The Daily Signal - Why This Former Lawyer Would Have Argued ‘Very Differently’ If He Had Represented Derek Chauvin

Episode Date: April 21, 2021

Derek Chauvin has been found guilty of murder. Chauvin, the former Minneapolis police officer who pressed his knee against George Floyd's neck for more than nine minutes, was convicted Tuesday of second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter. For three weeks, jury members listened to attorneys' arguments during the trial in Minneapolis. On Tuesday afternoon, the jury announced that it had found Chauvin guilty on all charges. If given the opportunity to represent Chauvin, “I would have done it very differently,” said John Hinderaker, president of the Golden Valley, Minnesota-based Center of the American Experiment and a graduate of Harvard Law School. He practiced law for more than 40 years.  Hinderaker joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” to discuss the arguments made during the trial. He also describes the atmosphere in Minneapolis as the city continues to brace for unrest.  The interview with Hinderaker was recorded on Tuesday afternoon, ahead of the announcement of the jury’s verdict.  We also cover these stories: The Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing to discuss voting rights and Georgia’s new election law.  President Joe Biden calls the Floyd family on Tuesday morning to talk with them about the trial of Chauvin. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz declares a state of emergency for seven counties surrounding Minneapolis-St. Paul in preparation for expected violence and disorder following a verdict in the Chauvin case. Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Wednesday, April 21st. I'm Virginia Allen. And I'm Doug Blair. Up on today's show, I talk with John Hinderacher, a former lawyer and president of the center of the American experiment in Minneapolis, Minnesota. We discussed the trial of Derek Chauvin, the former officer who pressed his knee on George Floyd's neck for more than nine minutes. Hinderacher shares his thoughts on the arguments presented during the trial and describes the jury deliberation. process. We also discuss the current atmosphere in Minneapolis as hundreds of National Guard members have been deployed to the city in anticipation of riots after the verdict is announced. And don't forget, if you're enjoying this podcast, please be sure to leave a review or a five-star rating

on Apple Podcasts and encourage others to subscribe. Now, on to our top news. Derek Chauvin has been found guilty of murder, the former Minneapolis police officer who pressed his knee against the neck of George Floyd for more than nine minutes has been found guilty of second degree unintentional murder, third degree murder, and second degree manslaughter. The 12-member jury arrived at their verdict on Tuesday afternoon, and the judge announced it per Fox 61. Take a listen. State of Minnesota County of Hennepin, District Court, fourth judicial district, state of Minnesota plaintiff versus Derek Michael Chauvin defendant. Verdict, count one. Court file number 27, CR20, 12646.

We the jury in the above entitled matter as to count one, unintentional second degree murder while committing a felony, find the defendant guilty. This verdict agreed to this 20th day of April 2021 at 144 p.m. Signed juror four person, juror number 19. Same caption, verdict count two. We the jury in the above entitled matter as to count two, third degree murder, perpetrating and eminently

dangerous act, find the defendant guilty. This verdict agreed to this 20th day of April, 2021 at 145 p.m. signed by jury four-person juror number 19. Same caption, verdict count three. We, the jury in the above entitled matter as to count three, second-degree manslaughter, culpable negligence, creating an unreasonable risk. Find the defendant guilty. This verdict agreed to this 20th day of April, 2021 at 145 p.m. Please note that the The rest of today's show was recorded before the jury announced the verdict in the Chauvin trial. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Tuesday to discuss voting rights and Georgia's new election law. Republican members were critical of the way in which the hearing was framed with the title, Jim Crow 2021,

the latest assault on the right to vote. During his opening remarks, Representative Burgess Owens, Republican of Utah, said, it is outrageous to compare Georgia's voting law to Jim Crow. Owens discussed his own experience of growing up in the Jim Crow South and criticized the Democrat Party for their history of racist activity per the Hill. What I find extremely offensive is the narrative from the left that black people are not smart enough, not educated enough, not desires enough for education to do what every other culture and race does in this country. get an ID. True racism is this. Its projection of the Democratic Party on my proud race. It's called the soft bigotry of low expectation.

President Biden said of the Georgia law, this is Jim Crow on steroids. With all due respect, Mr. President, you know better. It is disgusting and offensive to compare the actual voter suppression and violence of that era that we grew up in with a state law that only asked the people show their ID.

This is the type of fear-mongering I expect in 1960s, not today. And by the way, literacy texts and poll tests were initiated by the Democratic Party. The intimidation of black Americans by the KKK was initiated by the Democratic Party. Jim Crow, that I grew up in in the South, of segregation, was initiated by the Democratic Party. The soft bigotry of low expectation now projected on black Americans, not Italians, not Asians, not Asian, not Polish, not Jewish, but only black Americans is being done by the Democratic Party. Stacey Abrams, the Democrat who lost the 2018 governor's race in Georgia, testified against the Georgia election law. Texas Senator Ted Cruz questioned Abrams on whether or not she still holds that

the 2018 election was stolen from her. Here is Cruz and Abrams exchange during the hearing per Mr. Producer Media. Ms. Abrams, it's been over two years, and you still refuse to concede that you lost the race for governor in Georgia in 2018. You have said that, quote, you do not concede that the process was proper, and that, quote, they stole it from the voters of Georgia.

Yes or no, today, do you still maintain that the 2018 Georgia election was stolen? As I have always said, I acknowledged at the very beginning that Brian Kemp won under the rules that were in place. What I object to are rules that permitted thousands of Georgia voters to be denied their participation in this election, or to have their votes cast out. And so I will continue to disagree with the system until it is fixed. We have seen market progress made, and unfortunately it was undone in SB202,

but I will continue to advocate for a system that permits every eligible Georgian to cast their ballots. Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Democrat of California, seemed to ignore pushback against comments she made from the judge presiding over the ongoing trial of Officer Derek Chauvin. Last Saturday, Waters was quoted as saying, I hope we get a verdict that says, guilty, guilty, and we've got to stay on the street, and we've got to be more active, we've got to get more confrontational, We've got to make sure they know that we mean business. In response to Waters' remarks, Judge Peter Cahill told Chauvin's defense team that while he would not grant them a mistrial, that, quote,

Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned. Here's Judge Cahill on Congresswoman Waters' statements via the Washington Post. I'm aware of the media reports. I'm aware that Congresswoman Waters was talking specifically about this trial and about the unacceptability of anything less than a murder conviction and talk about being confrontational but you can submit the press articles about that this goes back to what I've been saying from the beginning I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the

rule of law and to the judicial branch in our function I think if they want to give their opinions they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution to respect a co-equal branch of government. Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent, but I don't think it is prejudiced us with an additional material that would prejudice his jury. They have been told not to watch the news. I trust they are following those instructions, and that there is not, in any way, a prejudice to the defendant beyond the articles that we're talking specifically about the facts of this

case. A congresswoman's opinion really doesn't matter a whole lot. Anyway, so motion for mistrial is denied. When asked for comment, according to CNN, Water stated, The judge says my words don't matter. President Joe Biden called the George Floyd family on Tuesday morning to talk with them about the trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. Biden told reporters that he is praying the jury reaches the right conclusion

and added that he only says this now that the jury is sequela. Biden said he sympathizes with the pressure and anxiety the Floyd family is feeling per MSNBC. I can only imagine the pressure and anxiety they're feeling. And so I waited until the jury was sequestered and I called. And as I wasn't going to say anything about it, but Leonius said today on television and they accurately said it was a private conversation. because Joe understands what it's like to go through laws. And they're a good family. And they're called for peace and tranquility, no matter what that verdict is.

I'm praying the verdict is the right verdict, which is, I think it's overwhelming in my view. I wouldn't say that, but the jury was sequestered now. I hear me say that. But so we just talked to the law. I want to know how they were doing just personally. Talked about personal place. Minnesota Governor Tim Walts declared a state of emergency for seven counties surrounding the Twin Cities during a press conference on Monday in preparation for expected violence and disorder following a verdict in the Chauvin case. The governor also announced that he intends to request law enforcement assistance from Ohio and Nebraska, as well as fully deploy state and local resources, including the National Guard.

Minnesota has been experiencing renewed turmoil following the death of Dante Wright in Brooklyn Senate. by Officer Kim Potter on April 11th. Residents and business owners have begun to board up their windows in preparation for expected rioting and looting. Former President George W. Bush sat down with Hoda Kotby on the Today Show on Tuesday and had some critical words for today's Republican Party. Here's what Bush had to say per the Today Show.

If you were to describe the Republican Party as you see it today, how would you describe it? I would describe it as isolationist, protectionist, and to a certain extent, nativist. You disappointed? Well, it's not exactly my vision. But, you know, I'm just an old guy. They put out the pastures. Bush appeared on the show to discuss his new book, Out of Many, One, Portraits of American Immigrants.

The book contains a number of stories and oil paintings of American immigrants. Bush painted the portraits of the individuals himself. Now stay tuned for my conversation with John Hinderocker as we discuss the Derek Chauvin trial. Do you have an interest in public policy? Do you want to hear some of the biggest names in American politics speak? The Heritage Foundation host webinars called Heritage Events Live. These webinars are free and open to the public. To find the latest webinars and register, visit heritage.org slash events.

I am so pleased to be joined by John Hinderocker, president of the center of the American Experiment in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and founder of the conservative news and commentary platform Powerline. Sir, thank you so much for being here today. Hey, glad to do it. So you practiced law for over 40 years. You're a graduate of Harvard Law School, and I know that you have been following the Derek Chauvin trial very closely. Chauvin faces charges of second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter. in the death of George Floyd. On Monday, the defense and prosecution attorneys made their final arguments before the jury.

And as of Tuesday afternoon, when we're having this conversation, the jury is still in deliberation. So this trial, it lasted about three weeks. What were your thoughts on the arguments presented by Chauvin's defense attorneys and the prosecuting attorneys over the last three weeks? Virginia, I'm always reluctant to criticize another lawyer because he knows his case. a thousand times better than I do. But that said, I thought that the defense in this case was very odd. And it really came to a head in the closing arguments yesterday. The, to me, the fundamental issue in this case, the most fundamental issue is what killed George Floyd. And I think there's a strong case to be

made that he died of a fentanyl overdose and the police officers were merely bystanders. You know, they didn't kill him. They were just there when the drugs killed him. And I think that making that case is probably the only shot that Chauvin had to walk away without a conviction. And for some reason, the defense never really made that case. Their medical expert talked about how there were multiple causes, multiple factors involved, and ultimately gave the opinion that the cause of death is undetermined. Whereas the prosecution had several medical witnesses who said it was 100% asphyxiation, nothing else. You know, no. drugs, no heart condition, no hypertension, it was asphyxiation.

And then in his closing argument, Eric Nelson, Chauvin's defense lawyer, got up and talked about these various elements that were involved. And he said, now, now you can only convict if asphyxiation was the only cause of death, if any of these other things, the drugs, the heart condition, the high blood pressure, all that stuff, if that, if any of that contributed at all. If it wasn't 100% asphyxiation, then, you know, then you have to acquit. Well, that's not the law. I mean, that's just not the law. The law in Minnesota is that if the defendant, that is Chauvin's actions were a substantial causal factor, you know, that's all it takes. And so when he was done with his argument, which lasted for like two and a half, two and three quarters hours, the prosecution

lawyers approached the judge and they said, we want the court to be. The court. to reread the instruction that says that the arguments of the lawyers are not evidence, and if you find that a lawyer is misstated either the facts or the law, you should disregard it. And the judge did that. So before the, you know, the way it goes in closing in a criminal case, it's prosecution, defense prosecution, right? So before the prosecutor got up for his rebuttal argument, the judge actually re-read that instruction to the jury basically telling them.

that the defense lawyer was making stuff up. It's like a knife in the heart. And then Jerry Blackwell, who gave the rebuttal for the prosecution, got up, and immediately, of course, talked about the fact that the defense lawyer had misrepresented the standard. And in fact, if what Chauvin did was a substantial causal factor, you know, they can convict him. And so in a sense, the defense case kind of came crashing down due to what, seems to me to have been kind of a misguided strategy from the start. So if you were arguing on behalf of Chauvin, what are some of the things you might have done or said differently? Well, I would have

done it very differently. Number one, I would have found an expert who would testify that the sole cause of death was fentanyl overdose. He had two to three times a fatal dose of fentanyl in his system, George Floyd did. The prosecution's argument was, yeah, 11 nanograms per milliliter, that would kill a normal person, but it maybe wouldn't kill George Floyd because he was an addict, so his tolerance is higher. Now, to me, that's not a great foundation on which to try to put the other guy in prison, right? But I know there's a study out there that says that even among opioid addicts, nine nanograms was the median overdose that caused fatality.

George Floyd was at 11. So I would have found an expert that would say he died of a drug overdose, not anything that the officers did. But the second thing is there was all kinds of testimony, including from the chief of police of the Minneapolis Police Department. He testified against his own officer, as did several others from the Minneapolis Police Department. This guy was thrown under the bus more than anybody I've ever seen. But there was all this testimony about what a reasonable police officer would do. Was it reasonable to continue kneeling on him? Not when he was thrashing around initially, but after he got quiet.

And, you know, reasonableness, that's the standard for negligence. It's not the standard for murder, you know. And that depends in part on state of mind and intent. And there was no evidence. It was no evidence on that whole territory that lies between negligence and homicide, murder. And Chauvin didn't testify. And so there wasn't any evidence at all on what he thought, what he intended. you know, why he did what he did.

And the prosecutors argued the case basically by saying, just look at the video. Just look at the video. And you can see Chauvin's intent in the video. You can see that it's murder, you know, it's manslaughter. Well, I think if you actually focus on the standards for those crimes under Minnesota law, you know, I think you can argue that there's little or no evidence that Chauvin actually fits the bill based simply on the fact that he and the other office. officers were subduing this guy on the street. But so, you know, but they would have, it would have taken a very different approach,

in my opinion. Well, and of course that video is something that now the world has seen. And, I mean, it makes anyone feel sick to their stomach, frankly, when you watch it. I mean, it is very sobering to see, you know, an individual is handcuffed on the ground. And, you know, it's telling an officer he can't breathe. and, you know, all the jury members, no doubt, have seen that video, probably multiple times. And they have a really, they have a really tough decision ahead of them. So walk us through, how were these jury members chosen? Do we know?

Yeah, oh, sure, we know. And by the way, you know, George Floyd was saying he couldn't breathe from the moment the police officers arrived on the scene. He couldn't breathe because his lungs were filling with fluid, which is what happens when you overdose on fentanyl. So he said over and over, I can't breathe, I can't breathe when he was standing up, walking around, wrestling with the police officers. The jurors had all seen the famous video. But at trial for the first time they saw the video of what came before for 20 minutes as he's fighting with the officers. He was crazy out of his mind on drugs. He was just hysterical. And that was news to the jurors.

And I think that there was a potential there that the case could have swung the other way. So how did they pick the jury? They do it the way it's normally done in criminal trials. They pick 12 jurors and two alternates, and they do it one at a time. And so they bring in one person, and they ask them questions, and maybe one of the lawyers or one of the teams will move to excuse the juror for cause. And the court will rule on that, and maybe they'll just send the juror away. And in this case, the standard that got applied basically was if the juror said,

I can be fair, he didn't get removed for cause, right? And so the juror might say, oh, yeah, I've seen the video. I've got a really negative opinion of Derek Chauvin. And, you know, I know that the mobs are out there ready to riot if there's a not guilty verdict, but nevertheless, I could be fair. You know, that guy got on the jury. And then beyond the peremptory strikes is their call, if you think a guy is challenged for cause. Beyond the challenges for cause, each side has a certain number of peremptory strikes where they and just say, okay, that guy's off. And it's a kind of a game of strategy because you've got to be careful not to use up all of your peremptory strikes because you don't know who's yet to come. So walk us through what it's like to serve on a jury for a murder trial. I mean, are all these

individuals now kind of sitting around a large table, debating different facts of the case? I mean, and how much time is normal usually for them to take in reaching a consensus? Let me back up for a moment, Virginia, because this was a completely bizarre experience for these jurors. They all know about the riots last summer. They all know that the National Guard has been in town for weeks. Downtown Minneapolis is basically closed down. You know, the stores, storefronts, the buildings are covered with plywood. The trial is taking place at the Hennepin County Government Center.

It's 24 stories high, two towers, an administrative tower, a quartz tower. It's all shut down. It's cold and dark. the only people in that whole 24-story building are the people in this courtroom. And so the jurors come, and the courthouse itself is surrounded by concrete barriers, barbed wire, and national guardsmen. So that's what the jurors see every day when they come to the trial. I mean, it is, it completely, it's a unique juror experience. They understand what's going on. So after three weeks, and they were not sequestered during the trial, they would go home in the evening. They'd come and go from the courthouse, and they'd see the concrete, the barbed wire, the National Guard, you know. So that went on for three weeks. So now they're sequestered as they deliberate. And you're right. There's 12 of them. They let the alternates go. They sit around a big conference room table. First thing they have to do is elect a foreman. And that probably is pretty

quick. But it takes a while for 12 people to do anything. And then they start talking about the evidence. And how they do it is entirely up to them. not given really any rules, but they'll spend some time talking about the evidence. I think they probably have got the jury instructions in writing in the room, so they may go back over some of them. They've got a verdict form they have to fill out. They're asked certain questions, you know, and they decide the case by answering the questions. So it takes some time for 12 people to talk about the evidence, to talk about the instructions, to talk about how to answer the questions on the verdict form and and try to arrive at a consensus. How long that takes, there's no way to tell.

Juries sometimes are out for a number of days. Sometimes they come back in a matter of hours. Well, and like you mentioned, I mean, there are concerns about essentially the neutrality of the jury just because there has been so much news coverage on this topic. The jurors are seeing what things look like in their own city and the barbed wire and all the National Guard members. And even after the jurors left the courtroom on Monday, defense attorney Eric Nelson, he called for a mistrial, arguing that, you know, with that media coverage and, you know, the comments made by, as you mentioned, Democratic Representative Maxine Waters of California, that, you know, sort of the waters had been muddied. Now, the judge denied the motion for a mistrial, but even the judge agreed, yes, you know, members of Congress and political

leaders, they need to watch the words that they're using around this trial. Representative Maxine Waters, she's actually been encouraging confrontation in the streets. Do you think that this kind of rhetoric from political leaders does influence the riots? Well, to some degree, you know, she was out there with the rioters, with the demonstrators. I'm sure to some degree it gets them riled out. But, you know, we've lived through just a nightmare scenario here during this trial. And not only did we have political, you know, politicians like Maxine Waters making totally inappropriate comments. But in the middle of the trial, we had another police shooting, you know, at Brooklyn Center, which is about 10 miles from where the trial is being held in downtown Minneapolis. And it was another case of

resisting arrest, as they all are. You know, the guy was wanted for attempted armed robbery, for weapons violation, for fleeing the police, for failing to appear at a court hearing. You know, they stopped him for expired license tabs, ran his ID, and he was wanted. And so he starts fighting with the police officers. He gets back into his car, having gotten out, and is going to try to drive away. He successfully fled the last time he got apprehended. And one of the police officers, a woman who had, you know, 26 years, I think, on the force, tried to pull out her taser. And she's yelling, taser, taser, taser, taser, you know, to tell her the other officers to step aside because she's about to tase this guy. And she accidentally pulled out her.

Glock instead of her taser and shot him and he died. And so in the middle of the Chauvin trial, we had that event and we had riots going on. And happily, the National Guard was already in town, right? So they could send him up to Brooklyn Center to try to keep the rioters up there under control. But I mean, it's been a nightmare scenario. Wow. Wow. Well, I mean, you live in the Minneapolis area. When you step out onto the streets, what is that? the atmosphere? What are your neighbors saying? What's the, what's the mood right now in the city? Well, I think there's a lot of expectancy about this jury verdict. You know, I think, you know, it's really where I live in the suburbs, you know, life goes on. People aren't standing around

worrying about Derek Chauvin. But downtown Minneapolis is a ghost town. I mean, there's just nobody there except for law enforcement and National Guard. And to me, the real question is what's the long-term impact on this metropolitan area and especially the city of Minneapolis going to be. I mean, that city has gotten such a black eye through all the things that have happened over the last year that I'm afraid it's going to have some real lingering consequences. Yeah. Well, if I may be so bold to ask if you were sitting on the jury for this case, you know, what might be the verdict? that you would like to see given?

You know, to convict Derek Chauvin of manslaughter, the jury has to find culpable negligence on his part. I think they'll find that, and maybe they should, on the theory that when George Floyd got quiet, the officers should have gotten off him. I think they'll find that. But then they have to go on to say that Derek Chauvin has created an unreasonable risk

and has consciously taken chances of causing death or great bodily harm to George Floyd. I don't really think there's any evidence that he did that, consciously, that he consciously believed that he was taking a chance of killing or causing great harm to George Floyd. He was just waiting for the ambulance to come. The ambulance was supposed to arrive any moment, you know, and the officers are just waiting for it. And so I'm not so sure.

the evidence is there beyond a reasonable doubt even on manslaughter. But I wish he'd testified. I wish he'd testify. Hmm. So if the prosecution or defense is not satisfied with the outcome of the case, could it be appealed to a higher court? Well, the defendant, if he's convicted, can appeal. And the trial judge suggested yesterday that he might have a ground to appeal based on Maxine Water's incitement of the rioters the night before, I would say that there is the chance of a snowball in a very hot place that the appellate state courts in Minnesota would reverse a conviction and do this all over again. I don't think that's going to happen.

All right. Well, I want to give you a chance for just any closing thoughts as we continue to watch this case unfold. Well, you know, it's, I tried many, many jury cases as a lot of lawyer for, as you've noticed, for 41 years. And I'm a believer in the jury system. I think generally juries do a good job of trying to do the right thing, the fair thing. And I'm hopeful that they will do that in this case. And I think what this case really tests is whether there's a certain level of pretrial publicity and public pressure and threats of violence and so on, where a fair trial is simply impossible. I mean, I think you have to wonder, is there any way that this process can possibly be fair to Derek Chauvin? Well, and in that case, I guess it's sort of, you know,

you throw up your hands and, you know, what can be done, because obviously in something so highly publicized, you know, it's impossible to find 12 individuals who aren't aware of the situation and haven't heard the, you know, the coverage on both sides. Well, that's right. That was very clear during jury selection. I mean, these jurors all knew all about the case. Every one of them had seen the nine and a half minute video and they thought they knew about the case. Of course, one of the problems is they only knew about the last nine minutes. They didn't know about the 20 minutes that came before, which are really important to what the police officers were doing. And one of the interesting things about this case, Virginia, is that it's a case that never could have happened 20 years ago. The whole case was about video. In the old days, you know, you'd have a jury trial. The jury would try to figure out what happened based on witness testimony. Well, here, we know exactly what happened. Every moment was filmed by cameras from multiple angles.

We know exactly what happened. And this whole case never would have come about in the way that it did. If it hadn't been for the bystander video that got posted on social media and became an international sensation. So that's a real milestone of this case. It's a case that really was driven from the very beginning by the existence of all that video. Yeah. No, it certainly in many ways changes how we maybe look at cases and how they move forward. But you mentioned, have mentioned a couple times, you know, the video, you know, not just that kind of nine, nine minute, 30 second or so video that has been so, so floated around.

but, you know, the minutes, the 20 or so minutes beforehand, the prosecuting attorneys, they argued that Floyd cooperated with Chauvin and the other officers, but you argue, no, that's not quite right. Well, that's ridiculous. I mean, of course he didn't. I mean, you know, there were four officers there, and he was fighting, he was wrestling. In fact, the first time they called the ambulance, they did it because he cut his face, fighting with the officers in the backseat of the squad car. all the officers wanted George Floyd to do was to sit quietly in the back of the squad car until the ambulance got there. That's all they were trying to get him to do. And they couldn't.

George Floyd was a huge guy. He was big. He was strong. He outweighed Derek Chauvin by 80 pounds. And so the police officers were physically unable to force George Floyd, who was, again, out of his mind on drugs, to stay in the squad car. He insisted on being on the street. The only reason that they were kneeling on him on the street is because that's where he wanted to be, and he wouldn't stay in the squad car. So they found I said, okay, okay, we'll keep you on the street.

And so there's a lot of context here that the jury needed to know to have even the semblance of a fair trial. Yeah, yeah. Well, it's certainly a lot of information and a hard decision that waits before that jury and will, of course, continue to watch the news unfold. over the next hours and days. But we really thank you so much for your time and for coming on and breaking down this case for us. We really appreciate it. Hey, thank you, Virginia.

And that'll do it for today's episode. Thanks for listening to The Daily Signal Podcast. You can find the Daily Signal podcast on Google Play, Apple Podcast, Spotify, and IHeartRadio. Please be sure to leave us a review and a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts and encourage others to subscribe. Thanks again for listening and we'll be back with you all tomorrow.

The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. It is executive produced by Kate Trinko and Rachel Del Judas, sound design by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, and John Pop. For more information, visitdailySignal.com.