Right.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Um, again, just for purposes of the record, Mr Frank and I had a discussion last evening about which motions to address today.

And we agreed upon, uh, numbers 18, 19 and 21 of the defense motions in lemonade as well as number four in the States.

Motions in the minutes, Um, I think as a threshold manner.

Your Honor, I think there is actually one correction that came to my attention from yesterday.

And maybe we can address that later.

With respect to rule number.

Excuse me.

Motion number five.

All right.

Uh, dispatching with perhaps the easiest of the three.

Number 19 of the defense motions.

Excuse me.

One second, I believe, is identical to state motion number five.

And therefore, we have no objection to that border being granted.

Alright, 19 is granted without objection.

Your are?

Yes.

Identify yourself for the record, this is Sunday.

Buyer for the state of Minnesota.

There is, uh, one objection.

We have to, uh, show the motion.

19.

Uh, the state opposes the motion to the extent it precludes testimony, not just on subsequent changes.

Two MPD policies which we agree absolutely should be excluded, but also on MPD policies on what shotgun was trained.

But that might not have been in effect at the time of towards death, uh, policies on which Chauvin was trained There are definitely relevant.

It's Mr Sharpton.

Please.

There should have been had the requisite, uh, Mr Higher.

We refer to everyone by title.

So it's Mr Chauvin, please, uh, my partner, John.

Uh, so this court recognized that whether Mr Shaaban was trained on a particular policy is relevant in determining whether he had the requisite men's ray.

Uh, and it recognized as much in this probable cause order when it indicated that Mr Sheldon failure to follow a follow training would be potentially preservative, for example, of a gross deviation from the standard of care of whether he consciously took a chance of causing death or great bodily harm and of potential recklessness.

And so, for that reason, the state respectfully ask that the court denies the motion to the extent it seeks exclusion of training Mr Chauvin received, that might not be reflected in the MPD policies that were in effect at the time that Mr Footsteps so what I hear you saying is it was not policy, but they were training on a certain topic.

Mr.

Chauhan received that training, and you want to be able to comment on that, even though it was not firmly and policy at You're correct.

You're on, Mr Nelson.

I'm trying to figure out if you're talking to me or Yeah, sorry.

This is an awkward arrangement, because I see 123456 of 78 So I apologize, Your Honor.

I'm not trying to be glib.

No, actually, I'll address you specifically to write.

What is that kind of what you're saying?

Yes, your Honor.

Okay.

Mr.

Nelson, do you have Yes, Your Honor.

Um, in terms of training, uh, through the Minneapolis Police Department, that's obviously going to be a significant issue.

Throughout the course of Mr Chauvin's career, what our motion specifically was addressing is any policy changes subsequent to the incident at question.

Here we are in agreement that those policies, I think we're both in agreement that those policies should not be referenced during the course of the trial.

Those changes with respect to his other training, I guess I would seek clarification from council simply because there are training methods that have been approved.

And if we're talking policy versus training, I guess that's the question that I would have.

All right, you are, Mr I You're essentially trying to get in the training that he had.

I don't see any reason why that would not be relevant.

I think that comes in regardless of whether it's been embedded in policy or not.

So I think we can probably deal with this when it comes up drawing the lines on appropriate testimony.

But if it's training Mr Chauvin received before the death of Mr Floyd, I think we have to recognize that that is relevant.

And I would allow it regardless of policy.

All right.

Does that answer the question, Mr here?

Yes, it does.

Thank you, Your Honor.

All right.

And the next we are number 21.

Number 18 year old.

18 and 21 are the remaining two, Your Honor, and perhaps my clarify My motion needs a little clarification.

Um, number 18 seeks to prohibit witness police officers from testifying were speculating about their what they would have done if they had been the person who arrested Mr Floyd.

We recognize that under the Graham versus Connor, uh, standard that the question here is whether this was a reasonable use of force.

And there are expert witnesses who are going to testify for the defense.

There's expert witnesses who are going to testify for the state as to that ultimate question in terms of the reasonableness of the force.

We also expect training officers from the Minneapolis Police Department to testify about how officers are trained in the Graham versus counter factors in the reasonableness of the use of force and MPD policy, and all of that, I think, is 100% fair game.