Ahmaud Arbery death trial | Argument over mistrial motion based on 'misstatement of law'

if the offense we're talking about that offense the one that was just committed in your presence is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape right then and there is not the law that the court's going to give and we've had this discussion we've it's you understand this is my argument the judge is going to give you the law right and he's going to have it written out for you and he's going to read it to you but this is the state's argument that the offender is escaping or attempting to escape the state's position is is that what that means is i saw the crime i can't chase after the person i just have to try and arrest them right there but if it's a felony if it's a felony and if they're receiving they're running away i get to chase after them i don't get to chase after them unless it's a felony and they're trying to escape all right a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion that's the state's position we have to object and have a conference with the court we're going to let the state continue we talked about this in the charge conference the objection is noted from mr ladies and gentlemen if you could please just go ahead and take a step into the journey all right the court had a charge conference friday i was provided a bunch of arguments over the weekend that we are making part of the record so uh i understand the objection is being made to the uh the law i've indicated the law is going to be provided to the panel i've indicated the court's position with respect to the law so with that i'd like to get the closing argument done but i'm more than happy to hear the motion for mistrial and receive from there based on the final draft of the charge the court provided us i guess yesterday morning this the court is going to charge that a private citizen's warrantless arrest must occur immediately after the perpetration of the offense or in the case of felonies during escape if the observer fails to make the arrest immediately after the commission expense or during escape in the case of felonies his power to do so is extinguish that's not what the state's arguing they're or they're arguing and and it's a clear misstatement the court should simply instruct the state not to argue an incorrect statement law rather than putting the burden back on the jury to understand what the state's saying what we're saying and now what the charge is saying the court has the power to do so and should do so in further support of the motion for mistrial on behalf of greg mcmichael obviously this is the last word by any council in the case and to argue the state's case which we'll perfectly find that they're doing is to argue the facts and evidence as the law applies to them but not as a misstatement of the law applies to them that we can't correct except by making an objection when the incorrect law is being given to the jury by the state so there's no way we can fix it we're asking the court to fix it not by simply saying to the jury that the law is going to come from the court which it will but that this is a misstatement of the law and this argument is improper you join mistake thank you yesterday the defense got up here and argued their interpretation of the law and i didn't object at all because i knew it was their interpretation of what they believed the law to be they went through the whole probable cause thing they called him a burglar they went through everything state didn't object because i understood that this was their position of the laws applied to the facts i've just made it clear to this jury and i will again that this is what the law is and this is how you apply it to these facts and this is the state's interpretation of how you read this law just like they gave their interpretation in their closings yesterday so we ask that you deny the mistrial one you can argue the law you can't argue a misstatement of the law the state never told the jury this is my interpretation of law until we objected well i think that's what was explained in the parenthetical but the state does need i will state needs to clarify that this is the argument based on the law that will be charged and with the law that will be charged and make sure that we're clear about what the law is that's being charged i'm not there was a debate about this on friday and i'm not going to reignite that debate in front of the panel we're fine with the what the court's decision was on the contemporaneous contemporaneousness of the of the events the charge is great it's the state's argument about what that means that's flawed and it's fatally flawed has the right to just like the defense had the right to argue that what escape means is escaping whatever this temporal period is i understand the states be arguing the same thing in a much more limited temporal period i think the state's got the right to do that state needs to be sure though that it's clear that that is the argument that is being made as opposed to what the law is um and i think the charge is very clear about that so the motion for mistrial is denied the state is arguing that the felony for the second sentence has to have just occurred in the immediate presence of the person seeking to arrest the escaping felon that is absolutely a misstatement of the law even as the court agreed to charge it that's not even correct the the second sentence does not require the felony to have occurred within the immediate presence contemporaneous with the escape and the chase that is not the law that's not the law the court agreed to charge you're charging the statute and the statute are those two sentences the state's interpretation of that statute is if the offense well that is the offense has to be committed in your presence or immediate knowledge if that offense is a felony i mean that's what it says if that offense well it's referring back to that first sentence and the state's interpretation is then that means that felony had to be committed in your presence the person had to be escaping right then and there and that's the state's argument to them that they never saw anyone escaping from a felony that had been committed that not what the court's day yeah that's that's not what was it so the char the the escape the second sentence the court was charging which i understood was agreed to was that um if it's a felony and there was an escape that's the temporal issue that we're talking about then then that those steps can be taken to detain the arrest the individual what i understood the defense is arguing is that this temporal period stretched over some time what understood the state was arguing was no that temporal period is limited to what had occurred there the escape the word escape was he was escaping from uh whatever may have occurred that day yes that is what we're doing okay well that's not what i'm hearing then because what i'm hearing is well if the state limits its argument to that that that's what the second sentence refers to and escape that limited temporal period then that's permitted that's what we talked about the charge conference i don't think that is what we argued about by email and all the rest your honor that's what i remember that's what i'm saying to that for me to step out just for a second i i will not disturb the jury if they're back by the time i get back i could also use a bathroom break i assume that's what mr hub is looking for let's just take literally five minutes and then we'll get back into this

Channel: 11Alive

Views: 119,702

Keywords: Ahmaud Arbery, Ahmaud Arbery case, Ahmaud Arbery trial, Arbery case, Arbery trial, Court Live, Georgia, Georgia news, Linda Dunikoski, Trials

Id: jnGyiJulF44

Length: 9min 23sec (563 seconds)

Published: Tue Nov 23 2021