Honor, although. [10:27:15][10.1] [10:27:16] The statute defines the grounds for a directed verdict, I believe Miss Dunn Tokarski his acknowledged that Casey I'm sorry, has acknowledged that it's not that simple, that the standard essentially goes back to Jackson v. Virginia. It's not just whether there's, quote unquote, any evidence to submit something to a jury. There has to be sufficient evidence from which a rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [10:27:40][24.1] [10:27:41] There is a severe lack of. [10:27:44][2.9] [10:27:44] Evidence in this case. There's no evidence that Mr. Bryan intended to do so. What they're doing is they're basing that on words. And I'm going to incorporate it here for purposes of the motion for directed verdict, the arguments made in connection with the special demur in this case. And of course, those have also all already been addressed to some extent by counsel for the McMichaels. There's no witness there, no other there is no witness to what Mr. Ryan did. There's no video of an aggravated assault. It's all contradicted by the physical evidence in this case. And I don't have the citation in front of me. But with respect to aggravated assault with a motor vehicle, I think the case law is a case specifically out there. This is speculation as to aggravated assault is inappropriate. And there are some times when there's insufficient evidence and where the jury is basically being asked to speculate as to what happened. And this is that case, Your Honor. And with terms of felony murder, again, you get back to the same issue, assuming for the moment that Mr. Brian was committing an aggravated assault with a pickup truck down on VAFA. How does that establish how is that. [10:28:55][71.1] [10:28:55] The proximate cause of a felony murder that takes place down on HomeStreet Street later? [10:29:02][7.0] [10:29:03] And for the jury to be able to return a verdict because of the way this indictment is phrased, the jury can return a verdict of guilty without specifying. [10:29:12][9.4] [10:29:13] Where takes place. How do we know that the juror, certainly all 12 of them have made. [10:29:17][4.1] [10:29:17] A decision as to that, because without that, how can they make a determination as to proximate cause? This is a huge problem. [10:29:24][6.8] [10:29:26] And I'm going to get back to count seven in a moment. 102850 DEFENSE COUNSEL>> But in terms of felony murder, there's just no proximate cause here. It's not reasonably foreseeable. And it's a huge stretch to say that what Mr. Bryan is doing out there in his truck is causing the death. [10:29:05] In fact, I think was very pointed out that the their truck is stopped. It's not even moving. And Mr. Unicast talked about the engine, but I think the video speaks for itself. Certainly, Mr. Aubrey is not assaulting at this time. [10:30:05][38.4] [10:30:06] Your there's no proximate cause. There's insufficient connection to the death. I'm going to turn to count four felony murder, which is based on false imprisonment. [10:30:15][8.9] [10:30:16] Your Honor,. [10:30:16][0.6] [10:30:16] I do believe that there was a special demurrer filed in this case previously about false imprisonment. And if I recall, the court cited a case, I don't have it in front of me. [10:30:26][10.3] [10:30:28] About you can assault, you can imprisoned by with a pickup truck. My recollection of that. [10:30:35][6.6] [10:30:35] Case [10:30:35][0.0] [303.3] [10:30:35] with that case were not just where someone was being chased, but where they actually were struck and went. [10:30:41][5.9] [10:30:42] Over the hood. And then the person in the car got out of the stabbing. [10:30:44][2.9] [10:30:45] That's certainly factually distinguishable. But again, what is it if the falsus at the time of the shooting, there is no false. [10:30:54][9.0] [10:30:54] Imprisonment. Your Honor, at the time of the shooting, Mr. Aubrey, to borrow a football phrase, has broken containment. He is past both trucks at that point and has a clear line to the exit to the neighborhood. So I don't understand how you have. [10:31:14][19.4] [10:31:14] A proximate how you could have proximate cause between a false imprisonment, if that's what it is, and the shooting itself. And because there is it not. [10:31:24][10.1] [10:31:24] Also notwithstanding Georgia law to the contrary, that false imprisonment is not the kind of felony that will support a felony murder charge. There are other jurisdictions that disagree with Georgia and that can under their laws, they do not view false imprisonment as a violent offense. That would that would be a felony based on false imprisonment on. I certainly want to preserve that argument. [10:31:48][23.3] [10:31:51] Because it's just I guess the best way to phrase it in terms of Georgia law is false. Imprisonment really belongs is more like a status offense. Than it is a violent offense. And in that respect, it should not be the underlying felony for a felony murder charge. We still have issues with the mens rea. We still contend that the false imprisonment is unsupported factually. But again, in terms of foreseeable. [10:32:18][27.4] [10:32:20] How is the shooting, Your Honor, reasonably foreseeable to Mr. Bryan, assuming that there is a false imprisonment. [10:32:28][8.5] [10:32:29] How is how. [10:32:30][0.7] [10:32:30] Is the shooting itself? It's one thing to say to Mr. Bryan aided and abetted a false prison. That's not the same thing as saying he aided and abetted a shooting. And that again goes back over Grant. I think I've already covered and I won't do that to the court again. [10:32:44][14.0] [10:32:50] Count five, felony murder again. We contend the criminal attempt to commit felony murder is not the kind defense upon which a felony murder charge can be created. We would suggest to the court that that is even a step further removed from Folsom Prison in itself, and that furthermore, that the attempted felony, attempted false imprisonment is not the proximate cause. Again, of the shooting or death of Mr. Aubrey. [10:33:19][28.3] [10:33:21] There are real problems there of the causal link. Count six, aggravated assault with a shotgun. Again, there is. [10:33:29][7.7] [10:33:29] No aiding and abetting for Mr. Bryan, aiding and abetting a citizen's arrest, even if a lawful is not the same thing as aiding and abetting a shooting. And I won't go back down that ground any further counts, said an aggravated assault with the trucks cocounsel has already spent a good bit of time addressing this. I've addressed it in the special demurrer. It's troubling to me that the state comes in here when three police officers, your honor, three seasoned police officers about two. Well, season one, we could argue about all interview, Mr. Bryan. And that's the basis of this count is Mr. Bryan statements himself. There's no other evidence other than that in this case. And three of these all three. [10:34:21][52.5] [10:34:22] Of these officers interview Mr. Brown or populist Brian at length. All three summarized those interviews. None of them refer to Mr. Bryant's conduct as an aggravated assault. None of them do that because it's not there. The jury, your honor, is required to get to the truth of the matter. It's not just the words Mr. Bryan uses, which could be anybody's words can be twisted out of context is the context in which you are given. It's the meaning that's meant to be conveyed. And it's clear from the testimony of the state's own witnesses. But that meaning is not there. There is no aggravated assault with Mr. Bryan jumping. [10:35:03][41.0] [10:35:03] Back and forth here. I guess make sure where I am. [10:35:06][2.7] [10:35:08] Your. [10:35:08][0.0] [10:35:08] Honor, the evidence is in terms of the speed, for example, that while the state refers to Mr. Bryan is chasing, that the evidence is on the video at two miles an hour. [10:35:19][10.6] [10:35:22] Your Honor, with respect to count eight, the false imprisonment we are,. [10:35:27][5.0] [10:35:27] The indictment alleges in the state is stuck with the language in the indictment that he was that the confinement. [10:35:32][5.5] [274.5] [10:35:33] And detainment occurs on Holmes Drive. But the evidence that the state is relying on is coming from Burford. And. [10:35:43][9.6] [10:35:43] He can't he can't be convicted at this point of that. And how the court would charge a jury, I have no idea. [10:35:50][7.0] [16.5] [10:35:57] Your Honor. On count eight, the false imprisonment. I talked earlier about the breaking containment. There is some Georgia case law out there. And for example, I guess this is the best analogy I can come up with here. [10:36:16][19.3] [10:36:17] In a bank robbery when. [10:36:20][2.6] [10:36:20] An individual committing a bank robbery pulls out a gun and tells everybody to get down on the ground. [10:36:24][4.0] [10:36:25] Under Georgia law, that is a false imprisonment because they get on the ground. But this case isn't the case when they get on. [10:36:34][9.1] [10:36:34] The ground. Mr. Aubrey never submits to being arrested. And in this case, this is what the state is pursuing here is equivalent to someone of store saying, everybody get down on the ground and the person just continuing to run right out the door. That's what we have here. And. [10:36:53][19.2] [10:36:54] That is not a false imprisonment under Georgia law. And again, if this Dunn Tarkovsky has a case citation for this court to any Georgia case that is remotely factually close to this one, I'm sure she'll present it, but. [10:37:08][13.7] [10:37:08] I can't find it, your honor. Attempted false imprisonment. That's count nine. [10:37:13][4.6] [10:37:14] We. [10:37:14][0.0] [10:37:14] Contend that the evidence is simply insufficient to submit that matter to the jury. Moreover, we think the evidence that was presented during the Cates case, state's case in chief is shows affirmatively abandonment, that. [10:37:32][18.2] [10:37:33] Mr. Bryant has abandoned this chase, as they call it. And the video itself, I think, demonstrates that the time of the shooting, Mr. Brown, is simply a witness to the shooting itself and to those events. And under those circumstances, we believe that he is entitled to have an acquittal as to count nine and all the other counts in this indictment, we would ask that attracted very few grand on all counts and that Mr. Bryan be released forthwith. [10:37:58][25.6] [10:38:00] From the state insurance that we break briefly for restaurant. Yes, we're going to take a ten minute recess. Let's go and take ten minutes. We'll reconvene at 10:00 [10:38:00][0.0] [116.4] [10:38:08] for. All right. We are back on defense. President from the state judge Musharraf talked a lot about citizen's arrest and that being the defense in this case. But there has been any evidence that anyone was making a citizen's arrest. Citizen's arrest was never said by any of these three defendants at any point in time. The evidence has been presented is that Mr. Ryan and Mr. Gaborik, Michael, never once said we're making a citizen's arrest, that we're placing you under arrest for the crime of this, that we saw him commit a crime that day. That was not it. It was all we wanted to stop and talk to him, and then we wanted to detain him. In fact, Mr. Rubin said in his opening statement that the intent was to detain him so that the police could show up and do whatever they were going to do after the detention. It's not citizens detention. It's citizen's arrest. So while he talked about that, that is really not something to be considered in a directed verdict motion. And just because a set of facts hasn't yet been specifically identically brought before a court, this sets of facts. No two cases are going to have the same set of facts. They're just not. And so the fact that there is felony murder based on false imprisonment, case law out there where someone has been found guilty, felony murder based on false imprisonment, someone's been found guilty of prior to crime, based on aggravated assault with a shotgun. Someone's been found guilty of party to a crime for aggravated assault with a motor vehicle. Those cases are out there, maybe not with these specific facts. So that argument doesn't really hold water either. In this. [10:54:00][951.3] [10:54:00] Particular case, when it comes to Mr. Bryan. And this will apply for all of the charges here. Once again, it's party to a crime, and that means intentionally aid and abet his statements to Agent Seacrest and actually at the scene to Officer Minshew were about yeah, I thought they had done something. You know, I thought I thought I was trying to help them get this guy Folsom in prison. This guy captured this guy, and that was what his intent was. It was to falsely imprison this particular person and he intentionally used his vehicle to go ahead and do that both on Barford when he intentionally committed an aggravated assault, putting Mr. Aubrey and reasonable apprehension of receiving serious bodily injury as part of his intent to falsely imprison him on before those two things contributed to his death. Because but for those things happening, Mr. Aubrey would still be alive. So it is as the pattern charge will be, given his actions played a substantial and necessary part in causing the death, because without him doing those things, Mr. Aubrey would not have been trapped like a rat over on Holmes Drive between the two pickup trucks. As we noted before, Malice chased him through the public roadways in the pickup trucks, tried to stop him, cut him off with the pickup trucks. He drove them into a ditch. He assisted, pinning him between the two pickup trucks, trapping him like a rap between the two pickup trucks. Mr. Aubrey had not threatened anybody, had shown no aggression. Mr. Aubrey had no weapons. He was totally unarmed. And here Mr. Bryan never called 911. He continues pursuing Mr. Arbrey. Mr. Bryan never says anything on the recording. He pulls forward despite the shotgun coming out, despite the stalking being pointed at himself. Doesn't slam on the brakes, doesn't yell, doesn't protest, doesn't honk, just keeps driving forward driving. Mr. Forward, he helped to get Mr. Aubrey to this location by redirecting him up homes. The most important thing is when you have [10:54:00][0.0] [951.3] [10:56:18] common criminal intent. 105536 And here the state's position is, is that if parties to the crime, there's common -- criminal intent to attack Mr. Arbrey via false imprisonment, aggravated assault with the pickup trucks, aggravated assault with a shotgun and false imprisonment ultimately on Holmes. [10:55:55] And that common criminal intent to do all those things, not necessarily the conspiracy. I'm not talking about conspiring in advance and coming up with a plan to sit around the kitchen table, we're talking about what they actually did, acted in concert with each other. The white truck came down homes. Mr. Bryan was going up, homes Mr. Aubrey had already turned around, was running back in the white truck past him. Mr. Bryan did not abandon this. He turned around. He kept going, and then he accelerated to catch up to Mr. Aubrey past the blue mailbox, saw the shotgun and kept going. Common criminal intent, which resulted in malice murder, resulted in all the felony murders. All of his actions did substantially contribute to the death of Mr. Aubrey. And they were necessary because without those actions, Mr. Aubrey would be alive. We ask that you deny the directed verdict for all of the counts. As to Mr. Brian, thank you. [10:57:46][88.6] [10:57:48] Any final word from Sprunt. [10:57:49][0.8] [10:57:54] Your Honor, in the state, it is constrained to acknowledge that they have no legal authority for their position, for example, on malice murder. And I think the court should take seriously the motion to grant the director there is no malice murder or take a case against Mr. Bryan. With all due respect to the state, there never was that there are some other issues in the case. There are more challenging and more troubling. But that's an easy call. I think it's an easy call on count two, felony murder for Mr. Bryan. Only again, the state has no flop. It doesn't even pretend to give an explanation as to how Mr. Bryan thinking that he's Haitink, a citizen arrest lawfully or unlawfully, how that translates into an intent to shoot or an intent to injure. And it's deeply troubling to me that the state can't have the Canada acknowledged the court that maybe in retrospect counts one and count two. As to Mr. Bryan, we're not well thought out. There's no proximate cause. There's no reasonable foreseeabili. [10:58:54][60.4] [10:58:54] Ty Here. And, you know, I'm impressed with the argument that was made. But still, Mr. Bryan is entitled who directed verdict? Certainly on count one, almost certainly on count. [10:59:07][12.5] [10:59:07] Two. And arguably, as to every count in the indictment, thank you. [10:59:11][3.5] [10:59:13] Error. I apologize profusely. I had pulled up a case and I forgot to cite it. And it is both the state of Georgia. What Moore vs. the state in Millburn versus the state it is three eleven Georgia five six. And in this particular case, a group of eight hundred of a drug dealer and one person stayed downstairs to keep the boyfriend away while they went up to go ahead and search the apartment. Unfortunately, the girlfriend was in the apartment and the two that went up there, one executed the girlfriend. They came downstairs. The state obtained a malice murder conviction on man downstairs who simply kept the boyfriend from protecting the girlfriend upstairs. And that is a case that does show someone who doesn't have their finger on the trigger, who's downstairs doing some other action, the same sort of criminal intent which we feel that's here, state criminal intent to falsely imprison [10:59:13][0.0]
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1450 - TO 1650 JOHN LEWIS @16:27
1450 HOUSE FLOOR FS101 88 HOUSE FLOOR DEBATE: The House meets for legislative business. // H.Res. 755 - Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors (Closed Rule, Six Hours of Debate) (Rep. Nadler / Judiciary) Mr. Mcnerney: ...usurp for themselves the reins of government. How wise he was. Vote no on this assault to our republic. The constitution -- republic, the constitution and against President Trump. 145010 The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from New York. Mr. Nadler: Madam speaker, John Adams warned in a letter to Thomas Jefferson that these risks are unavoidable and might sometimes overlap. Quote, you are apprehensive of foreign interference, intrigue, influence. So am I. As long as often as elections happen, the danger of foreign influence occurs. Closed quote. I now yield one minute to the gentlelady from Michigan, Mrs. Lawrence. The speaker pro tempore: The gent gentlelady is recognized for one minute. 145043 Mrs. Lawrence: Madam Speaker, today history is being written. The facts are conclusive. The President attempted to use the power of the powerful office of President to force Ukraine to influence our 2020 election. In the process, President Trump jeopardized our national security and withheld vital military -- withheld vital military assistance, attempted to prevent further Russian aggression to our region. However, as our committees, including government oversight, which I sit on, and which I'm a member, sought to interview additional witnesses and obtain documents, the President ordered from the power of his office that the executive branch to not participate and obstructed the congressional oversight. 145134 Article 1 provides the House of representatives with the sole power of impeachment. As well as the authority to conduct oversight of the executive branch. What did very to hide? When the framers met over 200 years ago, they went to great length to ensure future Presidents would be forced to answer to their constitutional responsibility. I stand today in support of the two articles of impeachment. The speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Collins: Thank you, madam speaker. At this time I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Cline, a member of the judiciary . The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for two minutes Mr. Cline: Thank you, madam speaker. today is a sad day for this body, for the voters who sent me here last November, and for our nation. 145223 Benjamin Franklin cautioned when asked what he had given us, a republic, if you can keep it. Today we take a step further toward losing the republic that our founding fathers envisioned by engaging in activity that they specifically warned against. The misuse of the constitutional power of impeachment for one party's political gain. Our constitution is the very foundation of our republic. Its assurance of self-determination has been the shining beacon by which our nation has chartered its course over the last two centuries from a new democratic experiment, struggling to survive, to the greatest nation on Earth, America has been powered over the years not by government, but by the ingenuity, the bravery and the faith of its people. 145304 Confident in their place as one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. And so it is we the people who determine our President, not we the judiciary committee. Nor we the congress. The constitution is clear, it's only when we see clear proof of the impeachable offenses outlined in article 2, section 4, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, that we are to challenge the decision of the voters, break the figurative glass and pull the emergency rip cord that is impeachment. We do not have that proof today. Thomas Jefferson said, I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them. But to inform their discretion by education. 145350 But rather than educate this majority has chosen today to obfuscate with speculation.And when history looks at this house, it will judge it for what it truly is. A blatantly political process designed to finally achieve what they could not achieve at the ballot box, the removal of a elected President. Compelled by my sworn duty to uphold this constitution and for the people, I vote no on impeachment today. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from York. Mr. Nadler: Madam Speaker, I now yield one minute to the gentleman from California, Mr. Huffman. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for one minute. 145433 Mr. Huffman: Madam speaker, as we take the solemn, necessary step of impeaching President Trump, my Republican colleagues have made up their minds. We can't persuade them to do the right thing. So i'll address my remarks to the future. Today's vote will be judged by future generations, including my precious children, Abby and Nathan, maybe grandkids. Historians will study what members of this congress did when our democracy was tested like never before. By a President who put personal interests above country, who compromised national security to cheat his way to re-election, and when caught, not only lied and refused to admit wrongdoing, but flouted congress' authority. He even called the constitutional impeachment mechanism unconstitutional. 145815 Historians will marvel how some members of congress continued to stand by this man, how they put blind partisan loyalty or fear of Donald Trump above their duty to defend the constitution. How they made absurd partisan arguments and tried to obstruct these proceeding and how instead of pushing back when their party fell under the dark spell of authoritarianism, they embraced it as if the constitution, the rule of law, and our oath of office mean nothing. So, madam speaker, for our future generations, our children, the judgment of history, let me be clear -- I stand with our constitution, with the rule of law, and our democracy. I'll be voting yes to impeach Donald J. Trump. 145600 The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. >> I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Today's vote to impeach the duly elected President of the United States is truly historical. However, its unique place in history is not for the reasons the democratic party and their mainstream media overlords are so desperately trying to convey. Today we will be remembered as the day that the Democrats, claiming a false moral supremacy, over the desire of the American people executed a deliberate and orchestrated plan to overturn a Presidential election. It will be the first time in history that a party paraded out their ivy league academics to explain to 31 states and almost 63 million people that their voice should not be heard and why their votes should be counted. 145653 I pray for our nation every day. But today I'm praying for my colleagues across the aisle. Who arrived at this partisan and self-directed fork in the road and chose the road never before traveled and one that has a dead end. Donald J. Trump is our President. Chosen by the American people. Fair and square. As we say in Texas, it's a done deal. Democrats' attempt to change history will never undo that. May God bless the greatest country in the world, the United States of America. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. Mr. Collins: Reserve. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from New York. Mr. Nadler: Madam speaker, I would remind the gentleman that the impeachment clauses placed in the constitution to protect the American people and our form of government against a President who would subvert our constitutional liberties in between elections. I now yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green. 145746 The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Green: Still I rise, madam speaker. I rise because I love my country and, madam speaker, shall any man be beyond justice, this is the question posed in 1787 by George Mason at the constitutional convention. Shall any man be beyond justice? Madam speaker, if this President is allowed to thwart the efforts of congress with a legitimate impeachment inquiry, the President will not only be above the law, he will be beyond justice. 145831 We cannot allow any person to be beyond justice in this country. In the name of democracy, on behalf of the republic, and for the sake of the many who are suffering, I will vote to impeach and I encourage my colleagues to do so as well. No one is beyond justice in this country. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Collins: Thank you, madam speaker. I'd also remind my chairman that the impeachment was not to be used in the -- between election cycles to defeat a President, sitting President, who you think will be re-elected. With that, I yield one minute to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Buchanan. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for minute. Mr. Buchanan: Thank you, madam speaker. I will vote today against both articles of impeachment because we are without merit, setting a dangerous precedent for our country. This political vendetta is an abuse of the impeachment process and would subvert the votes of 63 million Americans. 145930 Just because the President's opponents are afraid that he'll win re-election is no excuse for weaponizing impeachment. No President in history has ever been impeached 10 months before an election. Elections are the heart of our democracy, our founding fathers devised a simple way to remove a President if you disagree with him. It's called an election. And we have one coming up in less than a year. Let's let the people December this next November. And I yield back. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from New York. 150005 Mr. Nadler: Madam Speaker, I now yield one minute to the gentlelady from Michigan, Ms. Tlaib. The speaker pro tempore: The gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> Ms. Tlaib: I rise today in support of impeachment. I learn so much from my residents at home. Their common sense and understanding what is right and what is wrong is why they oppose any person using the most powerful position in the world for personal gain. We serve the people of the United States and uphold the constitution, not as Republicans or Democrats but as Americans. We should learn. Doing nothing here, madam speaker, is not an option. Looking away from these crimes against our country is not an option. This is about protecting the future of our nation and our democracy from corruption, abuse of power, criminal cover-up, and bribery. And this, madam speaker, this vote is also for my sons in the future. 150113 Of so many generations. So I urge my colleagues to please, vote yes on these articles of impeachment. With that, mad speaker, I yield. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Collins: Thank you, madam speaker. I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Joyce. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. Mr. Joyce: I rise on this dark day in the United States house of representatives to voice my opposition to the shameful impeachment process that has occurred in the people's house. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not like President Trump. We know this because they proudly boasted about their intention to impeach our President before he was even sworn into office. Out of disdain for the President and for those of us who elected him, the House of Representatives is considering two articles of impeachment that are so very weak that they even fail to include specific crimes. 150212 The people that I represent in south central and southwestern Pennsylvania know the truth. The American people know the truth. This impeachment circus has never been about the facts. This process has always been about seeking revenge for the President's election in 2016 and attempting to prevent him from winning again in 2020. Madam speaker, I wholeheartedly oppose this partisan and shameful effort to impeach our democratically and duly elected President. For the sake of our nation, I urge my colleagues to join with me and vote no on the articles of impeachment. Thank you. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from New York. Mr:nadler: Madam speaker, all we keep hearing from the other side are attacks on the process and questions of our motives. We do not hear because we cannot hear because they cannot articulate a real defense of the President's actions. I now yield one minute to the gentlelady from Massachusetts, Ms. Pressley. The speaker pro tempore: The gentlelady is recognized for one minute. 150321 Ms. Pressley: Madam speaker, I rise today to protect our democracy. Today, we take a stand against corruption and abuses of power. What we are doing here today is not only patriotic, it is uniquely American. America is a story of ordinary people confronting abuses of power with the steadfast pursuit of justice. Throughout our history, the oppressed have been relegated to the margins by the powerful, and each time we have fought back. Deliberate in our approach, clear-. Each ghaation has fought for the preservation of our democracy, and that is what brings us to the house floor today. Efficient and effective in the pursuit of our truth. Congress Has done its due diligence. Today, we send a clear message, we are not tolerate abuses of power from the President of the United States of ame America. The future of this nation rests in our hands. It is with a heavy heart but a resolved one, and because I believe our democracy is worth fighting for, I vote to impeach Donald J. Trump, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. 150426 The speaker pro tempore: The gentlewoman yields back. The gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Collins: Thank you, madam speaker. You know, again, my chairman, again, I think he hears us. He doesn't want to acknowledge it. When you have nothing but a process that was completely amuck, you talk about the process. Let's do it one more time. No pressure by either Mr. Trump and Mr. Zelenskiy. What horrifies me is the continuation to say that Mr. Zelenskiy, who is the supposed victim here, who said many times there was no pressure. The majority of Democrats are calling him a liar or weakening him in his own country. Has no conditionality in the transcript or after that. Five meetings prove that. All high level meetings. No conditionality. Two of those meetings were when the Ukrainian knew their aid was being held. After, there was nothing done to get the money, guess what they got the money. That's the fact. That's what they don't want to deal with. That's where we're at today. So let's continue to see how the sham was perpetrated. That's what many of our members are talking about. With that I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Bergman. 150527 The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. Mr. Bergman: Thank you, madam speaker. I rise today in opposition to the articles of impeachment against President Trump. I believe all the American people need to be looked in the eye by all their representatives. Today is the culmination of the Democrats' three year-long quest to delegitimize the President. This was promised in 2016. It was all promised when the Democrats took majority. Sham process began without a formal vote in the house and continued over the last several months willfully trampling on decades of bipartisan precedent. No due process, closed door depositions even though nothing in the investigation was classified and leaking only details that fit their narrative. 150620 If this isn't partisan politics, I don't know what is. Holding our elected officials accountable is a job I take extremely seriously. But the impeachment votes today represent the worst of Washington, D.C. Yet, another reason my constituents are so disillusioned with the process and disappointed by the 116th congress. Michigan's first district sent me to Washington to get things done, to get government off their backs and help rural michiganners and others across the country keep more of their hard-earned currency. Not impeach our duly elected President. With that I urge my colues to support against the articles of impeachment. I yield back. The speaker Theo tempore: The GE gentleman yields back. The gentleman from New York. Mr. Nadler: Madam speaker, I now yield one minute to the gentlelady from California, Ms. Barragan. The speaker pro tempore: The gentlelady is recognized for one minute. 150715 Ms. Barragan: Madam speaker, it is with a solemn sense of duty that I rise today in support of impeachment. As this chamber debates two articles of impeachment against the President for his abuse of power and obstruction of congress, I want history to know that I stood up to say that I stand for the constitution and our democracy. When my immigrant mom became a United States citizen, she took an oath and allegiance to our country and constitution. When I stood on this floor as a new member of congress, I took an oath to uphold and defend our constitution. The President abused his power when he uses official office and power to ask foreign government to interfere in our elections. When he asked a foreign government for a personal favor to dig up dirt on his political opponent so he could cheat. The President got caught and then he tried to cover it up. Today, we say no more. Today, we say we will not allow this President to abuse his power and endanger our national security. I stand to say, no one is above the law. Not even this President. I yield back. 150816 The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Collins: Thank you, madam speaker. I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. Mr. Perry: Since before inauguration the press and members of this congress have been for impeachment. Members refused to attend the inauguration. They called for impeachment. They voted for impeachment. Without any evidence, they voted for impeachment, creating and manufacturing evidence. Recall and votes of no confidence are not included in our constitution for a reason. Our system demands evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors. If such evidence existed, there would be agreement in this chamber, but there is not. There is not an agreement because there is no evidence. Madison and Hamilton warned us this might happen, that impeachment would veer toward political factions and that's exactly what this is. This is bitterly and nakedly partisan. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made a mockery of this process and this government. 150911 They despise the President and are themselves abusing their power. Madam speaker, they hope if they repeat them over and over you will believe their charges. Repeating things that aren't true doesn't make them true. The call record between the two Presidents is clear. President Trump was interested in getting to the bottom of what happened in the 2016 election. He asked the Ukrainians to work with our attorney general. The Ukrainians were already getting the military hardware and they got the aid they desired. These are not high crimes. These are disagreements over foreign aid. My colleagues are not driven by a quest of facts or truth. They are driven by their partisan, animus, and a timetable. These are the reckless and irresponsible act of elitists in the swamp and they underline the fabric of our republic. I urge a no vote I yield. 151011 The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from New York. Mr. Nadler: Madam speaker, I would remind the gentleman that there is in fact extensive direct evidence, including the President's own words and actions, which is corroborated and supported by indirect and circumstantial evidence. The record leaves the following key facts indisputable. President Trump's own attorney, Rudy Giuliani, pushed Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and a debunked conspiracy theory about the 2016 elections. President Trump directed U.S. Officials and President zelenskiy himself to work with Mr. Giuliani to fulfill his demands. President Trump withheld critical military aid for Ukraine. And President Trump stonewalled congress' investigation to cover-up his misconduct. I now yield one minute to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Casten. 151100 The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Casten: Madam speaker, this should not be a partisan vote. This is a vote about America. It's a vote about our democracy and our oath to the constitution. We all took an oath to protect the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. We all know that it's wrong to withhold foreign aid for a political favor. We all know it's wrong to ignore congressional subpoenas. And we know it's wrong to default to silly partisan process arguments rather than to rise and defend this beautiful but all-too-fragile democracy. And when those abuse those powers for personal advantage, it's for us to uphold the responsibility the founders bestowed upon us. I remind you the great words of Lincoln. 151149 When one party would inflame partisanship rather than let the nation survive, I am proud to be the party to accept partisanship rather than accept the nation perish. This moment the message is clear, we must impeach. Don't vote your party, vote your character. That's how you're going to be judged and that's how we are all going to be judged. Thank you. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Collins: I ask for a time check. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Georgia has an hour and -- an hour and 44 1/2 minutes. The gentleman from New York has an hour and 47 1/2 minutes. Mr. Collins: Thank you, madam speaker. I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Tipton. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. Mr. Tipton: Kem speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this partisan impeachment process. Make no mistake, this process does not begin with a whistleblower report. In fact, impeachment efforts began shortly after the President was elected. 151253 The theatrics, political posturing have ensured that this body is not actually pursuing to preserve checks and balances. Rather, this process echos the calls by somat refuse to accept the 2016 election results. Neither of the articles receiving a vote just by the removal of the President from office. The first articles suggests that the President pressured a foreign government to be able to assist in an upcoming election. Ukraine received its aid without a prearranged agreement. This is unsubstantiated. Second article is premised on the obstruction occurred when the White House ignored subpoenas issued by the house. Our federal courts are the ultimate arbiters of these decisions. In fact, the previous administrations Republican and Democrat both have dealt with these issues and claimed executive privilege. Mr. Speaker -- madam speaker, the articles that are before this house are unsubstantiated. I intend to vote no on these articles and I would encourage my colleagues to be able to do the same. The speaker thetempore: The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from New York. Mr. Nadler: Madam Speaker, I now yield one minute to the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gallego. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for one minute. 151405 Mr Gallego: Madam speaker, today I will vote to impeach President Donald Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of congress. Those still defending the President's actions are desperately grasping at stause while living in an alternative universe where facts don't exist. To those still unwilling to search their souls ask yourselves -- would you support a democratic President using taxpayer dollars to pressure a foreign government to investigate a Republican political opponent based on false Russian conspiracy theories? Of course not. That's absurd. Any President who does that has abused the power of the presidency for personal gain and undermine our most sacred tradition, our elections. In a few hours, every member will make a choice. Will you fall into the age-old political trap of thinking blind partisanship is all that matters or will you vote to defend the constitution and our democracy so that President Trump and every future President will know they are not above the law and will be held accountable for their actions? 151503 I have made my choice. I hope every member puts the defense of our nation first and joins me. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore: The gentlewoman from Georgia. Mr. Collins: Thank you, madam speaker. I need to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Smith. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. Mr. Smith: Madam speaker, I rise today to speak out against this attempt to remove the duly elected President of the united States. Impeachment is importantly established in our constitution. The impeachment of a President has only happened twice in our country's 243 year history. Yet today for highly political purposes the house majority is trying to remove President Trump from office based on secondhand indirect accounts. 151545 The articles of impeachment we are voting on today offer no evidence of a crime, but instead are purposely broad to fit the majority's narrat less than one year until the next Presidential election, we are being asked to override the choice of the American people. This lopsided and hyper partisan biased impeachment process has had predetermined as an outcome from the very beginning. This is an unfortunate day in in history in our great country. Surely there will be disagreements between the President and congress for many years to come. Instead of unnecessarily dividing our country, as we are seeing today, we should be looking at ways to bring our country together. Thank you. I yield back. 151632 The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from New York. Mr. Nadler: Madam speaker, President Trump's actions are both impeachable and criminal. Although the violation of the federal criminal statute is neither necessary nor sufficient to justify impeachment, President Trump's conduct violated the federal anti-bribery statute very clearly. Madam speaker, I now yield one minute to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer. The speaker pro temp the gentleman is recognizer one minute. 151700 Mr. Beyer: I thank the chairman. Madam Speaker, today I will vote to impeach Donald Trump for abuse of power an obstruction of congress. I don't hate the President. But I love my country and I have no other choice. These articles of impeachment is the on lmoral course of action, the only way to honor our oath of office. I have no doubt the votes I cast today will stand the test of time this. Has nothing to do with the 2016 elections. I'm so disappointed in my Republican friends approve of the President's abuses of power and solicitation of foreign interference in our elections. This is the very definition of the willful suspension of disbelief. Know in their heart what the President has done is deeply wrong. They know they would vote without hesitation impeach a democratic President who had done these things. I remind all Americans the President did not rebut the facts, many facts, which led to articles of impeachment today. For the sake of our democracy, our constitution, and our country, we must do the right thing and vote to impeach President Trump. I yield back. 151800 The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Collins: Thank you, madam speaker. I was amazed by what the Chairman said. If he violated the robbery statute, why didn't we add it as an article of impeachment, the reason why? He it didn't. The speaker pro Tempe: The gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. Thank you, ma'am article 2, section 4 the United States constitution states that the President of the United States may be removed from office for treason, bribery, high crimes, and misdemeanors. As a former prosecutor I am confident that no court would accept these articles of impeachment as having met the standards set forth by our founding fathers. The impeachment articles rely almost exclusively on hearsay and opinion testimony and they present no direct evidence of wrongdoing. As a former district attorney I am dismayed that the Democrats have submitted articles of impeachment against a sitting President using circumstantial evidence that fails to offer proof of an impeachable offense. 151904 Additionally, the charges levied against the President and arcticles of impeachment lack historical precedent and motivated by pure political reasons. If the House of Representatives passes the articles of impeachment, the Democrats will have set a dangerous precedent by undoing America's vote for President because a single party disagreed with the 2016 Presidential election results. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the articles of impeachment and I yield back. The speaker pro tempore: Gentleman from New York. Mr. Nadler: I now yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Thompson. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Thompson: Madam speaker, I find no pleasure coming to the floor today to consider impeachment. I ran for congress to represent my community and to serve the country I love. As a combat veteran and having served eight years on the intelligence committee, I understand the eat that foreignplayors can play in our elections. Every elected official must dedicate themselves to protecting our democracy. No one should invite a foreign country to interfere with our [3:20:24 PM] most sacred act of voting. It was abuse of power by the President ask a foreign nation to interfere in our election to benefit his personal and political interest and to condition bipartisan congressionally approved aid on that interference. Unchecked these actions could lead us down a path that will unravel the-the fabric of our nation. I am saddened we are here today. In the interest of defending our nation, I will vote for the articles of impeachment. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Collins: Thank you, Madam Speaker. At this time I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Roy. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. Mr. Roy: I thank the gentleman from Georgia. . Speaker, our founders intentionally did not embrace recalls or votes of no confidence. We demand of congress high crimes and misdemeanors. While my colleagues are free to like the President E., and view the phone call as something less than perfect, they are not free to impeach something less than a high crime and misdemeanor. [3:21:24 PM] In just over 10 months the people are free to decide and we should let them. The eyes of the world are upon us, madam speaker. The press galleries are full. Our floor of members. When will we give the world -- give the world something better than this. My colleagues talk about the constitution they found under mothballs. Where's respect for the constitution when people's house daily refuse to do its actual job while shredding federalism. Today in Mexico a young girl will be abused while being trafficked toward our open borders. While some here yell kids in cages. Today New York a young mother will be coursed into abortion by taxpayer funded planned parenthood, while we allow the genocide of the unborn in the false name of choice. Today across America diabetics will afford to insulin due to our health care system ravaged by government and insurance bureaucrats empowered in the false name of coverage. Today our children inherit $100 million of debt an hour borrowed in the false name of what government can provide. In this conduct by congress, [3:22:25 PM] failing to do its jobs, that should be impeached. One might ask if America would be better off taking the first 435 names out of the phone book to represent us in the united States house than what is on display here today. Today is not a dark day because the American people know this. America is great. Washington is broken. And we are taking our country back. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from New York. Mr. Nadler: Madam speaker, I now yield one minute to the in distinguished gentlelady from California, Ms. Matsui. The speaker pro tempore: The gentlelady is recognized for one minute. Ms. Matsui: Madam Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart. I came to Congress to serve the great people of Sacramento and to build am Bert future for our children and grand, the children, including my grandkids. The facts before us are crystal clear we heard testimony from 17 brave patriots who value our democracy and the constitution. They testified thaesident ump threatened to withhold congressionally approved money [3:23:25 PM] in exchange for dirt on the political rival and worse. It continues to invite foreign powers to violate our sovereignty even today. On its face these are impeachable offenses that represent a clear and present danger Tory country. That's why the only answer is to act now. We need to stand together and stop President Trump immediately so that he cannot violate the next election. For the sake of our country and our democracy, I will vote yes to impeach the President. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Collins: I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Smucker. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. Mr. Smucker: Thank you. Madam speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, how much is the trust of the American people worth? When the American people are dissatisfied with their government, the primary tool that the constitution gives them to make a change is their vote. And on November 8, 2016, [3:24:27 PM] Americans from every part of this nation packed the polls to elect Donald J. Trump to be the President of the uniteates. The country wanted a disrupter, a fire, a deal maker, a President that would put America first. But sadly on that very same day Democrats had no plan or interest in honoring the vote he American people. They were going to attempt from day one to delegitimize this President and ultimately remove him from office. Right after the President was sworn in, "The Washington Post" wrote, the campaign to impeach President Trump has begun. Before he took office a "Politico" article Headline read, could Trump be impeached shortly after he takes office? So, House Democrats have been planning for this day since nu January, 2017. It's clear that facts have never mattered to the house Democrats. [3:25:28 PM] They never planned to work with the President. Instead they intended only to fulfill their Divis partisan agenda. Again I ask, how much is the trust of the American people worth? Because after the vote today, for what you think is a short-term partisanain, you can be sure that the American people will have lost their trust in our institution. They will have lost their trust in congress and most importantly lost trust their vote counts. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from New York. Mr. Nadler: I yield one minute to the gentleman from California, Mr. Garamendi. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Garamendi: Thank you, madam speaker. Impeaching a President is one of the most solemn and consequential decisions the United States congress can make. It's not an action that I or my fell house colleagues take lightly. -- Fellow house colleagues take lightly. Investigations and hearings [3:26:28 PM] conducted by the house proved overwhelming evidence that President Trump abused his power and endangered our national security. President Trump also issued a blanket order prohibiting all executive office personnel from testifying, responding to subpoenas, or turning over documents. Therefore he has obstructed the legitimate, constitutional obligation of congress. The President's actions leave me no choice. President Trump violated his oath of office. Now I will uphold my oath of office to preserve and protect our constitution. And my promise to my constituents to carefully analyze all issues before me. I will vote in favor of both articles of impeachment against President Donald John Trump. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Collins: Thank you, madam speaker. I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Dunn. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for a [3:27:29 PM] minute and a half. Mr. Dunn: I stand before you today a disappointed man. I am disappointed in a broken and partisan process that has consumed the house Democrats. We were told this investigation was going to be bipartisan and transparent. Instead the proceedings were hen secret behind closed doors with no attempt at a fair hearing. All this was done deliberately in an effort to undo the results of the 2016 election. Madam speaker, my constituents in Florida want to see us get to work. They want us, they are counting on us to actually fix the surprise medical billing, lower the cost of prescription drugs. Instead we are here a week before Christmas voting to impeach the legitimate President, Donald J. Trump, on the strength of nothing but rumors. We have wasted almost a year on this process while house Democrats chose political theater over serving the American people. This shameful vote to impeach our President will be a lasting stain on our house. And I urge all of my colleagues [3:29:33 PM] and he withheld that aid until the whistleblower report came out. Then the aid was released. It wasn't released for any good purpose. Congress voted for that aid, the President signed the bill that. Is another impeachable offense. And the judiciary committee has put together an extensive document which shows that there is evidence of numerous other federal crimes, including bribery and wire fraud. The President's actions threaten the continuation of our representative democracy. I'm proudly voting for impeachment today. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Collins: I am glad to know Mr. Trump was giving them lethal aid, something to fight back with not what was previously given to them. There was again from the President himself no pressure put on him. If your whole says if you are coercing somebody if there was no pressure. We don't seem to get that part on this floor debate today. I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Montana. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. Mr. Gianforte: Today this [3:30:33 PM] chamber is pushing through the pose partisan baseless articles of impeachment in our history. It's been a sham since day one. Driven by those whose bitter range against President Trump blind their better judgment. . Earlier this year, speaker Pelosi said impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path. None of those standards have been met. None. The committee hearings were scripted, substance-free, made-for-tv show. They would be comedy if impeachment weren't so serious and grave. Witnesses denied awareness of an impeachable offense, and because the majority has failed to make the case for impeachment, there is no [3:31:35 PM] bipartisanship. Compelling, overwhelming, bipartisan, Speaker Pelosi has not met her own criteria for impeaching. The American people have rejected this. I will vote against this partisan impeachment sham. On this sad day of an impeachment charade, I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker tempore: The gentleman from New York. Mr. Nadler: Madam Speaker, I now yield one minute to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gonzalez. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Gonzalez: Madam Speaker, I rise on a sad day for America, a sad day for Texas, and a very sad day for the people I represent. I am not gleeful today. I came to fight for [3:32:36 PM] prescription drugs, make sure everyone was ok. I did not come to congress to impeach a sitting President bus he's given us no choice. He used the office of the presidency for personal and political G our founding fathers feared one day the power of the presidency would stretch beyond its limits. Thus, they enshrined in the constitution a system of checks and balances. We cannot and will not lower the ethical standards of our presidency. We cannot afford to wither like a cheap flower in bad weather, watching our democracy crumbling and rot from within. That is not ACA the world knows and love, and this is not something we want our future generations to inherit. That's why today I must vote to impeach the President of the United States and fulfill my oath to the constitution, and I yield back. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from North Dakota. [3:33:38 PM] Mr. Armstrong: I yield to Mr. Hurd. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Hurd: We have not heard evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of bribery or extortion. Allegations of these two crimes aren't even mentioned in the articles of impeachment being debated today. But today, we have seen a rushed process divide our country. Today, accusations have been hurled at each other, questioning one another's integrity. Today, a dangerous precedent will be set. Impeachment becoming a weaponized political tool. We know how this partisan process will end this evening, but what happens tomorrow? Can this chamber put down our swords and get back to work for the American people? This institution has a fabled history of changing legislation that has not only changed our country but has inspired the world. Theat has been possible because this experiment we call [3:34:39 PM] America has one perpetual goal, make a more perfect union. We can contribute to this history if we recognize the simple fact that way more unites our country than divides us. Tomorrow, can we start focusing on that? The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman yields back. The gentleman New York. Mr. Nadler: Madam Speaker, I know now yield one minute to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Davis: Thank you, Madam speaker. This is indeed a sad day for our country. This is indeed a sad day for America. But it's a good day for our constitution. It is a sad day for our country because President Trump has defied our constitution, our rules, our requirements, and our expectations. It is clear that President Trump places himself above the law, above our constitution, and above the expectations of [3:35:40 PM] the American people. At my last town hall meeting, which was held Saturday, December 15, at Malcolm X College in Chicago, someone asked the question -- what is our position on impeachment? Madam speaker, every person there rose and said impeach. When I speak, I speak for the people of the seventh district of Illinois, and my vote will be impeach, impeach, impeach. And I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from North Dakota. Mr. Armstrong: Madam Speaker, I yield two minutes to my friend from Texas, Mr. Gohmert. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for two Tes. Mr. Gohmert: Thank you. In 1998, senator Schumer said, and I quote, this impeachment will be used as a routine tool tonight political battles. We thought it was a prediction. [3:36:41 PM] It was a promise, and now it's playing out. It's exactly what's being done here. And for those that say we don't defend the fact, here you go. The impeachment serves two purposes. Number one, stop the investigation by the U.S. Department of justice and Ukraine into the corruption of Ukraine's interference into the U.S. Election in 2016. You said this was about -- oh, this terrible Russia collusion. Oh, that fell through. It was about emoluments. It was about bribery, it was about extortion. One thing that hasn't changed which is the intention to impeach this President. It's always been there. But let's be honest. The President, turning his back on Ukraine, that happened in 2009, because in 2008, Ukraine invaded Georgia. [3:37:41 PM] What happened? Bush put sanctions on Russia to teach them a lesson. What happened after that? Well in March, 2009, Hillary Clinton was sent over to Russia with a reset button to say, bush overreacted. We're ok that you invaded Georgia. It was a green light to Russia to invade Ukraine. And what do you do? Oh, yeah, you send blankets and m.r.e.'s. They can eat and be warm while the Russians are killing them. That is what the Obama administration did. This is a travesty, and we're in big trouble, because Schumer was right. Now it's lowered the bar. It will be used for political battles, and this country's end is now in sight. I hope I don't livesee it. This is an outrage. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from New York. Mr. Nadler: Madam Speaker: I I am deeply con concerned that any member of the house would spout Russian propaganda on the floor [3:38:41 PM] of the house. I now yield one minute to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Higgins. Mr. Gohmert: If the gentleman will yield? The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from New York is recognized. Mr. Ert: If the gentleman will yield the speaker pro tempore: The house will come toured. Mr. Gohmert: Russia propaganda -- the Speaker pro tempore: The house will come to order. The house will come to order. The gentleman from York is recognized for one minute. Mr. Nadler: -- Mr. Higgins: Thank you madam speaker. The United States constitution is explicit. Bribery is an impeachable offense. Bribery involves the abuse of power. And the President of the United States abused the power of his office by soliciting a bribe of a foreign leader to interfere in an election he was afraid he could not win honorably, fairly, or freely. You, President of Ukraine, opened -- President of the United States will release $391 million in military aid and [3:39:42 PM] give you the stature amplifying white house meeting that Yo need. This is a -- this is a this for that, something forething transaction. Soliciting a bribe from a foreign leader is an abuse of power and a federal crime. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from north Dakota. Mr. Armstrong: Madam speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Bilirakis: Thank you, madam speaker. I want to thank my Republican colleagues who H have toiled honorably in defense of the constitution, rule of L under difficult circumstances, madam speaker. You know, madam speaker, it's a darn shame that we have found ourselves in this position today. Every time I step into this chamber, I'm humbled to be serving in the greatest legislative body in the history of the world. However, it's deeply disappointing that the hyperpartisanship that has gripped this country has made [3:40:42 PM] its way into this chamber. I pride myself on being a consensus builder who works across the aisle who gets things done for the American people, but when it comes to the matter of impeachment, I have no doubt that the entire process has been politically motivated. There is absolutely no evidence that President Trump committed an impeachable offense, which is why I will vote no. This whole process has been a ploy to circumvent the will of the people by removing a duly elected President of the united States. It's a national disgrace that sets a dangerous precedent. But we are a great nation. We will survive this indignity. Let's put this ugly chapter behind us, madam speaker, and to work. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from New York. Mr. Nadler: Madam speaker, I now yield one minute to the gentleman from mississippi, Mr. Thompson. The speaker pro temp the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Thompson: Thank you very [3:41:44 PM] much, madam speaker. Madam speaker, the question that will be answered today is, will members honor their oath to uphold the constitution? Democrats are not supporting impeachment based on a policy disagreement or the election results of 2016. No one is above the law. The President must be held accountable. A constitutional process is not a hoax or a witch-hunt.. President Trump just opposes it. No one is above the law. Not even President Donald J. Trump. The President abused his power by pressuring Ukraine to help his re-election campaign. Impeachment is a constitutional remedy for these actions. Trump betrayed his oath, betrayed the constitution, and undermined the integrity of our elections. Those who are against the [3:42:45 PM] impeachment inquiry are willing to turn a blind eye to co constitutional violations by the President. As a nn, we have no other alternative. We must protect our constitution and the United States of America. In his own words, no intelligent person believes what he is saying. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from North Dakota. Mr. Armstrong: Madam Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Baird. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. Mr. Baird: Madam Speaker, the totality of this process is just another reminder that my colleagues across the aisle are more focused on politics than policy. The American people deserve better. Our republic deserves better. The brave member and women of our military -- the brave men [3:43:45 PM] and women of our military, myself included, have fought for freedom and democracy around the world. Yet, today, my colleagues are eroding those freedoms through a process that ignored facts, abused power, and was shrouded in secrecy. Those facts could not be more clear the President committed no crime, broke no laws, and there was no quid pro quo. I look forward to doing the right thing. Representing the hoosiers in my district and voting against th impeachment charade. I stand with President Trump and look forward to passing policies that continue to move our country forward. I'll yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from New York. Mr. Nadler:: Madam Speaker, I now yield one minute to the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Blumenauer. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Blumenauer: Thank you. Thanks to the hard work of our committees, the leadership of the speaker, we found overwhelming evidence Trump [3:44:47 PM ] invited foreign interests to interfere in our elections for his personal gain and he then unprecedented efforts to Ver it up, obstructing congress. I'm proud of the courage of new members to do their duty so that for the first time in his privileged life Donald Trump will finally be held accountable for his reckless personal behavior and business practices. I vote proudly for these two articles of impeachment, and then I hope the house retains control of the articles until the speaker and leader Schumer can negotiate agreement on process and witnesses from Mcconnell so that the next stage will be open and fair so that Donald Trump will ultimately be held accountable. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from North Dakota. >> Madam speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to my friend from Oklahoma, Mr. Hern. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 min minutes. Mr. Hern: Public hearings began November 13. [3:45:47 PM] Less than a month later, speaker Pelosi announced articles of impeachment on December 5, saying that the investigation had revealed enough information to move forward with impeachment. Let's think about that. 22-day investigation. Six of those days were weekends. Hearings weren't happening and the house was not in session. Seven of those days were when the house was in recess. Two were flying days where congress doesn't hold hearings. Out of the 22 days, just seven days, seven days were used to investigate, debate, and vote on the impeachment of the duel elected leader of our con-- duly elected leader of our country. Seven days to impeach the President of the United States. Not to mention that the seven day investigation uncovered zero facts in support of impeachment. I spent every minute I had in this as an observer and all I learned is if you hate someone so strongly and enough people agree with you, that's grounds enough to be impeached. We asked for 12 hours of debate. The same amount of time allotted to President Clinton's [3:46:48 PM] impeachment. 12 hours of debate for possibly the biggest vote I will cast in my tenure as representative. Isn't asking too much. But, no. They want to get out of here before Christmas. So it's ok to rush through the process. I'm ashamed to be part of this today even as I vote against the impeachment. My constituents are calling every day, mad as hell, saying we should be ashamed this historic chamber has fallen so low to allow something like this to happen. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from New York. Mr. Nadler: Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Nadler: Madam speaker, my friend, the gentleman from Georgia, has a tag line about the clock on the calendar. Madam speaker, this is not about the clock and the calendar. It is about corruption and the constitution. It is about a President who abused his power to coerce an ally to intervene in our election and poses a continuing threat to the integrity of our next election. The President's defense is [3:47:48 PM] built on three pillars. When those three pillars fall, the entire defense of the President collapses. First, they claim there was no quid pro quo. Well, the evidence is undisputed. President Trump conditioned a white house visit and military aid on President zelenskiy's public announcement of the investigation. Ambassador William Taylor wrote at the time, quote, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign, close quote. A reporter asked white House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney if there had been a quid pro quo here. He replied, we do that all the time. Get over it. The President refused to help our ally until he got a personal political favor. So the first defense falls. Second, the minority claims that the Ukrainians didn't know about the hold. The evidence again is undisputed. Ukraine knew about the hold on the military assistance with hours of the President's July 25. [3:48:49 PM] -- 25 call. Laura cooper of the department of defense testified under oath and on July 25 the state department sent two emails to the department of defense notifying them that Ukrainian officials were asking where is the aid? Ukrainians understood exactly what President Trump was asking. He wanted a personal political favor before the aid was released. So the second defense falls. Third and finally, my Republican friend say the aid was released. But the aid was released only after the President got caught. This house launched its investigation on September 9. The hold on the aid was lifted on September 11. This is not evidence of incense. It is evidence of Culpability. The evidence is overwhelming. When he got caught, he did everything in his power to prevent the American people from learning the truth about his actions by defying the congressional investigation, by ordering that all requests and [3:49:50 PM] demands for information be denied. 154940 With our national security and the integrity of our election at risk, we must act. Not because of the clock and the calendar but to fight against corruption and for continued self-governance by the American people. I yield back. I reserve the balance of my time. DEGETTE>>The gentleman from North Dakota. 154958 ARMSTRONG>> Madam speaker, I would just point out that to believe everything that was just said you have to also believe that President zelenskiy is a pathological liar. With that I yield 1 1/2 minutes to my friend from south Carolina, Mr. Duncan. DEGETTE>>The gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. DUNCAN>> Thank you, madam speaker. You know, we are not debating impeachment of an American President today. Your minds are already made up. The Democrat majority has had a verdict impeachment looking for a crime since the inauguration. "The Washington post" ran the headline, the campaign to impeach President Trump has begun just 19 minutes after President Trump took the oath of office. 19 minutes. Freshman congresswoman from Michigan told a group of supporters, we are going to impeach the mother blank shortly after she was sworn in. 155041 Even speaker Pelosi admitted last week that the impeachment effort has been going on for 2 1/2 years long before any phone call between two world leaders. In fact, 71% of the Democrats on the judiciary committee supported impeachment before the phone call. The impeachment sham is based on hearsay, conjecture, and opinion. You know what? You can't even get a speeding ticket in this country based on hearsay. 155104 But yet we are going to impeach an american President based on just that. Where are the crimes of teeson, high crimes, or misdemeanors committed here? Those are things that constitute impeachable offenses not hatred or policy disagreements. If memory serves me right, congress told the administration to withhold aid to Ukraine until they got their act together. Address corruption. Straightened out -- that was in multiple ndaa's voted on by both parties in this chamber. 155130 So in the simplest terms we are impeaching the President for something we told him to do? Give me a break. We have wasted precious time we are given to serve the American people. While you held secret hearings and depositions behind closed doors in chairman Schiff's chamber of secrets. But the American people have a great sense of fairness. I promise you. They see President Trump has not been treated fairly in this process. Impeachment based on hearsay and opinion not facts. It's a sad day in this chamber. The people's house. I yield back. 155201 DEGETTE>> Members are again reminded to address their remarks to the chair. The gentleman from New York. NADLER>> Madam speaker, I would now inform you that the gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff, the chair of the intelligence committee, will now serve as my designee and will control the remainder of the time on the majority side. DEGETTE>>Does the gentleman yield to the gentleman from California? NADLER>> He's my designee. DEGETTE>> Does the gentleman from California yield to himself? SCHIFF>> Yes, Madam Speaker I yield to myself such time as I may consume. DEGETTE>>The gentleman is recognized. 155231 SCHIFF>> I thank my colleague, chairman Nadler. I thank him for the extraordinary job that he has done as chairman of the judiciary committee and throughout these difficult proceedings. Madam speaker, my colleagues, my fellow Americans, I rise to support the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump. When a man unprincipled in private life, desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents, having the advantage of military habits, despotic in his ordinary demeanor, 155305 known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty when, such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity to join in the cry of danger to liberty, to take every opportunity of embarrassing the government, the general government and bringing it under suspicion, to flatter and fall in with all the nonsense of the zealots of the day, it may justly be suspected his object is to throw things into confusion that he may ride the storm and direct the whirlwind. 155338 These are the words of Alexander Hamilton written in 1792. Could we find a more perfect description of the present danger emanating from 1600 Pennsylvania avenue? The framers crafted a constitution that contemplated free and fair elections for the highest office in the land. 155400 But also afforded the Congress with the power to remove a President who abused the powers of his office for personal gain. Who compromised the public trust by betraying our nation's security. Or who sought to undermine our democratic system by seeking foreign intervention in the conduct of our elections. I would say that the founders could have little imagined that a single President might have done all of these things except that the evidence has sadly proved this is exactly what this President has done. 155435 Hamilton, among others, seems to have predicted the rise of Donald Trump with a staggering prescience. Having won freedom from a king, the drafters of our constitution designed a government in which ambition was made to check ambition. In which no branch of government would predominate over another, and no man would be allowed to be above the law, including the President, especially the President, since with whom would the danger be greater than with the officer charged with being our commander in chief. 155510 Over the course of the last three months we have found incontrovertible evidence that President Trump abused his power by pressuring the newly elected President of Ukraine to announce an investigation into President Trump's political rival, Joe Biden. With the hopes of defeating Mr. Biden in the 2020 Presidential election and enhancing his own prospects for re-election. 155538 He didn't even need the investigation to be undertaken. Just simply announced to the public. The smear of his opponent, the smear of his opponent would be enough. To effectuate this scheme, President Trump withheld two official acts of vital importance to a nation at war with our adversary, Vladimir Putin's Russia. 155605 The President withheld a white House meeting that Ukraine desperately sought to bolster its standing on the world stage. And even more perniciously, President Trump suspended hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid approved by this congress to coerce Ukraine into doing his electoral dirty work. 155627 The President of the United States was willing to sacrifice our national security by withholding support for a critical strategic partner at war in order to improve his re-election prospects. But for the courage of someone willing to blow the whistle, he would have gotten away with it. Instead, he got caught. He tried to cheat and he got caught. 155702 Now this wasn't the first time. As a candidate in 2016 Donald Trump invited Russian interference in his Presidential campaign, saying at a campaign rally, Russia, if you are listening, I hope you are able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. A clear invitation to hack Hillary Clinton's emails. Just five hours later, Russian government hackers tried to do exactly that. What followed was an immense Russian hacking and dumping operation and a social media disinformation campaign designed to help elect Donald Trump. 155739 Not only did candidate Trump welcome that effort, but he made full use of it. Building it into his campaign plan, his messaging strategy, and then he sought to cover it up. This Russian effort to interfere in our elections didn't deter Donald Trump. It empowered him. The day after special counsel Bob Mueller testified before congress about Russia's sweeping and systemic effort to influence the outcome of our last election, the day after President Trump believed that the investigation into his first electoral misconduct had come to an end, the President was back on the phone urging yet another country, this time Ukraine, to help him cheat in another election. 155829 Three consecutive days in July tells so much of the story. Three consecutive days in July of 2019. July 24, the day that special counsel Mueller testified before congress, and President Trump thought he was finally in the clear. July 25, the day that President Trump got on the phone with Ukrainian President and in the context of a discussion about military support for that embattled nation, that the President has recently frozen said, I would like you to do us a favor, though. 155909 And asked Ukraine to do two investigations to help his re-election efforts in 2020. That was July 25. And then we come to July 26. The day Gordon sondland, not some anonymous never Trumper, but a million dollar donor to the President's inauguration and his hand picked ambassador to the european union. What does President Trump ask Sondland? The day after this call? What does President Trump ask? 155948 What does the President want to know? Did he ask about Ukraine's efforts to battle corruption? Of course not. Did he ask how the war with Russia was going? Not a chance. On the phone, his voice loud enough for others to hear President Trump asked sondland, so he's going to do the investigation, and the answer was clear. Sondland assured Trump that the Ukrainian President was going to do it. And that he would do anything you asked him to. 160021 If that wasn't telling enough, my colleagues, in a conversation that followed, an American diplomat dining with sondland asked if it was true that President Trump didn't give a blank about Ukraine. Sondland agreed, saying, the President cared only about big stuff. The diplomat noted that there was big stuff in Ukraine like a war with Russia. And sondland replied that the President cared only about big stuff that benefits him personally. 160058 Like the Biden investigation that Mr. Giuliani was pushing. In that short conversation, we learned everything we need to know about the 45th President of the United States. He doesn't care about Ukraine, or the impact on our national security caused by withholding military aid to that country fighting for its democratic life. All that matters to this President is what affects him personally, an investigation into his political rival and a chance to cheat in the next election. 160139 As professor Garhart testified before the judiciary committee two weeks ago, if what we're talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable. Even as this body uncovered the facts of this Ukraine scheme, even as we opened an impeachment inquiry, even as we gathered evidence, President Trump continued his efforts to seek foreign help in the next election. Well I would think, he said from the white house lawn on October 3rd, that if they're being honest about it, they'd start a major investigation into the Bidens. 160218 It's a very simple answer he said. And he made it clear it's an open invitation to other nations as well, saying, China should start an investigation into the Bidens too. President Trump sent his chief of staff to the white house podium and he told the world that of course they had linked aid to investigations. And that we should just get over it. And even as these articles have made their way to this house floor, the President's personal attorney has continued pursuing these sham investigations on behalf of his client, the President. 160303 The President and his men plot on. The danger persists. The risk is real. Our democracy is at peril. But we are not without a remedy, prescribed by the founders for just these circumstances. Impeachment. The only question is, will we use it? Or have we fallen prey to another evil that the founders forewarned, the excess of factionalism, the elevation of party over country. 160337 Many of my cleagues appear to have made their choice to protect the President, to enable him to be above the law, to empower this President to cheat again, as long as it is in the service of their party and their power. They've made their choice. Despite this President and the white house stonewalling every subpoena, every request for witnesses, and testimony from this co-equal, co-equal branch of government. 160409 They have made their choice. Knowing that to allow this President to obstruct congress will empower him and any other President that follows to be as corrupt, as negligent, or as abusive of the power of the presidency as they choose. They have made their choice. And I believe they will rue the day that they did. When Donald J. Trump was sworn in on January 20, 2017, he repeated these words. 160444 I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the united States. And will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States. Has he lived up to that sacred obligation? Has he honored his oath of office? Has he preserved, protected and defended the constitution of the United States, the uncontested evidence provides the simple yet tragic answer, he has not. 160519 In America, no one is above the law. Donald J. Trump sacrificed our national security in an effort to cheat in the next election. And for that, and his continued efforts to seek foreign interference in our elections, he must be impeached. I reserve the balance of my time. DEGETTE>>Gentleman from North Dakota. 160549 ARMSTRONG>> Madam chair. It's nice to see you here, Chairman Schiff. It would have been nice to have either you or the whistleblower present in either the judiciary or oversight hearings. And I think we're -- And I think we're -- continuing to neglect the four key facts of this. The transcript is out. Everybody can read it. The American people can read it. There's no conditionality or aid discussed on that call. 160609 The two -- the two -- yes ma'am. The two principals on that call, President Trump and President Zelenskiy have said there is no pressure. President Zelenskiy has basically screamed from the rooftops on numerous occasions that there was no pressure, no bribery, no quid pro quo. The Ukranian government got the money and didn't the the aid was being paused, and no investigation was announced, and a meeting with the President took place, and the aid was released. And with that I yield -- >> The gentleman is reminded to address remarks to the chair. 160639 ARMSTRONG>> And with that I yield a minute and a half of my time for my friend from Missouri, Mr. Smith. DEGETTE>> The gentleman is recognized. 160645 JASON SMITH>> Thank you Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I come from a state that raises corn and cotton, cockleburrs and Democrats. Your frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I'm from the show-me state. You have to show me. The only thing that you all have shown so far is that you're about to impeach a duly elected President who has done nothing wrong. Democrats are not impeaching the President because they are scared of our republic or that he has committed a crime. They are impeaching him because they fear the President's policies and how well they are working for the American people. 160734 Most of all, they fear the election, because they know they can't beat them. In fact, one of my Democrat colleagues is quoted stating, "I'm concerned if we don't impeach him, he will get re-elected." This kind of rhetoric is disgusting. Impeachment is not a political weapon. And any member who votes for impeachment should be ashamed today. You cannot undo the results of the 2016 election simply because your flawed candidate did not win. And thank god she didn't. 160810 Over the last three years, unemployment has dropped to the lowest point in generations. We are seeing better trade agreements with our trading partners and record numbers of taxes and regulations that stifle economic growth have been rolled back, all thanks to President Trump's leadership and commitment. But we shouldn't be surprised. Democrats have introduced articles of impeachment -- ARMSTRONG>> Can I have on 30 seconds? >> We yield him 15 seconds. DEGETTE>> The gentleman is recognized. 160840 SMITH>> This is very important. We shouldn't be surprised, Democrats have introduced articles of impeachment in five out of our last six Republican Presidents. They are the party of impeachment. The Democrats are the party of impeachment. DEGETTE>> The gentleman yields back. And once again, members are admonished to address their remarks to the chair. The gentleman from California. 160905 SCHIFF> Thank you Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield two minute those gentleman from California, Mr. Swalwell. DEGETTE>> Mr. Swalwell is recognized for two minutes. 160913 ERIC SWALWELL>> Donald Trump is using the presidency to put his own personal gain above our national interests. He is using our taxpayer dollars and foreign interference to cheat the next election, and it jeopardizes our national security and integrity at the ballot box. And not a single fact in this case is seriously in dispute. I ask my colleagues, who sent his personal lawyer to Ukraine to investigate his political rival? Who fired an ambassador who stood in his way? 160944 Who conditioned a White House meeting on investigations that only personally benefited him and not the national interest? Who cut off military aid to an ally that desperately needed it? Who pressured President Zelenskiy to conduct those investigations? Who stood on the White hHouse and asked not only Ukraine to investigate his rival but also China? Who has buried evidence and blocked witnesses from testifying? And who is still, today, sending his personal lawyer to Ukraine to dig up dirt and rig an election? 16022 The answer to all of these questions is President Donald Trump. This is a crime spree in progress, but we know how to stop it. Courage. Yes, this investigation has shown us how corrupt President Trump is, but it's also shown us the courage of some of our fellow patriotic covo; servants who have used their courage to not only stand up around the world to extinguish corruption but also to extinguish it at the White House. How? Well my colleagues argue no harm, no foul, Ukraine got the aid. Wrong. 161058 Trump cheated. Patriots caught him. Then Ukraine got the aid. Standing up turns out works. Now is the time to summon the courage of those patriots and to summon the courage they showed against Donald Trump. If they can risk their careers, even their lives, to do the right thing, can my colleagues also do the same? After all, more is on the line than just military aid to an ally. Our national security is at stake. Stand up for that. Our election integrity is at stake. Stand up for that. And our constitution is at stake. Stand up for that. I yield back. DEGETTE The gentleman from North Dakota. ARMSTRONG>> Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on each side. DEGETTE>> The gentleman has one hour and 23 and a fourth minutes remaining. And the gentleman from California has one hour and 18 minutes remaining. ARMSTRONG>> I appreciate the details. And with that, I yield one and a half minutes to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson. DEGETTE>> The gentleman is recognized for one and a half minutes. 161203 BILL JOHNSON>> Madam Speaker, this is a sad day for America. This partisan impeachment sham seeks to disenfranchise 63 million American voters. So I want to use my time to call on this chamber for members to rise and observe a moment of silent reflection, to give every member here the chance to pause for a moment and remember the voices of the 63 million American voters the Democrats today are wanting to silence. [ moment of silence ] 161322 JOHNSON>> Madam speaker, disenfranchising 63 million voters gives me 63 million reasons to vote no. And I urge my colleagues to do the same. DEGETTE>> The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from California. SCHIFF>> Madam Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to Ms. Sewell, the gentlelady from Alabama. DEGETTE>> The gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. 161346 TERRI SEWELL Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart and profound sense of the gravity of this moment that I rise today in support of the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump. To be clear, I did not run for congress to impeach a President. I came to work every day on behalf of the hardworking people of Alabama's seventh congressional district. But the facts are uncontested. The truth is clear. And I have been left no other choice. 161415 As a member of the intelligence committee, I sat in shock, in awe, as witness after witness came forward, their stories painting a clear picture of the President's abuse of power. They testified that the President had directed orders to withhold vital military aid for Ukraine and a white house visit in exchange for investigation into the Bidens. To date, all the military aid has not been released and there still been no white house meeting. The bottom line is clear. President Trump endangered our national security and the very essence of our democracy for his own personal political gain. 161459 Then, President Trump sought to cover it up by subverting the oversight authority of congress. If Presidential abuse of power is left unchecked, we all become accomplices when he does it again. This cannot become the new normal. Not on our watch. While President Trump's indefensible action set in motion this event, my vote for impeachment today is not about the President. It is about my oath to defend and protect the constitution of this United States of America. 161535 And to make sure that I uphold and honor the sacred trust that my constituents gave me. President Trump has betrayed his oath of office. Let us not betray ours. I yield back the balance of my time. DEGETTE>>The gentleman from North Dakota. COLLINS>> I'm from -- DEGETTE>> Oh, You're back. From Georgia 161557 COLLINS>>Thank you, madam speaker. I'm back. Also noticed some changes around here since we left. And I notice I have a new manager on the other side who as I came back in from getting a quick bite, noticed gave an eloquent defense of his side of this story we are telling. I just wish we could have had that eloquent defense before the judiciary committee where he could have been asked questions instead of giving one side. With that I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Keller. DEGETTE>>The gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. 161622 FRED KELLER Thank you. Madam speaker, today will forever be remembered as a stain on our republic. These impeachment proceedings are not based upon facts, evidence, reason, or any inappropriate or impeachable actions by our President. Instead, the actions being taken by those favoring impeachment are a product of their disdain for President Trump, his America first agenda, and particularly disdain by the other party for the 63 million Americans that elected him as President. 161655 Again, these articles of impeachment are not based on any facts but rather on hearsay, presumptions, innuendo, and feelings. Feelings by democrats and career bureaucrats who have wanted President Trump removed from office since the day he was elected. In defense of the constitution I urge all members to oppose both articles of Impeachment. 161722 It is unclear who will judge those voting for impeachment today more harshly, history or voters. So I want Democrats voting for impeachment today to know that I'll be praying for them. From the gospel of Luke, the 23rd chapter verse 34, and Jesus said, father, forgive them. For they know not what they do. Thank you. And I yield back. DEGETTE>> The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from California. 161749 ADAM SCHIFF Madam Speaker, my colleagues have referred to patriotic Americans who testified before the intelligence committee as career bureaucrats. I want to remind people just who those career bureaucrats are. They are people like Ambassador Bill Taylor who has served this country for decades, graduated top in his class at west point, served during Vietnam in combat, earned a bronze star. 161818 They are people like Col. Vindman, served in Iraq, earned a purple heart. They're people like Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch served in dangerous places all over the world. One of the most respected of all our foreign service officers. These are the people that my colleagues would pejoratively label as career bureaucrats. And why? Because they have the courage to do their lawful duty. To answer a subpoena, to come and testify. 161846 And for this they are called career bureaucrats. Well, we should have more career bureaucrats of that caliber. I'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from California, Mr. Costa. DEGETTE>>The gentleman is recognized for one minute. 161901 JIM COSTA>>Madam speaker, I rise with a heavy heart. The two most difficult votes any member of congress ever has to cast is to vote to go to war or to impeach. Today I will vote for the articles of impeachment. Over the last few months I have listened carefully to my constituents. I've weighed all the available information and to determine whether or not the President committed any wrongdoing. There are disturbing facts from this administration that inform my decision, including the President's own words. 161928 His ambassador to the European union testified there was a quid pro quo to withhold aid to Ukraine for an investigation to former vice President Biden and that everyone was in the loop. His own national security advisor, John Bolton, said he wanted nothing to do with this drug deal, as he called it. And then the President openly acknowledged that China and Ukraine should investigate Mr. Biden. There is much more evidence pointing to the President violating his own oath of office. 161956 I have not made this decision lightly but I must uphold my own oath of office because I believe the President has failed to uphold his oath of office. The weight of history and my belief in the constitution of the United States and our own national security interests have led me to this vote. And I yield back the balance of my time. DEGETTE>>The gentleman from Georgia. 162018 DOUG COLLINS Thank you, madam speaker. It is interesting to say, and I appreciate anybody who would come and give testimony, but it is interesting to see that the same chairmen who spoke eloquently about those who testified would have to dismiss completely almost anything by Mr Volker or Mr Morrison. But again, I will say, at least they had the ability and the willingness to come in and testify. Unlike the chairman who wrote a report, sent it to judiciary, and didn't. With that, I yield a minute and a half to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms Granger. 162042 DEGETTE>> The gentlelady is recognized for a minute and a half. KAY GRANGER>> Madam Speaker I rise today in strong opposition to the politically driven articles of impeachment that have been brought before the House of Representatives today. For the past three years, Democrats have been unable to accept the voters' choice to elect President Trump. They have used any and all undemocratic and unfair means necessary to try and remove him from office. My vote today is not only against illegitimate impeachment of our President, which began not with facts but with a foregone conclusion, it is against house Democrats making a mockery of due process and the rule of law. 162120 This will not go anywhere in the senate so all Democrats have accomplished is postponing the important work of the American people sent their elected officials to Washington to do. This endless crusade of Democrats to remove the duly President of the United States has put partisan politics above the issues that Americans face today. It's time Democrats stop playing partisan games that hurt hardworking taxpayers. It's time for the American people to be congres priority again. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no. And I yield back the balance of my time. 162156 DEGETTE>> The gentleman from California. SCHIFF>> Thank you, madam speaker. I am more than delighted to refer to the testimony Ambassador Volcker and Mr. Morrison. Ambassador Volker who acknowledged that in retrospect he should have recognized that when they were calling for investigations for Burisma, it really meant the Bidens and that to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival was wrong. Happy to refer to his testimony as well as Mr. Morrison who went to the national security council lawyer immediately after he listened to that telephone call. 162232 And who also testified that he was informed by ambassador sondland that the President wanted zelenskiy in a public box. That he wanted him to be forced to go to the mic and announce these sham investigations. Happy to refer to their testimony as well. And now happy to recognize the gentlewoman from california for two minutes, representative Speier. DEGETTE>> The gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. 162256 JACKIE SPEIER >> Thank you, madam speaker. My father fled Nazi Germany for America. Because he saw what happened when a despot became untethered. He fled because he believed in democracy. In the rule of law. And the right to vote. Before he died, he asked to be buried in a simple pine box with an American flag to symbolize his love of this country. Today we are called upon to do our duty out of love of country. The President stands accused. We must judge him as we judge any of our fellow citizens. 162332 On the facts and on the law. The facts show that the President's north star is Russia. Not the constitution. There is no question that President Trump delayed military aid to Ukraine, our ally, as they were under attack by Russia, our adversary. There is no question the President withheld a meeting with President zelenskiy at the white house, giving Russia the upper hand in peace negotiations with Ukraine. There is no question that President Trump promoted the Russian hoax that Ukraine attacked our election in 2016. 162407 A canard that has been proven to be a lie, a Russian lie. The only question is his motive. The fact is his conduct and crimes are reprehensible and unquestionably impeachable. When I vote today my father's legacy is deep, very deep within me. My father loved America and I love America. And that is why I will vote to impeach the President of the United States. I yield back. 162436 DEGETTE>> The gentleman from Georgia. COLLINS >> Thank you Madam Speaker. I see how this is playing out. Instead of coming to testify for 7 or 8 hours, and answering all questions we're gonna do it in potshots as we go and take this. But again Let's talk about Mr. Volker again. He never testified that anyone wanted to investigate vice President Biden. What he did testify to which was left out they wanted to -- that if the Ukrainians doing bad things placed hunter Biden on the board of Burisma to avoid anything that needed to be investigated and found out. 162506 Let's at least tell the story. Again, had plenty of time to do this in an actual hearing, not here. This is what they want. This is what they have been wanting, the majority has played this the whole time. So we'll play this out as long as they want to. It would have been better though if they actually had a case to have made it in the proper setting instead of not coming and not testifying. With that I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber. DEGETTE>> The gentleman from is recognized for a minute and a half. 162526 RANDY WEBER >> Thank you, Madam Speaker. You know, It's very interesting to hear the socialistic left Democrats that have a newfound appreciation for the constitution and our founders' principles. Would that those same socialists, madam speaker, would afford unborn babies the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as well. Madam speaker, history tells us the first three impeachments in this country crimes were involved. Johnson violated law that congress passed over his veto. Nixon was involved in a cover-up from Watergate. Clinton lied to a federal grand jury and instructed Monica Lewinsky to falsify an affidavit. 162558 Crimes. All instances of crimes. Now comes the socialistic leaning Dems(?) in my opinion, madam speaker, essentially reading the President's mind knowing what his intent was and dictating to us and the witnesses that were in the hearings what his mind set was. And that quite frankly they didn't believe he had the right to be in charge of foreign policy. We heard ambassadors, and yes, we heard career bureaucrats, career diplomats, whatever you want to call them. They get to ride the bus. They don't get to drive the bus. 162629 The President is in charge of foreign policy. We had -- they said that the President had the audacity to use his judgment on foreign policy instead of theirs. Opinions. Opinions. Suppositions, indeed. The very swamp he is draining is objecting. Who knew. Who knew. Today now during the earlier rule debate comes the floor manager from the other side from Massachusetts citing fact -- not facts, not facts witnesses but newspaper articles, CNN, usa opinions, editorials. 162700 Unbelievable, madam speaker. Americans are watching. The Dees are delusional, deleterious, and in deep yogurt. I yield back. DEGETTE>> Gentleman from California. 162714 SCHIFF >> I would just remind my colleagues that ambassador Volker said that the attacks on Joe Biden were meritless and he tried to persuade Mr. Giuliani that there was no factual support for them. Proud to recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Lewis, for two minutes. DEGETTE>> The gentleman is recognized for two minutes. 162740 JOHN LEWIS >> Madam speaker I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart to support this resolution. When we came to Washington in 1961 to go on the freedom rides, we chose that day. When we came here on August 28, 1963, for the March on Washington, it was joyful. We met with a young President, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. 162815 When we came here on August 6, 1965 for the signing of the voting rights act, we were excited, hopeful. We met President Lyndon Johnson. But today, this day, we didn't ask for this. This is a sad day. It is not a day of joy. Our nation is founded on the principle that we do not have kings. We have Presidents. And the constitution is our compasses. When you see something that is not right, not just, not fair, you have a moral obligation to say something, to do something. 162901 Our children and their children will ask us, what did you do? What did you say? For some this vote may be hard. But we have a mission and a mandate to be on the right side of history. I yield back the balance of my time. DEGETTE>> Gentleman from Georgia. 162926 COLLINS >> Thank you Madam Speaker. I always like to be polite and I do appreciate the gentleman from California confirming everything I just said in my statement a moment ago. With that I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Wenstrup. DEGETTE>> Gentleman is recognized for two minutes. 162937 BRAD WENSTRUP>> Thank you Madam speaker. Since 2016 America has seen a pattern of failed and disproven attacks and allegations against President Trump. Today is the fourth impeachment related vote since President Trump took office. It's yet another attempt to reach their predetermined conclusion of impeachment, a conclusion build on political bias, accusations, and innuendo. WASH 6 HOUSE IMPEACHMENT FULL VOTE 191218 HOUSE FLOOR KEYED P5 These repetitive and false allegations reveal a political obsession disguised as some kind of righteous oversight. 163008 When they didn't win at the ballot box, they pursued a Russian collusion narrative, special counsel Robert Mueller had to waste time and taxpayer dollars to prove false. When the Russia collusion, malicious deception didn't work Madam speaker, Democrats sought a new path forward to impeach President Trump. They created a made for TV set of hearings, complete with witness auditions held in the basement of the capitol. Despite all their efforts, the charges the house considerations today lack evidence to support them. 163039 There wasn't one witness that said a crime or impeachable offense was committed. Madam speaker, I remind my colleagues, no crime, no impeachable offense. That's a pretty good defense, if you ask me. I will work diligently to further reveal the truth and further reveal the abuses of power, madam speaker that Democrats paid for and enacted during the last three years. Abuses of power from the other side of the aisle within this body and within our F.B.I. Americans deserve the truth. 163115 All in all, history will remember today as the political impeach that set the precedent for Presidents to be impeached every time there's a divided government. I oppose the articles before us today and I yield back to the other side and their superior imaginations. DEGETTE>> The gentleman from California. 163136 SCHIFF >> Proud to recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Quigley, for two minutes. DEGETTE>> The gentleman is recognized for two minutes. 163142 MIKE QUIGLEY>> Thank you, madam speaker. Indeed we are here today because the President of the United states abused his power and betrayed his oath of office. He laid siege to the foundation of our democracy: the electoral process. These actions opposed a direct threat to the freedom and fairness of the upcoming 2020 election. The very day after Robert Mueller testified that Russia had systematically and relentlessly attacked the 2016 election, the President picked up the phone and made his now-infamous July 25 call to Ukrainian President zelenskiy asking the President zelenskiy on that call, to quote do us a favor though, and announce investigations into his political rival Joe Biden. 163226 We have since learned from numerous national security council and state department officials the President did not even expect Ukraine to open these investigations, rather he just wanted them announced so he could smear his rival. Rather than trusting the voters to decide who should hold the white house he again sought the aid of the foreign country to tip the scales in favor again. After Russia's unprecedented interference, a dark cloud hung over the 2016 election and instead of leading the American people out from under the cloud, the President instead emboldened by perceived lack of consequence, attempted to pressure zelenskiy to interfere in the 2020 election. 163306 After a courageous whistleblower came forward and warned congress and the public about the President's scheme, the President stood on the white house lawn in front of TV cameras broadcasting around the world and called for China to interfere too. Some of my colleagues have asked why not wait? Why are we proceeding? That's very simple. Because nothing could be more urgent. We are on the precipice of the 2020 election and Congress has ultimate responsibility to protect the sacred equalizer, our right to vote. To defend the integrity of our elections and to fulfill our duty to the constitution, I will be voting in favor of impeachment today and I yield back. DEGETTE>> The gentleman from Georgia. COLLINS>> Thank you Madam Speaker at this point I yield one minute to the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Lambon DEGETTE>> The gentleman is recognized for one minute. 163354 DOUG LAMBORN Madam speaker, Madam Speaker, anyone watching this impeachment sound and fury signifying nothing should look out for three misrepresentations the Democrats are making. One, Trump endangered national security. No. The 55-day delay did not stop Ukrainians from defending themselves, Trump actually gave them lethal aid which Obama never did. During Obama's negligence, Democrats said nothing. Two, Trump is not above the law, no one is. But why don't the Democrats tell us what law he broke? They can't, because he didn't break any. 163425 So Democrats have resorted to two vague and subjective articles, abuse of power and obstruction of justice. And three, the evidence is not in dispute. No, the evidence is very much in dispute. In fact, For every statement Democrats cherry pick to indict Trump, many more statements back up the President. In reality, this is nothing but a partisan ploy by Democrats to overturn an election. But this charade will fail and the senate will exonerate Trump and everyone knows it. DEGETTE>> The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from California. 163501 SCHIFF >> Madam speaker, I'm proud to recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Castro, for two minutes. DEGETTE>> The gentleman is recognized for two minutes. 163508 JOAQUIN CASTRO>> Thank you. As my colleagues have said, the evidence of the President's abuse of power and obstruction of congress is uncontested. But let's outline a few key events involving the nearly 400 million dollar in military held that was held up by President Trump, and or President Trump, despite congressional mandate. The summer of 2019 was a summer of shame at the white house. On July 3rd, the white house first blocked security assistance money for Ukraine with no explanation. 163537 On July 10, Gordon Sondland states during a white house meeting with Ukrainian officials that they will get a white house meeting only after announcing an investigation into President Trump's political rival. On July 18, a white house staffer announces the freeze on Ukrainian aid per direct Presidential order. And just one day after Robert Mueller's testimony before congress, President Trump makes the now-infamous phone call with zelenskiy, asking him to investigate the Bidens. 163607 Then, things start to fall apart. See, the white house learns that a whistleblower has reported President Trump's phone call with President zelenskiy in a complaint. And on September 9, congress starts to investigate the President's actions. And then the jig is up. On September 11, the aid is suddenly released without explanation over two months later. When you read the call transcript and follow the timeline I've laid out, guilty is guilty. 163639 Nothing changed during that time regarding the President's supposed concerns over corruption. So let's be clear. The military aid was released because the President got caught. But getting caught doesn't get you off the hook. And I ask my colleagues, is attempted murder a crime? Is attempted robbery a crime? Is attempted extortion and bribery by a President a crime? Yes, it is. And the only question now is whether we will find the moral courage to stand up for our country and impeach the President of the United States. I yield back. DEGETTE>> The gentleman from Georgia. 163719 COLLINS >> Thank you, madam speaker. At this time I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer. DEGETTE >> The gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. 163726 GARY PALMER >> Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the impeachment of President Trump. Today is a day that diminishes the reputation and stature of the United States house of representatives, a day I never dreamed I'd see. Today my Democrat colleagues seek to overturn an election by forcing a vote that will forever be a stain on this congress. They are not just voting to impeach President Trump, my colleagues are voting to impeach the judgment of every person who voted for him and the process by which we elect the President and by which we will govern our nation. 163756 My Democrat colleagues claim the Russians influenced the outcome of the 2016 election but based on their corrupt impeachment proceedings, it appears my colleagues have been influenced by how Russia conducts political trials: no real evidence, no real crime, no due process, and no justice. The Democrats have failed to show any legitimate justification for the impeachment of President Trump. When they could not find evidence they made it up, called it a parody. They conducted most of the hearings in secret. They instructed witnesses not to answer Republican member's questions and they denied Republicans our right to call witnesses, making it absolutely clear their objective was from the beginning pathetically political. 163825 We all understand that elections have consequences. To all my colleagues, Democrat and Republicans alike, this day will surely have consequences as well. As we descend into more disrespect, distrust and even contempt that will eventually be destructive of this chamber and I fear eventually our republic. I urge all members to vote no on impeachment. I yield back. DEGETTE>> The gentleman from California. 163902 SCHIFF >> I thank the speaker. Very quickly, my colleagues have made repeated reference to some secret proceedings and some secret star chamber. This is apparently what they call depositions. I remind my colleagues when they were in the majority they conducted depositions but they were different in this respect. In the depositions we conducted in the intelligence committee over 100 members were able to participate. That's how secret they were. We revealed all of the transcripts of those depositions. The repetition of this falsehood does not make it true. It only makes the falsehood that much more deliberate. With that I'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Amash, for two minutes. DEGETTE >> The gentleman is recognized for two minutes. 163943 JUSTIN AMASH Thank you, madam speaker. I rise today in support of these articles of impeachment. I come to this floor not as a Democrat, not as a Republican, but as an American. Who cares deeply about the constitution, the rule of law, and the rights of the people. Under our system of government, impeachment is not about policy disagreements or ineffective governance. Nor is it about criminality based on statutes that did not exist at the time our constitution was written. Impeachment is about maintaining the integrity of the office of the presidency. 164020 And ensuring that executive power is directed toward proper ends in accordance with the law. The constitution grants the house the sole power of impeachment and the senate the sole power to try all impeachments. We in the house are empowered to charge impeachable conduct. The constitution describes such conduct as high crimes and misdemeanors because it pertains to high office and relates to the misuse of that office. We need not rely on any other branch or body to endorse our determinations. We have the sole power of impeachment. 164056 In federalist number 65, Alexander Hamilton wrote that high crimes and misdemeanors, quote are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They're of a nature which may, with peculiar propriety, be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. End quote. President Trump Donald J. Trump has abused and violated the public trust by using his high office to solicit the aid of a foreign power, not for the benefit of the United States of America, but instead for his personal and political gain. 164139 His actions reflect precisely the type of conduct the framers of the constitution intended to remedy through the power of impeachment and it is our duty to impeach him I yield back. DEGETTE>> The gentleman from Georgia. 164154 COLLINS >> Thank you Madam Speaker. Undoubtedly the house resolution 660 doesn't matter to the majority in particular the manager of this bill because the inspector general I see, transcript has not been released. There's not been documents transferred, they were supposed to be transferred to the white house and we're not sure we got everything we were supposed to get in the judiciary committee. I guess when you want to be transparent and open you hold it in the scif and do whatever you want. With that, I yield two minutes to gentleman from Florida, Mr Stuebe. DEGETTE >>The gentleman is recognized. 164220 GREG STUEBE >>thank you, Madam Speaker. This impeachment charade did not start with the whistleblower complaint. The campaign to impeach a duly elected President and overturn the will of 63 million Americans started 19 minutes after the President took the oath of office. 19 minutes after the inauguration, the "Washington post" published a story headline "the campaign to impeach President Trump has begun" The first day of this congress, day one, a democratic member of my class called for the impeachment of the President long before the call to the Ukraine. 164244 Then it was the Russia Collusion hoax. Then obstruction of justice, then bribery, then quid pro quo. None of which are included in these articles before us today. The first article of impeachment crafted is a fiction is not an enumerated basis in the constitution for impeachment. The Democratic majority would have you believe that abuse of power is a high crime or misdemeanor. It's not. It's an opinion. It's not even a crime that can be charged in a court of law. Unlike Presidents Nixon and Clinton who were tried for actual crimes, this President is being impeached on vague phrases that appear nowhere in our constitution. 164315 The second article obstruction of congress again doesn't exist in the constitution as a basis for impeachment and is attempting to impeach a duly elected President for asserting constitutionally based privileges that have been asserted on a bipartisan basis by both administrations of both political parties throughout our nation's history. This house is impeaching a President over a phone call to another world leader. A few lines in a phone transcript that have been completely and utterly misrepresented by the majority. The process that ensued was anything but open, transparent, bipartisan or equitable, abandoning all past historical due process afforded the minority and the President. 164350 The Democrats ran a partisan investigation, refusing the rights of the minority, refusing the ability for the President's counsel to call witnesses, refusing to allow the President's counsel to cross examine fact witnesses, and refusing a minority hearing day just to name a few. The majority waves around a report drafted that the democratic staff concocted as a matter of fact. When they needed backup for their approach they paraded out liberal professors with animus against the professors who gave them license to impeach the President for any reason they wish. 164418 House Democrats are making themselves kings in a manner far worse and more obvious than what they're accusing the President of doing. The only abuse of power here is the democratic-led congress. I yield back. DEGETTE>> The gentleman from California. SCHIFF >> Madam speaker, I'm proud to yield one minute to Mr. Cisneros, the gentleman from California. DEGETTE>> The gentleman is recognized for one minute. 164439 GIL CISNEROS >> Thank you Madam Speaker. When I was 18 years old, I joined the United States Navy and took the oath to support and defend the Constitution for the first time. I took that oath again earlier this year as a member of Congress. And every day, I work hard to live by that oath and give the 39th district the representation it deserves. 164456 I have always maintained that impeachment is a serious undertaking and must be done with incredible care. When the unprecedented allegations against the President and his interactions with Ukraine first reported, I felt it was congress' duty to investigate and find out the truth. And now the facts are before congress and the American people. The President betrayed his oath to support and defend the constitution by attempting to undermine the integrity of our election for his own personal benefit. 164522 He asked a foreign government to investigate a political rival and endangered our national security by withholding military aid to an ally. For me, it's not about personal political party affiliation, it's about upholding my oath to put our country and our constitution first and protect our national security. This is why I will vote to move forward with the impeachment of the President. I hope all my colleagues will join me in recognizing this grave threat and stand up to this administration in defense of our country and our constitution. With that, I yield back the balance of my time. DEGETTE>> The Gentleman from Georgia. 164553 COLLINS >> Thank you Madam speaker. I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Kustoff. DAVID KUSTOFF>> Madam Speaker, going back almost three years to when the President was sworn into office, we have seen some members on the other side of the aisle pledging and promising to impeach President Trump. Prior to the start of this inquiry, Speaker Pelosi claimed that the impeachment must be compelling, overwhelming, and bipartisan. 164617 The impeachment inquiry was announced less than three months ago. And what we know is that the process has been fast, faulty, and flawed. What we have witnessed since September 24th when the inquiry was announced is that the evidence we've seen is not compelling, it's not overwhelming, and the process is undoubtedly and unquestionably not bipartisan. I'm viewing this through the lens of a former United States attorney. And as we take this vote, here's the bottom line for the American people. 164650 There was no bribery. There was no extortion. There was no quid pro quo. There were no high crimes and misdemeanors committed by the President. And I yield back. DEGETTE>> The gentleman from California. SCHIFF>> Madam speaker, I now recognize the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Chu, for one minute. DEGETTE>> The gentlelady is recognized for one minute. 164712 JUDY CHU >> Madam Speaker, we know that President Trump withheld needed military aid to Ukraine. We know that he used it to demand Ukraine interfere in the 2020 election for his own benefit. And we know that Ukraine knew. None of these facts have been disputed. Instead, the White House has tried to hide the truth. But the President is not above the law. Nobody is. Corruption and obstruction. The President is guilty of both. The blatant abuse of power was made clear from over 100 hours of testimony before three committees and was clear in the call summary released by the White House. The obstruction has been made clear by the President's refusal to cooperate at every turn, even when ordered by a court. 164807 Setting a precedent that any President can abuse their power to interfere in our elections is an existential threat to our democracy. It's also a betrayal of the oath of office and the constitution. Therefore in fulfillment of my own oath of office, it's with solemn purpose today that I vote to impeach President Donald Trump. DEGETTE >> The gentleman from Georgia. COLLINS >> Thank you, madam speaker. At this time I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Gibbs. DEGETTE>> The gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. 164842 BOB GIBBS >> Thank you. Madam speaker, Democrats started with quid pro quo, that didn't work so well. Then it was bribery, extortion. Then they brought their witnesses in and not one could answer if they saw any evidence of bribery, extortion, or any crime when questioned. It was just silence. Then the witnesses, they always testified they heard this, they heard this, from so and so and so. When the Democrats brought their star witness in, Ambassador Sondland, when asked, he said, I presumed the aid was held up. I presumed? 164312 Testimony was all hearsay, conjecture, and assumptions. So now it's abuse of power with no underlying crime, which is opinion. Abuse of power to the Democrats is they don't like his policies or he treated a reporter harshly. Obstruction of congress. You know, there are three co-equal branches of government. When the executive branch and the legislative branch have an impasse, that's when the judicial branch intervenes. 164937 They didn't do that. The Democrats didn't sought out that route. Every President, including George Washington, could have been impeached based on these fact-less articles. There is no crime. There is no victim, as Ukraine received their aid before September 30th deadline and no witnesses that witnessed anything. This isn't about the rule of law. It's politics at its worse. It's disgraceful. It's time to end this charade and scam on the American people. I urge everybody to vote no on these articles of impeachment. I yield back. DEGETTE>> The gentleman from California. 165009 SCHIFF Madam Speaker, I'm happy to remind my colleagues of Ambassador Sondland's testimony. He posed the question was there a quid pro quo? The answer is yes. When he was asked about a quid pro quo involving the military aid, he said it was as clear two plus equals four. I'm pleased to yield one minute to Ms. Schakowsky, the gentlewoman from Illinois. DEGETTE>> The gentlelady is recognized for one minute. 165033 JAN SCHAKOWSKY >> It is my adult son, Ian Schakowsky whom I will always credit for my decision last June to support an impeachment inquiry. It had never been my goal to impeach a President, but Ian made such a compelling case. He reminded me of the oath I have taken 11 times now to support and defend the constitution of the United States. He said, mom, this is not about politics. This is not about party. 165105 And pushing back against my arguments he said, this has nothing to do with the final outcome. It's about doing the right thing even if others don't. He made me see that it was about my legacy, my modest place in history. I want to thank you, my son, for helping me do the right thing today, to vote to impeach the President of the United States, Donald Trump, because no American is above the law. And I yield back. DEGETTE>> The gentleman from Georgia. 165144 COLLINS >> Thank you, madam speaker. I also would like to remind the gentleman from California, Mr. Sondland also said he had no direct evidence. He presumed that that was going on. I guess we're back to presumption again. With that, I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Flores. DEGETTE>> The gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. 165158 BILL FLORES >> Madam Speaker, on March 11th of this year, the speaker of the house the following said in an interview in "The Washington Post," quote, impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there is something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think that we should go down that path, because it divides the country, unquote. I think most Americans would agree with that statement, because it sounds thoughtful and reasonable. 165220 So here we are today to vote on the articles of impeachment. How did the majority party do in meeting the objectives set forth by the speaker? Here are the answers. First, the only compelling attribute about this sham is the lengths the majority has gone to appease the radical socialist wing of their party. Second, the only overwhelming feature about this sham is the abuse of power by the majority and the reckless disregard for fairness by the majority throughout this entire circus. 165246 And finally, the only bipartisan activity related to this sham will be the votes against these flimsy articles impeachment. I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing these deplorable articles of impeachment and to demand that the house get back to working on the...
ARREST IN ATTEMPTED KIDNAPPING (12/27/2001)
GEORGIA POLICE ARREST A MAN WHO TRIED TO KIDNAP A WOMAN WHILE SHE WAS SHOPPING THIS PAST WEEKEND.
APTN 1300 ENTERTAINMENT DAILY NEWS EUROPE
AP-APTN-1300: US Michael Jackson Friday, 26 June 2009 STORY:US Michael Jackson- UPDATE Hospital aerials, helicopter, Jermaine, police, fans LENGTH: 04:26 RESTRICTIONS: See Script TYPE: English/Nats SOURCE: Various STORY NUMBER: 610874 DATELINE: Los Angeles, 25 June 2009 LENGTH: 04:26 SHOTLIST (including transcript) :- ABC - NO ACCESS NORTH AMERICA / INTERNET ++AERIAL SHOTS++ 1. Various shots of helicopter in flight believed to be carrying the body of Michael Jackson 2. Zoom in on coroner's van waiting by helipad, pan to helicopter 3. Officials moving what is believed to be Michael Jackson's body from helicopter into coroner's van 4. Various shots of van driving 5. Van driving into garage POOL - AP Clients Only 6. Michael Jackson's brother, Jermaine Jackson, approaching lectern 7. SOUNDBITE: (English) Jermaine Jackson, Michael Jackson's brother: "This is hard. My brother, legendary King of Pop Michael Jackson, passed away on Thursday June 25th 2009 at 2.26pm. It is believed he suffered cardiac arrest in his home, however the cause of his death is unknown until results of the autopsy are known. His personal physician, who was with him at the time, attempted to resuscitate my brother. As did the paramedics who transported him to the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Centre. Upon arriving at the hospital at approximately 1.14pm, a team of doctors including emergency physicians and cardiologists attempted to resuscitate him for a period of more than one hour and they were unsuccessful. Our family requests that the media please respect our privacy during this tough time and may Allah be with you Michael, always. Love you. Thank you very much." HOLLYWOOD TV - NO ACCESS TMZ / NO ACCESS ACCESS HOLLYWOOD / NO ACCESS EXTRA / NO ACCESS INSIDE EDITION - DO NOT OBSTRUCT HOLLYWOOD TV LOGO 7. Video of ambulance backing out and leaving Michael Jackson's home 8. Mid shot tourists in bus in front of Jackson's home KABC - NO ACCESS NORTH AMERICA / INTERNET 9. SOUNDBITE: (English) Lieutenant Gregg Strenk, Los Angeles Police Department: "About 13.00 hours today Mr Jackson was transported from this location by paramedics to UCLA Medical Centre. At about 14 or about 2.30 in the afternoon Mr Jackson was pronounced over at UCLA Medical Centre. About four o'clock this afternoon Robbery Homicide Division was notified of this incident and directed by the Chief of Police to come out and handle the death investigation. Currently the LA County Coroner's office is taking possession of Mr Jackson's body. They will handle any other inquiries into the type of death or anything that relates to that at that point in time." KTLA - NO ACCESS NORTH AMERICA / INTERNET 10. Various aerial shots of crowd around UCLA Medical Centre ++MUTE++ MICHAEL JACKSON DIES AGED 50 Michael Jackson, the sensationally gifted child star who rose to become the "King of Pop" and the biggest celebrity in the world only to fall from his throne in a freakish series of scandals, has died. He was 50. Jackson passed away on Thursday (25 JUNE 2009) at UCLA Medical Centre after being stricken at his rented home in the Holmby Hills section of Los Angeles. Paramedics tried to resuscitate him at his home for nearly three-quarters of an hour, then rushed him to the hospital, where doctors continued to work on him. His brother Jermaine said it is believed he suffered cardiac arrest in his home. However, he said the cause of his death "is unknown until results of the autopsy are known." Jermaine Jackson said his brother's personal doctor and paramedics tried to resuscitate him at his rented home in Holmby Hills. A team of doctors at UCLA Medical Centre also tried for more than an hour, Jermaine said. Los Angeles police Lieutenant Gregg Strenk said at a separate news conference that police robbery-homicide detectives have been ordered to investigate, which is common in a high-profile case. Strenk said the coroner's office, which will handle inquiries into the type of death, is taking possession of the body. An autopsy was planned for Friday, though results were not likely to be final until toxicology tests could be completed, a process that could take several days and sometimes weeks. Across the United States, people reacted in stunned disbelief as word spread of Jackson's death. Within minutes of Jackson's arrival by ambulance at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Centre people began arriving by the hundreds, the crowd quickly filling a grassy entrance outside the hospital. Overhead, news helicopters whirred noisily and TV trucks clogged streets. Hundreds of people gathered outside the hospital as word of his death spread. Jackson's death brought a tragic end to a long, bizarre, sometimes farcical decline from his peak in the 1980s, when he was popular music's premier all-around performer, a uniter of black and white music who shattered the race barrier on MTV, dominated the charts and dazzled even more on stage. His 1982 album 'Thriller,' which included the blockbuster hits 'Beat It,' 'Billie Jean' and 'Thriller,' is the best-selling album of all time, with an estimated 50 million copies sold worldwide. He was perhaps the most exciting performer of his generation, known for his feverish, crotch-grabbing dance moves and his high-pitched voice punctuated with squeals and titters. His single sequined glove, tight, military-style jacket and aviator sunglasses were trademarks second only to his ever-changing, surgically altered appearance. Jackson ranked alongside Elvis Presley and the Beatles as the biggest pop sensations of all time. He united two of music's biggest names when he was briefly married to Presley's daughter, Lisa Marie, and Jackson's death immediately evoked that of Presley himself, who died at age 42 in 1977. As years went by, Jackson became an increasingly freakish figure, a middle-aged man-child weirdly out of touch with grown-up life. His skin became lighter, his nose narrower, and he spoke in a breathy, girlish voice. He surrounded himself with children at his Neverland ranch, often wore a germ mask while travelling and kept a pet chimpanzee named Bubbles as one of his closest companions. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 06-26-09 0919EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-1300: US Celebrity Reax Friday, 26 June 2009 STORY:US Celebrity Reax- NEW Uri Geller, Reverend Jesse Jackson, Jane Krakowski, Rosie Perez LENGTH: 03:25 RESTRICTIONS: See script TYPE: English/Nat SOURCE: AP TELEVISION/ABC/SKY STORY NUMBER: 610887 DATELINE: Various, 25 June 2009 LENGTH: 03:25 ABC - No Access N.America/Internet New York, New York - 25 June 2009 1. US actress Rosie Perez on red carpet at celebrity event ++MUTE++ 2. SOUNDBITE: (English) Rosie Perez, Actress, Jackson family friend: "(It's) just really, horribly sad." 3. Set up shot of Rashida Jones 4. SOUNDBITE: (English) Rashida Jones, Actress, Jackson family friend: "I mean all of them are so great from top to bottom. He was the greatest." 5. Actress Jane Krakowski walking up to event ++MUTE++ 6. SOUNDBITE: (English) Jane Krakowski, Actress: "(It's) a very sad day to lose two of the biggest starts absolutely of my childhood." 7. SOUNDBITE: (English) Sandra Bernhardt, Actress: "I think he was caught up in the craziness of the times, and it's terribly sad." 8. SOUNDBITE: (English) Judith Light, Actress: "And I often think that when we have this longing to change ourselves inside that sometimes we do it only on the outside, and I hope he wasn't struggling with that any longer." ABC - No Access N.America/Internet Atlanta, Georgia - 25 June 2009 9. Set up shot of Leonard Rowe, former manager of Michael Jackson ++MUTE++ 10. Tight shot of photo of Jackson as a young man ++MUTE++ 11. SOUNDBITE: (English) Leonard Rowe, Former manager of Michael Jackson: "I felt it was coming. I felt something like this was coming, but there wasn't an intervention." 12. Rowe pointing up at Jackson records and pictures hanging on his wall ++MUTE++ 13. Tight shot of Jackson photo ++MUTE++ 14. SOUNDBITE: (English) Leonard Rowe, Former manager of Michael Jackson: (soundbite partially overlaid by photos of Jackson) " He was surrounded by, I hate to say it, the evils of the entertainment industry. When I say that, I mean people that only care about his profitability, not about his health and well being." ++ AUDIO AS INCOMING +++ ABC - No Access N.America/Internet Chicago, Illinois - 25 June 2009 15. SOUNDBITE: (English) Reverend Jesse Jackson, Michael Jackson fan: "His business was under attack. He was struggling to maintain his catalogue. His energy level was low. He seemed to me to have lost an awful lot of weight. But he was determined to fight back. The most about Michael that we all knew was the singing and the dancing. He was as tough as he was talented." SKY - No Access UK/RTE/CNNi/Al Jazeera English Sonning, Berkshire, UK - 26 June 2009 16. SOUNDBITE: (English) Uri Geller, Friend of Michael Jackson: "While he was under deep hypnosis, I asked him 'Did you ever touch a child in an inappropriate way?' and he immediately answered: 'No, I would never do that!' and then I asked him 'Why did you pay off Jodie Chandler millions?', he said 'I couldn't take it anymore. I had enough.' Michael Jackson was totally innocent and he was proven innocent. Can you imagine what this man went through? The tragic trauma that he had to deal with throughout this life? I think this stress got to him finally. Sadly, he died yesterday." AP Television Macau/China, June 26 2009 17. SOUNDBITE (Korean), Rain, Singer: "It's a sad and unfortunate news. Michael Jackson was my idol since I was a boy. He inspired me to learn to dance. I think he will always be a legendary person in dancing. He will be like a textbook to all dancers. I bless him all the way. AP Television Dallas, Texas - 25 June 2009 18. US actress Brooke Shields crying as she walks at airport STARS PAY TRIBUTE TO MICHAEL JACKSON Michael Jackson was due to make his triumphant return to the stage in London next month - but instead his sudden death has left millions of fans feeling they've lost a lifelong friend. Jackson's death on Thursday (25 JUNE 2009) was a shock to stars as well and his passing was the talk of a red carpet event in New York City later that evening. Actress and comedienne Rosie Perez said it was a sad day. Jackson family friend Rashida Jones said Jackson simply was "the greatest." Leonard Rowe, a former manager for Jackson, said he thought something like this might happen. "I felt it was coming. I felt something like this was coming, but there wasn't an intervention," said Rowe, whose home is covered in pictures of Jackson as a young man and entertainer. Rowe blamed what he called "the evils of the entertainment industry" which cared only for "his profitability, not about his health and well being." Jesse Jackson noted that the pop star had recently lost a lot of weight and was struggling financially because his "business was under attack." A friend of the singer, Uri Geller, says he thinks that the stress of going through a public child abuse trial took it's toll: "Michael Jackson was totally innocent and he was proven innocent. Can you imagine what this man went through? The tragic trauma that he had to deal with throughout this life? I think this stress got to him finally. Sadly, he died yesterday." Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 06-26-09 0920EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-1300: WOR Jackson reactions Friday, 26 June 2009 STORY:WOR Jackson reactions- WRAP Reax around the world to Jackson's death LENGTH: 08:21 RESTRICTIONS: Check script for details TYPE: English/Nat SOURCE: AP Entertainment/various STORY NUMBER: 610925 DATELINE: various LENGTH: 08:21 SHOTLIST (including transcript) :- AP Television Gary, Indiana 1. People gathered in front of Michael Jackson's boyhood home 2. Police 3. Tilt up of door decorated with teddy bears and flowers 4. Note on door reading (English) "Rest in Peace. Love your music." 5. Candles, flowers and a teddy bear left as memorial 6. Person putting a US dollar bill on door 7. People praying 8. People posing for photo with picture signed by Michael Jackson 9. SOUNDBITE: (English) Edie Oliver, local resident: "Well it hurt, it hurt to know that Michael passed on but he'll be remembered and right here in Gary, Indiana, we will always love the Jackson 5, regardless of whatever they say about him or whatever happened in the past, we here in Gary love the Jacksons." AP Television New York City, NY 10. Various of people dancing in front of the Apollo Theatre 11. SOUNDBITE: (English) Vox Pop, no name given: "He's not dead he's alive and kicking, he's alive he's always in my heart, Michael I love you but God loves you more, he took you back to be an angel and he shouted down on me... I'm your number one fan from when we was little kids Michael your number one fan." 12. Woman dancing 13. Apollo Theatre sign and text reading: "In Memory of Michael Jackson, A true Apollo Legend 1958-2009" AP Television Tokyo, Japan - 26 June 2009 14. Mid of Michael Jackson on cover of magazine 15. Mid of Take, a Michael fan, holding phone 16. Close up of Take's cartoon dedicated to Jackson on his phone 17. SOUNDBITE (Japanese) Take (No Surname Given), Michael Jackson fan: "I was going to go to his concert in July and was all ready with a present to give him. I had been full of excitement to see him again but now I am never going to see him again." 18. Close of phone screen showing CD autographed by Jackson 19. Take holding the phone showing the photo TV TOKYO - PART NO ACCESS JAPAN/CLEARED FOR INTERNET USE, EXCEPT BY JAPANESE WEBSITES / BBC WORLD, CNNI, NBC, CNBC MUST ON-SCREEN COURTESY 'TV TOKYO' IF PICTURES TO BE SHOWN ON CABLE, COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE IN JAPAN Tokyo, Japan - 26 June 2009 20. Wide shot of Takeo Kawamura, Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary, walking in 21. SOUNDBITE (Japanese) Takeo Kawamura, Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary: "I am sorry that such a big star passed away so suddenly although I am aware that there were some rumours about him." AP Television Seoul, South Korea, 26 June 2009 22. Various street scenes 23. Close up of news on electronic screen flashing report on Jackson's death 24. SOUNDBITE: (Korean) Kim Nam-kyoung, local resident: "He was a star when I was little. Learning of his death, I felt like losing some of the memories of my childhood." AP Television Hong Kong - 26 June 2009 25. Wide buildings and traffic in Wanchai, downtown in Hong Kong 26. Low shot of people walking on bridge 27. SOUNDBITE: (Cantonese) Vox pop, Chan Siu-sing, local resident: "It's a pity. I have liked him since I was small. I watched his concert performance on DVD." AP Television Beijing, China - 26 June 2009 28. Wide of Main Street with large outdoor TV 29. Mid of pedestrians 30. Close shot of photo of Michael Jackson displayed on public screen 31. SOUNDBITE (Mandarin) Hui Jun, visitor from Jilin Province "I can't believe it. I really can't believe it. Because he had a bunch of performances planned for this year - and now they'll never happen." AP Television Manila, Philippines - 26 June 2009 32. Various of street scenes 33. SOUNDBITE (Tagalog) Renelda Calderon, Overseas Worker "I own a lot of CD's of Michael Jackson. I hope his soul rests in peace. He is still in our minds and our hearts, we will always love his songs. I still cannot believe is dead." AP Television Mexico City, Mexico - 25 June 2009 ++NIGHT SHOTS++ 34. A Michael Jackson impersonator dances the "moonwalk" as he comes into the plaza of the Angel of Independence 35. Girl dressed like Michael Jackson holding a candle 36. Close up of a girl holding candle 37. SOUNDBITE: (Spanish) Esteban Rubio, Michael Jackson impersonator: "Look at the physical change, tell me that he hasn't been an important part of my life. One of my kids is named Michael. I have an academy that's called Studio Jackson. Everything that was Michael Jackson was a fountain of inspiration for me, the strongest kind of inspiration. He was always present with me." AP Television ++NIGHT SHOTS++ Buenos Aires, Argentina - 26 June 2009 38. Wide of street in Buenos Aires 39. SOUNDBITE: (Spanish) Vox pop, Dimitri, local resident: "Really? This makes me really sad, I didn't know." SOUNDBITE: (Spanish) Vox pop, Mariam, local resident: "You are not lying are you?" AP Television ++NIGHT SHOTS++ Rio de Janerio, Brazil - 26 June 2009 39. Various of people at bar 40. SOUNDBITE: (Portuguese) Vox pop, Andrea Bueno, Rio de Janeiro resident: "It is very sad, he died so young. He was always a very controversial person though and his life was very sad. The story of his life is very complicated." AP Television Bogota, Colombia - 26 June 2009 41. Wide of street 42. SOUNDBITE: (Spanish) Vox pop, Marta Herrera, cashier at a drugstore: "The only thing that I ask God is to forgive him for all the pain he caused to so many families, specially their kids. May God have mercy of him. That is it." AP Television ++NIGHT SHOTS++ Lima, Peru 43. Wide of street 44. SOUNDBITE: (Spanish) Vox pop, Julia Morales, local resident "I feel very sorry, very sorry. We will miss out on musical contributions of someone who brought about a new path to pop music. I feel very sorry for that." AP Television Caracas, Venezuela 45. Various of street scenes 46. SOUNDBITE: (Spanish) Vox pop, Pablo Suarez, musician: "It's sad because he was one of the pioneers of pop music. I hope somebody will be able to take his place, and achieve that kind of musical success." DNF - NO ACCESS GERMANY Hanover, Germany - 26 June, 2009 47. Wide exterior of club in Hanover 48. Close of TV screen running news channel with ticker announcing Jackson's death, pan to people dancing to Jackson song 49. People dancing to Jackson's song 50. Mid of DJ working 51. SOUNDBITE: (German) DJ Tyron, Club DJ: "(The loss is) very big, very big, he was one of the greatest musicians, and he will not be forgotten, we'll continue to play (his records) every evening, and one will remember him." AP Television Paris, France - 26 June, 2009 52. Wide of newspaper stand 53. Various of newspapers headlines, reading: (French) "Michael Jackson is dead" and "The Death of Michael Jackson" 54. Close of newspaper headline, reading: (French) "Michael Jackson, the king of pop is dead" 55. SOUNDBITE: (French) Apollinaire Baghnyan, vox pop: "It's a big loss for all music lovers because he had a type of music that touched people of all age groups and all cultural origins, that's why we are going to miss him a lot." AP Television Rome, Italy - 26 June 2009 56. Wide of traffic on street 57. Pan of news stand 58. Mid of various newspaper headlines 59. SOUNDBITE: (Italian) Marco (only one name given), vox pop: "He has to accept himself as he was. Unfortunately he was a great artist but he didn't leave a positive message to new generation. Sadness is great because he was a great artist." AP Television London, UK - 26 June 2009 60. Exterior of Lyric theatre in London, which is currently showing "Thriller Live", compilation of Jackson's music 61. Mid of entrance 62. Close of red rose on door 63. SOUNDBITE: (English) No name given, vox pop: "I didn't believe it at all. At first I thought it was a PR stunt and as always there were a lot of different headlines in the very beginning and once it was confirmed I was absolutely devastated, I was completely gutted." 64. Mid of sign outside theatre JACKSON REMEMBERED AROUND THE WORLD Word of Michael Jackson's death on Thursday (25 JUNE 2009) jolted nearly everyone, from a man in Mexico City who named his son after the King of Pop, to Malaysians who named a soy drink for him, to a generation of people around the world who have tried, in vain, to moonwalk. The worldwide chorus of grief united the legions of ordinary people who grew up with 'Thriller' and 'Beat It.' Michael Joseph Jackson was born August 29, 1958, in Gary, Indiana. He was 4 years old when he began singing with his brothers - Marlon, Jermaine, Jackie and Tito - in the Jackson 5. After his early success with bubblegum soul, he struck out on his own, generating innovative, explosive, unstoppable music. And his childhood home became a focus for fans dealing with the shock of the news: Local resident Edie Oliver tried to explain how they were feeling: "Well it hurt, it hurt to know that Michael passed on but he'll be remembered and right here in Gary, Indiana, we will always love the Jackson 5, regardless of whatever they say about him or whatever happened in the past, we here in Gary love the Jacksons." At the Apollo Theatre in New York City, where Jackson first performed with his brothers at age 9 in 1969, the billboard was cleared for the message, "In Memory of Michael Jackson. A True Apollo Legend." About a dozen people danced outside the theatre to Jackson's music, with a boom box blaring 'Don't Stop 'til You Get Enough.' Traffic stopped in front of the theatre while cars honked. People clutched the singer-dancer's pictures, played his music and tries to imitate his signature moonwalk moves. The sadness was felt outside of America too. In Seoul, Kim Nam-kyoung spoke of his reaction. "He was a star when I was little. Learning of his death, I felt like losing some of the memories of my childhood." In France the front pages all covered the news. Speaking in Paris, Apollinaire Baghnyan said: "It's a big loss for all music lovers because he had a type of music that touched people of all age groups and all cultural origins, that's why we are going to miss him a lot." Julia Morales from Lima in Peru explained what she thought about Jackson's death: "I feel very sorry, very sorry. We will miss out on musical contributions of someone who brought about a new path to pop music. I feel very sorry for that." And in Mexico City, "King of Pop" impersonator Esteban Rubio was able to physically demonstrated his intense regard for the star by changing his appearance to look like the singer: "Look at the physical change, tell me that he hasn't been an important part of my life. One of my kids is named Michael. I have an academy that's called Studio Jackson. Everything that was Michael Jackson was a fountain of inspiration for me, the strongest kind of inspiration. He was always present with me." APTN APEX 06-26-09 0937EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-1300: US Jackson Publicist Friday, 26 June 2009 STORY:US Jackson Publicist- NEW Michael Jackson's former publicist reacts to his death LENGTH: 04:01 FIRST RUN: Flash RESTRICTIONS: Check script for details TYPE: English/Nat SOURCE: AP Television STORY NUMBER: 610938 DATELINE: New York, 25 June 2009 LENGTH: 04:01 CLIENTS PLEASE NOTE: COMMERCIAL MUSIC, MUSIC VIDEO AND OR PERFORMANCES, MUST BE CLEARED ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN LOCAL MUSIC PERFORMANCE AND COPYRIGHT AGREEMENTS WITH YOUR APPLICABLE COLLECTING SOCIETY. DETAILS OF THE TRACKS, WHERE AVAILABLE, MAY BE FOUND BELOW. YOU HAVE EDITORIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR USE OF ALL AND ANY CONTENT INCLUDED WITHIN THE SERVICE, AND FOR LIBEL, PRIVACY, COMPLIANCE AND THIRD PARTY RIGHTS APPLICABLE TO THEIR TERRITORY. SHOTLIST (including transcript) :- VNR 1. Various concert footage of Jackson during his 80's heyday AP Television New York, 25 June 2009 2. SOUNDBITE (English) Susan Blond/President Susan Blond, Inc. & Jackson Former Publicist: "Those years we could hang out and we could go to things together like see The Whiz - he liked Stephanie Mills in The Whiz - and watch the kids come up to him. They'd all want the autographs and I'd say, 'Why don't you just sign MJ instead of Michael Jackson?' just the way Andy Warhol would sign his name AW and he'd say, 'Oh no, I can't. These are my fans. They made me.' He was so darling and sincere and sweet in those years." Pool London, 5 March 2009 3. Wide of Michael Jackson exiting a bus, followed by a walking shot 4. Wide and then push-in to Jackson walking on stage AP Television New York, 25 June 2009 5. SOUNDBITE (English) Susan Blond/President Susan Blond, Inc. & Jackson Former Publicist: "I saw him for many years. I saw the 'Off the Wall' success and the 'Thriller' success. The super success. Before that we had other going places, we had other records and had parties at Studio 54 and great times but then by 'Off the Wall' he was doing amazingly well. That was his first cover of Rolling Stone and we were breaking barriers. It was very hard to get someone who wasn't white on the cover of magazines or even MTV but with 'Thriller' every barrier was broken. Stadiums all over the world were sold out and he became the biggest star of all time.' AP Television New Tokyo International Airport, Chiba Prefecture, Japan, 4 March 2007 6. Various of Michael Jackson coming out and shaking hands with Japanese fans waiting at the arrival gate 7. Various of Jackson waving to the screaming fans 8. Various of screaming fans following Jackson AP Television New York, 25 June 2009 9. SOUNDBITE (English) Susan Blond/President Susan Blond, Inc. & Jackson Former Publicist: "I did see him once at a kosher restaurant and he was with the two kids and he brought them over and we talked to them for a few minutes. Well, they were pretty little. But they sat like little dolls almost and they ate with perfect, little manners and they said, 'Hello' and he introduced me in such a sweet way so I saw more of the sweet part I remembered that day." AP Television Santa Maria, CA, 27 April 2006 10. Wide of Michael Jackson leaving court AP Television New York, 25 June 2009 11. SOUNDBITE (English) Susan Blond/President Susan Blond, Inc. & Jackson Former Publicist: "He always pushed himself very hard. In fact, every hotel he went to he had to have a dance floor in the hotel. That was what he...he never stopped working. It's funny, it wasn't Studio 54 but once we were at Regines together a long time ago and I said, 'Don't you want to dance?' and he said 'Dance? Dance is work.' so he didn't just go and dance like a regular teenager, you know?" AP Television Tokyo, Japan, 9 March 2007 12. Michael Jackson singing along to song on stage surrounded by fans AP Television New York, 25 June 2009 13. SOUNDBITE (English) Susan Blond/President Susan Blond, Inc. & Jackson Former Publicist: "I'm probably not too realistic in my view but I saw him only in the most beautiful light and wanted not to see the other stuff so you can call me Pollyanna I don't know what but it hurts and I didn't want to think any of that was true. And I just didn't want to know it. I just let the talent. I still think of him as the most, the most talented artist I've ever worked with or that anyone has ever seen really and so that seemed to forgive other things for me. That was the person that I knew and that I cared about and that I thought was underneath whatever else was going on." AP Images Undated photo 14. Michael Jackson, front right, Marlon Jackson, front left, Tito Jackson, back left, Jackie Jackson and Jermaine, back right, are shown in Los Angeles AP Images Los Angeles, 15 September 1972 15. The Jackson 5, from left, Tito, Marlon, Michael, Jackie and Jermaine perform during the 'Sonny and Cher Comedy Hour' REMEMBERING MICHAEL JACKSON Michael Jackson's former publicist, Susan Blond, remembers the singer as the most talented person she ever worked with. Blond worked with Michael Jackson during his 'Bad' and 'Thriller' days. "By 'Off the Wall' he was doing amazingly well. That was his first cover of Rolling Stone and we were breaking barriers. It was very hard to get someone who wasn't white on the cover of magazines or even MTV but with 'Thriller' every barrier was broken. Stadiums all over the world were sold out and he became the biggest star of all time.' She says the Michael Jackson she knew loved his fans and took his work very seriously. Even at a young age: "He always pushed himself very hard. In fact, every hotel he went to he had to have a dance floor in the hotel. That was what he...he never stopped working. It's funny, it wasn't Studio 54 but once we were at Regines together a long time ago and I said, 'Don't you want to dance?' and he said 'Dance? Dance is work.' So he didn't just go and dance like a regular teenager, you know?" Despite the controversies about the star and the child abuse trial when he was acquitted, Blond says she only looked for the good inside Jackson and specifically remembers meeting him and his family years later: "I did see him once at a kosher restaurant and he was with the two kids and he brought them over and we talked to them for a few minutes. Well, they were pretty little. But they sat like little dolls almost and they ate with perfect, little manners and they said, 'Hello' and he introduced me in such a sweet way so I saw more of the sweet part I remembered that day." APTN APEX 06-26-09 0941EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM -------------------
ATLANTA AIRPORT STABBING (6/3/1998)
AA woman is stabbed during what police say was a robbery attempt at Atlanta’s Hartsfield Airport, one of the busiest airports in the country.